Remove this Banner Ad

Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Sprout said:
You could be right but it didn’t appear that way in the snippet of vision I saw. He doesn’t tap him on the chest. He pushes back against the umpire. Maybe there was further context when watching it live but it didn’t look as friendly as you suggest when looked at in isolation.

If nothing else it’s a really, really dumb thing to do when Hawkins has been suspended a week prior.
Click to expand...
Try this slightly longer vision that doesn't cut in at the point his hand makes contact.
In the shorter version, the camera is panning left and gives the impression that the umpire is forcibly moved by Ed's contact. It also looks like Ed is looking directly at the umpire. In this vision, you can see where the umpire is coming from and how he moves in the seconds before the contact. It doesn't look like there's any force in the 'push'. Nor is he angry or debating the call. You can also see Merrett behind the umpire (who Curnow had the task of tagging) and Ed appears to be getting eyes on his opponent.
Was it intentional? Sure, but this is where the AFL have backed themselves into a corner. They've made it so black and white now that there's no wriggle room. Intent, force and demeanour HAVE to be given consideration.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/05/12/16/58/carlton-rallies-to-first-win-of-afl-season

Having said all that, I still maintain that Hawkins' arm was pushed into the umpire by Griffen, but Hawkins' demeanour when arguing the call, the force of the 'slap' and the umpire's reaction all went against him and nobody seems to have picked up on the arm push from Ryan.
 
frggr said:
Because then he would be speaking against the safety interests of players (Amon), who he's meant to be representing.

Dangerous tackles, for the most part, have been well adjudicated.

NicNat was a safety/injury issue for players, umpire touching isn't.

Not only is player safety a bigger priority for the AFLPA than tribunal consistency, I bet if Danger did come out and talk about "dangerous tackles" getting weeks, people would say:

"Hurrr, Dangerfield's just having a soon because he got done for a dangerous tackle that took him out of Brownlow contention. What a flog!" etc etc
Click to expand...

Nic Nat shouldnt have been suspended. All Dangersook had to do was come out and question the inconsistency. But he was no where to be seen or heard.

No point having the role he has if he's only going to run his mouth off when his club and mates are involved.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bostonian said:
Nic Nat shouldnt have been suspended. All Dangersook had to do was come out and question the inconsistency. But he was no where to be seen and heard.

No point having the row he has if he's only going to run his mouth off when his mates are involved.
Click to expand...
How would it look if Dangerfield came out and said "Nic Nat shouldn't be suspended for a dangerous tackle" either openly or otherwise?

The AFLPA's priority is for player safety in the workplace and workplace conditions.

Tribunal consistency comes second to the health of players, as it should.

Don't get me wrong, I think the NicNat suspension was crap.
 
frggr said:
How would it look if Dangerfield came out and said "Nic Nat shouldn't be suspended for a dangerous tackle" either openly or otherwise?

The AFLPA's priority is for player safety in the workplace and workplace conditions.

Tribunal consistency comes second to the health of players, as it should.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a dangerous tackle.

Jordan Lewis and many others came out and said it was confusing.

So a present day player is happy to put it out there but not the head of the players.

Why couldn't Dangerfield say something along those lines?

We know why now I guess.
 
Bostonian said:
It wasn't a dangerous tackle.

Jordan Lewis and many others came out and said it was confusing.

So a present day player is happy to put it out there but not the head of the players.

Why couldn't Dangerfield say something along those lines?

We know why now I guess.
Click to expand...
When you resort to Jordan Lewis defining what is and isn't dangerous, you've got problems. Lots of people saw it as dangerous.

Like I said, it'd be a terrible look for the AFLPA to effectively say tribunal consistency is more important than player safety.

The other part of it is, was there a high profile dangerous tackle the week after that didn't get booked?

You've got to have extremely recent comparisons to call inconsistency out.
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
The Hawkins suspension was worth a week. It was always worth a week.

The plea bargain threat of two should never have been made as two would have been overs.
Click to expand...

I can respect those thoughts and agree to some extent but do you really think Ed deserves 1?
I don’t think he did but giving Hawkins 1 just blurs the lines of what is/isn’t acceptable and now we got to this crazy point.
Suspending a player for touching an umpire is just too simple, you need something more serious before handing out suspensions, not gentle touches.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

This past week has been one hell of a rollercoaster ride; a great win against arch-rivals Essendon and the subsequent controversy against the Curnow’s. What has got quite a number of supporters irate (and they are not just Carlton supporters), is the incredible inconsistency in the AFL when it comes to the matter that faces the MRP and Tribunal. The supporters are angry at a player who is supposedly a representative of the players as a WHOLE – Patrick Dangerfield who came out and stated his disgust in what was happening, not towards the AFL but towards the Curnow brothers and the Carlton FC.

The handling of this matter regarding the Curnow’s umpire contact and also umpire contact as a whole, by the AFL, has shown markedly how the AFL simply does not see how this is seen by supporters. They are inconsistent and sometimes bow to pressure from those media commentators who simply show a bias towards some players and club, and a negative bias against some players and clubs.

Ex-Carlton player, Diesel who himself got rubbed out by umpire contact, has stated that the umpires get too close to players and should just give them some space. Then there are the blatant and verifiable facts that there have been many moments this year when players touch an umpire, whether inadvertently or deliberately, yet these players do not get sanctioned by the AFL. The AFL is now seen as being an organization that is so inconsistent and so one-sided in this regard, that it is leaving not only clubs, supporters, but players as well as to what the hell is going on!

The AFL set-up the MRP and the Tribunal to handle matters during a game. This they did, but not to the satisfaction of the AFL. Now I understand that sometimes the AFL does need to step in when both the MRP and Tribunal manifestly do not sanction a player sufficiently given the ‘misdemeanour’ perpetrated, point being Basher Houli’s hit on Jed Lamb last year where he was given just two weeks for knocking out cold a player, who could not play for quite some time compared to Houli who could play in two weeks. This is not the case here.

The AFL should not have stepped in with regard to the Curnow brothers, in any way, shape or form and the reason being is that neither one of the umpire contacts were malicious, threatening or in any way put the umpire in ‘danger’. This was not the case with regards to Tom Hawkins from Geelong. He deliberately slapped the hand away of the umpire. It was intentional, malicious and quite angry. He was advised to plead guilty as otherwise he would have got two weeks. He was miffed that Ed Curnow only got a fine and he got a week’s suspension.

Then we have the President, repeat THE PRESIDENT of the AFL Player’s Association come out and categorically state the unfairness directed towards Hawkins for getting suspended but the Curnow brothers just got fined. Patrick Dangerfield must step down as President of an association that is supposedly there to represent ALL PLAYERS not just his team-mates. It makes no difference what he personally feels, as the head of an organization that is there to represent all players, he should have just kept his mouth shut. He has shown that he doesn’t represent all players, just some.

The issue here is that for the most part, a majority of supporters suspected that Ed Curnow would get a week’s suspension and Charlie, just a fine. When the news came that both just got fines, there was a celebration, but we all knew that the AFL who is now showing how weak they are and they don’t really believe in a system that they molded, would appeal. Media commentators it seems matters more to the AFL than consistency in their organization. If they did not agree or like the outcome, then given that the umpire in question did not even remember being touched by Ed Curnow, then whether the AFL agreed or not, they should have just let it go and then clarify the rules.

They are now being seen, together with Dangerfield as weak and inconsistent and that the AFL simply do not believe in a system they set up. Supporters of this code are demanding that AFL not is seen as being inconsistent, they are demanding that the AFL not cower to media pressure unless it is warranted as it was with Houli. They have to step back and let the systems they put in place – work, there will be times when the MRP and the Tribunal get it wrong, but if it isn’t a serious issue as it was with Houli, then they will have just learn to bite the bullet and CLARIFY. Dangerfield must step aside as President of AFL Players Association, he does not represent every player just a select few, and he has lost respect from a lot of supporters.

Carlton are disappointed as are their supporters, but as a club, we will not let this define us in our game. We will not let the AFL or Dangerfield damper what was a bit of a turning point in the team with the win over Essendon. It now gives the club an opportunity to bring in a player to step into the role that Ed Curnow has. It will give us an opportunity to hone in and secure depth in our playing group. Next week when we play Geelong down in Geelong, Ed will be back, fired-up.

#BOUNDBYBLUE!

P.S On the note of Bolts getting a warning regarding his vocal comments towards Mark Baguely should’ve got a medal. With regard to Baguley’s apology stating that Jed Lamb was sledging him regarding a birthmark and that he just retaliated, and did not mention anything about his father, is total bullshit. I don’t mind sledging, but family members are off-limits – totally. So while Lamb was gracious enough to shake hand and sweep it away, I can guarantee you that Carlton supporters will not be that gracious.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Didn't the ump say something to Hawkins at the time though?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it could be interpreted as a reminder to Tom about the rules.

"Don't touch me, you're not allowed to touch me."

Clearly the Curnows/May didn't need the reminder given the previous week's highly publicised incident.

If anything it makes the May/Curnow incidents even stupider.
 
frggr said:
Yes, but it could be interpreted as a reminder to Tom about the rules.

"Don't touch me, you're not allowed to touch me."

Clearly the Curnows/May didn't need the reminder given the previous week's highly publicised incident.

If anything it makes the May/Curnow incidents even stupider.
Click to expand...

Clearly, a different umpire and different players. Do you really think the ump was thinking 'don't touch me' for the Curnows but decided not to voice it because there was no need to?
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Didn't the ump say something to Hawkins at the time though?
Click to expand...

Are you saying we go with the umpires spur of the moment reaction, rather than their considered statement to a review panel?

Hawkins' contact was actually caused by Ryan Griffen shoving his arm, so likely would have gotten off if they bothered to fight it.
 
Dangerfield was representing all players when he spoke up about the inconsistency of the tribunal. Blues fans are upset at him because deep down they know they got off lightly when a week after Hawkins was banned for umpire contact, both their players committed the same stupid act, and somehow were let off for it. By all means make Dangerfield the enemy here and Carlton the victim, if it helps you get through it, but it's simply not the case. The AFL embarrassed themselves by contradicting their own statement in the space of a single week, and were rightly called out for it.

“I think we’re all scratching our heads as to where the consistency is because I’m a little confused as I think the majority of the AFL world is.

“Tom fronted up, handled himself incredibly well and copped his right whack.

“And then all of a sudden the next week the same thing happens and all of a sudden there’s a change in the adjudication.

“Seriously, it’s absolutely ridiculous.

“What are we supposed to do as football lovers when there is no consistency?
Click to expand...
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Lunchlady Doris said:
Are you saying we go with the umpires spur of the moment reaction, rather than their considered statement to a review panel?

Hawkins' contact was actually caused by Ryan Griffen shoving his arm, so likely would have gotten off if they bothered to fight it.
Click to expand...

Ah what?
Thats garbage.
He swiped the umpires hand, completely intentionally.

In my opinion he makes contact with or without the 'push'

They were never going to win that. Horrible look for the game, was always going to be punished.
 
Do you just see what you want?

One of brothers clearly pushes the umpire, yes it wasn’t a shove but it was certainly deliberate. You can’t do that and you’re actually a ****wit of the highest order if you can’t wrap your head around ‘do not touch the umpire’.

‘But but but, the umpire is too close. It’s their fault!?’

This sort weak limp reasoning just deflect responsibility off the player, to again not do the fekking simple thing of not touch an umpire.

I’m not just fired up because of the topic I’m fired up because frankly it’s indefensible, and somehow people can’t just cop it. It shouldn’t be up for discussion, the AFL shouldn’t have to try make supporters happy about this, or play PR. It’s blanket and people should have strong enough minds to cope with a really obvious and easy to follow rule.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Curnows' Umpire Contact - why the different punishment?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top