MRP / Trib. Eric Hipwood to tribunal - Result $2500 fine

[Lets Roar like '44]

Why is the umpire diverting his run towards the players. Get out of the damn way!

 

[theyellowsash]

Absolutely nothing in it > behind the goals vision, Dogs player changes direction to run in front of Hipwood and umpire moves in the way. Should not even be fined.

That makes it look even more like he pushed the dogs player into the umpire deliberately

 

[Hollow Knight]

That makes it look even more like he pushed the dogs player into the umpire deliberately

Watch the umpire next time you watch the video.

 

[Outback Footy]

Or we could set up gallows at the grounds for each match and just hang the offenders on the spot. Cut out the middle man!

Hanging seems a trifle harsh. In this case an echoing of Tobys brush with the ump penalty would suffice, what was that? 12 weeks? And obviously a retrospective reversal of thursday nights result.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Hanging seems a trifle harsh. In this case an echoing of Tobys brush with the ump penalty would suffice, what was that? 12 weeks? And obviously a retrospective reversal of thursday nights result.

Consider Eric's goal a retrospective reversal of the one that was stolen from Oscar McInerney.

 

[Outback Footy]

Consider Eric's goal a retrospective reversal of the one that was stolen from Oscar McInerney.

Gold!

 

[brutus76]

Witch hunt.

Hipwood is looking at the ball and what's happening with it. His opponent deviates and makes contact first.

Umpire needs to position himself where the ball is not going to go. He should have realised they were the only two players there was no one else around

 

[Fabab]

No way he gets suspended for that surely.

 

[Hollow Knight]

No way he gets suspended for that surely.

Interstate club…. Just watch.

 

[PhatBoy]

Literally what happens:

• Hipwood runs downfield
• Opponent tries to stay with him
• Hipwood divides his attention between his teammate with the ball, and the spot he’s trying to run to
• Opponent initiates contact to stop his run by shouldering him from Hipwood’s left
• Hipwood’s instant response is to push him off

What an utter f***ing example of the intellectual vacuum that exists in this competition and many people that follow it.

Umpires are sacred? Fine.

They are not invisible. If they are in the way of actual play, and two guys running at top speed are near them and one of them does something perfectly legal to untangle himself from the other, stiff f***ing shit if an umpire gets hit.


Hipwood is paid to play the game not to manage his positioning and actions towards the opposition around the whereabouts of umpires

 

[BRAB]

I'm still confused as the guidelines seemed to indicate that intentionally pushing a player into an umpire was a $1500 fine.

How can it be at the tribunal and how can the AFL be pushing for two weeks?

Is it because Hipwood gained an advantage from the contact that the above doesn't apply? Or is it because the guidelines are just guidelines and the AFL can send whatever they want to the tribunal if they choose. Genuinely a bit confused as to why it got the tribunal.

 

[Bald]

I genuinely don't understand how this can be a two week ban..

Surely he's either guilty and should be whacked for 4-5, or is not guilty and should be let off. I'm of the opinion now after watching the other vision that it was an honest mistake and he shouldn't be suspended at all, but I can't cop him being suspended for only 1 or 2 weeks, because that says to me there was at least some malice behind it.

 

[Bald]

I'm still confused as the guidelines seemed to indicate that intentionally pushing a player into an umpire was a $1500 fine.

How can it be at the tribunal and how can the AFL be pushing for two weeks?

Is it because Hipwood gained an advantage from the contact that the above doesn't apply? Or is it because the guidelines are just guidelines and the AFL can send whatever they want to the tribunal if they choose. Genuinely a bit confused as to why it got the tribunal.

I read that the AFL is able to push anything to the tribunal if they deem the contact as intentional. What I don't understand is that even if the tribunal view this as careless, he still gets a week. It makes no sense.

 

[TedDougChris]

I genuinely don't understand how this can be a two week ban..

Surely he's either guilty and should be whacked for 4-5, or is not guilty and should be let off. I'm of the opinion now after watching the other vision that it was an honest mistake and he shouldn't be suspended at all, but I can't cop him being suspended for only 1 or 2 weeks, because that says to me there was at least some malice behind it.

Was it Dent for us who got a 4 week ban for running into an umpire - the vision showed he had his head turned 90 degrees and couldn't see the umpire - but he still got 4 weeks for it...

The AFL have completely lost the plot with all rules and regulations....

 

[Bald]

Was it Dent for us who got a 4 week ban for running into an umpire - the vision showed he had his head turned 90 degrees and couldn't see the umpire - but he still got 4 weeks for it...

The AFL have completely lost the plot with all rules and regulations....

Yeah I'm not sure on your first point, might've been before my time.

Nobody at AFL house seems to grasp the idea that accidents happen. This isn't an angry Toby Greene shoving an umpire, this is two big blokes running full pelt and colliding where the umpire just happens to be.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Sanity prevails. 2500 dollar fine. Still too much but acceptable.

 

[BRAB]

I read that the AFL is able to push anything to the tribunal if they deem the contact as intentional. What I don't understand is that even if the tribunal view this as careless, he still gets a week. It makes no sense.

That's fair enough if they AFL have the scope to do so.

Agree with your line of thinking that it was either an intentional act worthy of a 6 week suspension or an accident.

I guess the AFL took the view that we can't know it was intentional but we can't just not suspend someone for causing another player to make contact with an umpire.

 

[Bald]

That's fair enough if they AFL have the scope to do so.

Agree with your line of thinking that it was either an intentional act worthy of a 6 week suspension or an accident.

I guess the AFL took the view that we can't know it was intentional but we can't just not suspend someone for causing another player to make contact with an umpire.

It's just an ordinary way of thinking. I shouldn't be surprised. I genuinely thought it was intentional in the first place (as I'm sure most did) but the Luke Hodge vision cleared it up really quickly in my mind. Neither player was responsible for the contact, Gardner was doing his best to block, Hipwood did what I'd hope any of our forwards would do, there just happened to be an umpire there.

Even the umpire got up straight away, didn't pay any free kicks or anything like that, which I didn't even consider at the time. Surely that's all that's required to clear him.

 

[brutus76]

This is two big blokes running full pelt and colliding where the umpire SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

Mollison should be outside the center square running forwards towards the 50 where there is no one and he has Hipwood and Gardiner in the least in his peripheral vision

Instead he's in the centre square, ball watching, running backwards and not aware of his surroundings = POOR UMPIRING POSITIONING

 

[brutus76]

Michael Christian go back to commentating you useless, naive flog!

 

[HairyO]

Sanity prevails. 2500 dollar fine. Still too much but acceptable.

I think Careless is fair.

He should be aware of the umpires and he didnt need to give the shove. He had other options.

So its a warning to players not to shove other players around umpires. In a stoppage when stationary the contact is minimal but the MRO gives a fine.

Here the umpire got clobbered so it made sense to send it to the Tribunal. And the Tribunal decided it was Careless.

The system worked.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Consider Eric's goal a retrospective reversal of the one that was stolen from Oscar McInerney.

Or in one word karma

 

[Milux]

We don't see players push other players into umpires that frequently, because they have been sanctioned for it in the past. If Hipwood gets off, then expect players to use umpires as a block in the future

Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

Clueless.

 

[Milux]

Literally what happens:

• Hipwood runs downfield
• Opponent tries to stay with him
• Hipwood divides his attention between his teammate with the ball, and the spot he’s trying to run to
• Opponent initiates contact to stop his run by shouldering him from Hipwood’s left
• Hipwood’s instant response is to push him off

What an utter f***ing example of the intellectual vacuum that exists in this competition and many people that follow it.

Umpires are sacred? Fine.

They are not invisible. If they are in the way of actual play, and two guys running at top speed are near them and one of them does something perfectly legal to untangle himself from the other, stiff f***ing s**t if an umpire gets hit.


Hipwood is paid to play the game not to manage his positioning and actions towards the opposition around the whereabouts of umpires

Such a common sense post. Love it. Glad common sense prevailed.

 

[M Malice]

I think Careless is fair.

He should be aware of the umpires and he didnt need to give the shove. He had other options.

So its a warning to players not to shove other players around umpires. In a stoppage when stationary the contact is minimal but the MRO gives a fine.

Here the umpire got clobbered so it made sense to send it to the Tribunal. And the Tribunal decided it was Careless.

The system worked.

The bulldogs player veered directly in front of Hipwood to illegally block his run 50 meters off the ball, they were running at pace and a mere foot or so apart when Hipwwod pushed him.... what were his other options?

Jump over the top of Gardner.
Keep running into him and fall over himself as well.
Magically disappear.