MRP / Trib. Hawkins - 1 Week suspension for contact with an umpire

[Art Vandelay_]

Bluebaggers (and other assorted flogs).

“Dangerfield is AFLPA President so should shut his mouth and keep his opinions to himself, he’s meant to represent the collective”...

#Derp

 

[Sticksman]

"Gleeson:
clarity and certainty is needed to let players know that this is the rule. If you touch a player and you mean to, you will be suspended"

Can't touch a player! Boy, that will make footy from here on literally bruise free

 

[Hamingja]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

Cool story bro.

The door is that way.

 

[STPer18]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

He got a free rest as it turned out because we flogged the Pies. If the Blues go down in a close one you'd be ropeable that Ed's lack of discipline cost his side a match.

 

[cats_09]

An easier option going forward would be that and player charged with intentionally making contact with an umpire receives an automatic one week suspension without having to go up the tribunal.

If the club/player which to appeal they can but all that's at stake is the $10k fee versus extra weeks.

Situations where the player is more demonstrative than what we saw from Hawkins or Curnow (2 handed shove to the ground etc), send them directly to the tribunal - using the hearings words, for hostile situations

 

[Sticksman]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

They have to continue to argue that otherwise they will admit to a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Sticksman]

I reckon they finally reached the equilibrium on the 4 cases.

A week for Hawkins and Ed Curnow where there was no debate on intention.

A fine for May and the other Curnow where you could at least make a case for it not being intentional.

Bloody long road to get there.

But of course the GC player gets off from an appeal because he's on slow plane to China.

 

[Juddernaut08]

But of course the GC player gets off from an appeal because he's on slow plane to China.

also GC/GWS are untouchable. AFL Love children.

 

[frggr]

Can't touch a player! Boy, that will make footy from here on literally bruise free

Hahaha I missed that in the transcript.

 

[cats_09]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

I guess you either missed or more likely ignored this part of Gleeson's case:

Gleeson on Hawkins' case - if had not pleaded guilty, would have pushed for two-week penalty.
Gleeson - Curnow can't get the same benefit of a reduced penalty because he did not plead guilty.

Basically, Gleeson has detente determined the actions to be the same and if it was up to him to hand out punishments directly then Ed would miss 2 weeks because he has failed to own up to and take accountability for his actions - something that Hawkins did pretty quickly

 

[romeohwho]

Carlton supporters.

 

[lionbear]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

On the wrong board champ.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

at least they established hawkins was worse, arguing 2 weeks if he hadn't had pled guilty.

What we have established is your s**t culture that tries to dispute an obvious deliberate and intentional hand in the chest.
Got what it deserved , would have been better to have admitted the contact and pleaded for a heavy fine

 

[Juddernaut08]

I guess you either missed or more likely ignored this part of Gleeson's case:

Gleeson on Hawkins' case - if had not pleaded guilty, would have pushed for two-week penalty.
Gleeson - Curnow can't get the same benefit of a reduced penalty because he did not plead guilty.

Basically, Gleeson has detente determined the actions to be the same and if it was up to him to hand out punishments directly then Ed would miss 2 weeks because he has failed to own up to and take accountability for his actions - something that Hawkins did pretty quickly

nope flog, you have failed to understand what he said.

To simplify it down for you:

Hawkins is worse, worth two weeks but pleaded guilty = reduced from 2 to 1.
Curnow's is worth one week, didn't plead guilty = stays at 1.

Therefore: Hawkins is worse. As it should be.

 

[Catsace]

Geebuz..I didn't know the Jurica Stockade was up in the AFL appeals board!! Kicked on a bit from the Tiggers of the mid 90's.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Naturally the resident dullards are lapping this up from their Footy Ops Boss.
Funnily enough Paddy speaking out is in the interests of the players. Players are after consistency.

 

[cats_09]

nope flog, you have failed to understand what he said.

To simplify it down for you:

Hawkins is worse, worth two weeks but pleaded guilty = reduced from 2 to 1.
Curnow's is worth one week, didn't plead guilty = stays at 1.

Therefore: Hawkins is worse. As it should be.

Wow - visiting another clubs board & you have the audacity to call the regulars here flogs.

Since it's clear you have no manners & clearly no basic comprehension skills, I suggest you return to the Carlton board & stay there

You have no place here - just leave

 

[romeohwho]

Can’t wait to play Carlton-are they going to boo paddy. Oh actually, is it in Geelong? Yeehaa.
Andrew Mackay a bit ordinary having a swipe at Dangerfield.

 

[STPer18]

nope flog, you have failed to understand what he said.

To simplify it down for you:

Hawkins is worse, worth two weeks but pleaded guilty = reduced from 2 to 1.
Curnow's is worth one week, didn't plead guilty = stays at 1.

Therefore: Hawkins is worse. As it should be.

Semantics. Both missed a week. Your mob are going to get spanked anyway, as is the norm for that failure of a football club. Why so sensitive about the whole situation?

 

[Down at K Park]

nope flog, you have failed to understand what he said.

To simplify it down for you:

Hawkins is worse, worth two weeks but pleaded guilty = reduced from 2 to 1.
Curnow's is worth one week, didn't plead guilty = stays at 1.

Therefore: Hawkins is worse. As it should be.

Why are you back here you utter moron?

 

[frggr]

LOL @ Carlton flogs melting over Curnow appeal. They're melting over Gregson being overlooked and Danger making a statement about the confusing findings of the Tribunal.

Also, this:

Then I wonder if our boys will be pissed off and fired up at geelong and Dangerfield for their outcry over ed curnow when we play them next week.

Dangerfield also needs to re-consider his position as AFLPA president. That role requires him to represent all AFL players equally in these types of matters rather than prioritising his own team mates. Really poor form on Dangerfield's part and instead of calling out the decisions on the Curnow brothers maybe he would've been better questioning as to why Hawkins' counsel blinked and accepted a plea bargain rather than try his case in the Tribunal.

 

[Munich]

Haha Carlton.

The hilarity never ends with that mob.

 

[Hamingja]

An earlier option going forward would be that and player charged with intentionally making contact with an umpire receives an automatic one week suspension without having to go up the tribunal.

If the club/player which to appeal they can but all that's at stake is the $10k fee versus extra weeks.

Situations where the player is more demonstrative than what we saw from Hawkins or Curnow (2 handed shove to the ground etc), send them directly to the tribunal - using the hearings words, for hostile situations

Instead of arguing intentional v careless contact they should just make the umpire sacrosanct.

Any umpire contact behind the play or during time off like the 4 on the weekend equals a week.

Any umpire contact that is in play and accidental is a fine ie the classic scenario with the umpire backing away from a ball up and contact made in a congested area.

Any contact with any force or malice goes straight to the tribunal

 

[cats_09]

Instead of arguing intentional v careless contact they should just make the umpire sacrosanct.

Any umpire contact behind the play or during time off like the 4 on the weekend equals a week.

Any umpire contact that is in play and accidental is a fine ie the classic scenario with the umpire backing away from a ball up and contact made in a congested area.

Any contact with any force or malice goes straight to the tribunal

Sounds good - pretty clear & simply but the AFL will still find a way to screw that up