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

[FredLeDeux]

I think the problem with AFL is there are so many grey areas within the rules. If you saw the Toby McLean free kick on the weekend when he dived on the ball it could have been:
A. Free kick against. Contact below the knees.
B. Free kick for. High contact.
C. Play on.

It's true that there are grey areas in the AFL Rules.

However, this isn't one of them.

"Intentional" has a quite simple, clear-cut, straightforward and longstanding plain English meaning.

It means deliberate, done on purpose.

Christian and Hocking haven't 'interpreted" it, they've unilaterally changed the rule by replacing the word "intentional" with a collection of words meaning something else.

 

[Scottland2007]

It's true that there are grey areas in the AFL Rules.

However, this isn't one of them.

"Intentional" has a quite simple, clear-cut, straightforward and longstanding plain English meaning.

It means deliberate, done on purpose.

Christian and Hocking haven't 'interpreted" it, they've unilaterally changed the rule by replacing the word "intentional" with a collection of words meaning something else.

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was Dusty is trying to get clarification on the rule, if the rules where black and white we wouldn’t need clarification. Sorry Fred, 2nd week of night shift and brain not braining properly, so I’m not communicating real amazingly.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Sorry, the point I was trying to make was Dusty is trying to get clarification on the rule, if the rules where black and white we wouldn’t need clarification. Sorry Fred, 2nd week of night shift and brain not braining properly, so I’m not communicating real amazingly.

 

[Geelong Dynasty]

If the AFL don’t appeal this there’s something very wrong (regardless I guess).

My gut tells me they appeal to apease the disgruntled, but then tell the tribunal the only result they are happy with is a fine.

It’s all fixed

 

[FredLeDeux]

If the AFL don’t appeal this there’s something very wrong (regardless I guess).

My gut tells me they appeal to apease the disgruntled, but then tell the tribunal the only result they are happy with is a fine.

It’s all fixed

The AFL, ie Hocking, has already made its decision.
Each week Christian does the triage, the AFL, via Hocking, makes the final decision.

 

[Hello Kitty]

It’s because it’s Dustin “I hate the publicly but I have a look at me look at me haircut” Martin. He can’t do a thing wrong.

No one will get suspended ever again for that.

That is hilarious! You made me snork, now you have to replace my red wine soaked MacBook

 

[Hello Kitty]

Perverse but this has made me laugh -
If it wasn’t embarrassing enough for the AFL about the contradictions with the Curnows (and forced intervention) the week after the “zero tolerance” with Hawkins, now Christian finds he can interpret away an offence that was previously straight to Tribunal.

I didn’t disagree with Hawk getting a week but it is hilarious how the “line in the sand” gets drawn then a curve inserted, usually for star players of the “loud” clubs.

I would like to propose an annual “Barry Hall” award for the most contrived MRC/tribunal backflip of the year - any interest?

Yes, begin a thread + to really p!ss off oppo fans, make the thread 'No opposition supporters'

 

[Landgraft]

Geelong and Carlton should jointly appeal this decision. It literally makes a farce of the AFLs rules when they can choose to not only redefine a term on the fly, but in relation to a specific use of that term. Or will the new intentional be used to grade all other MRP findings now?

 

[Catters 070911]

I noticed that Dustin Martin touched an umpire, and got away with it.

Michael Christian says that the rules are different now.

Yeah, I know what the rules are for touching umpires:-

You will only be suspended for touching an umpire if:-

(a) you wear a Geelong jumper

and/or

(b) your name is Tom Hawkins.

Hawkins fitted into both catergories, and that is why he had no hope of beating the rap of touching the umpire.

 

[Nickoo]

I noticed that Dustin Martin touched an umpire, and got away with it.

Michael Christian says that the rules are different now.

Yeah, I know what the rules are for touching umpires:-

You will only be suspended for touching an umpire if:-

(a) you wear a Geelong jumper

and/or

(b) your name is Tom Hawkins.

Hawkins fitted into both catergories, and that is why he had no hope of beating the rap of touching the umpire.

Why have they got it in for him do you think? He seems like a nice guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

My theory is the AFL are s**t scared of upsetting Dustin's dad, because then the Hells Angels motorcycle gang will come looking for them.

 

[Catters 070911]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I find too much evidence pointing to one in this case.

I have come to the conclusion, over the years, that I believe that the AFL, with the advice of the top clubs, are doing everything to "nobble" Geelong.

Look at the evidence. May (Gold Coast), the Curnows (Carlton) and Dusty (Richmond), all play for AFL clubs that the AFL cater to, because they provide huge crowds or are their pet project.

I am convinced that teams like Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn and Essendon, don't like Geelong having success.

For decades, Carlton, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Essendon have brought big crowds, and as a result, put a lot of pressure on the AFL, to "look after them". Gold Coast and GWS are projects the AFL need to have succeed, at any cost. Even Sydney constantly being in finals please the AFL.

But, with Geelong, it is different. Geelong climbed the ladder on its own, without AFL intervention or "favours". We got out of our $9 million debt, and didn't have to tin-rattle, like Richmond and Fitzroy did.

We succeeded because we got a good president and a highly-credentialled CEO in 2000, and they appointed the right people at the right time (and yes, despite being a critic at times, I include Mark Thompson in that, and Chris Scott as well). We succeeded, because we made good decisions, and reaped the rewards of it.

However, the other clubs didn't like this. They accused Geelong of succeeding off father-son, so changed the rules after we got Tom Hawkins (forgetting that Collingwood and Richmond used it just as often, for similar results). They demand that they don't want to play games at GMHBA stadium, and petiton the AFL not have finals there. They claim that it gives Geelong an "unfair advantage" (which is bull, since we only play teams there that we would beat no matter where we played them, and when we play a good team there, like Sydney, they beat us). I notice no-one objects to the unfair advantage Hawthorn get by playing "home" games in Tassie.

The AFL don't like Geelong have their own home ground either. They tried to push to the 'G or Etihad, and I heard that Carlton, for one, were upset by this, since they were forced to stop playing games at Optus Oval. They stop us having a home final, that we earned, and Richmond, who have the AFL in their pocket, pushed for the final to be at the 'G (Richmond's home ground, when they finished third, and we finished second)because they are entitled crybabies who use their big supporter base and some success era they had over 30 years ago to get the AFL to bend over for them.

Also, the region of Geelong doesn't mean much to the current-day AFL. They care about teams with big-Melbourne based supporter bases, or interstate sides. The AFL has been "in bed" with these teams for years, and given them every success. Geelong has had to do it on their own, and stay successful, despite no receiving one cent from the AFL.

Too many things fall the way of the big clubs, and against us, that it is all bad luck or coincidence. Powerful people want to keep Geelong down, and suspending our players for tackles, jumper punches and touching umpires who walk in their path, is a way that the AFL set to "weaken" our finals runs, and strengthen the chances of their preferred clubs.

 

[Catters 070911]

Why have they got it in for him do you think? He seems like a nice guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I wrote a post above saying what I think it is.

Maybe one time when the AFL said "Jump", Hawkins didn't respond with "How high"?

I wonder if Hawkins didn't play for Geelong, if he would have got suspended for these things?

 

[yeah_nah_yeah]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I find too much evidence pointing to one in this case.

Not sure about the conspiracy in your post, I just think the AFL is an amateur organisation. Changing the rules/interpretation mid season is just bewildering.

 

[you pick one]

All that is happening here is Christian and Hocking bungled the Hawkins penalty and instead of admitting it they are now muddying the water around umpire contact(umpires are sacrosanct when we feel like it) to regain control,sort of like judges don't like fixed minimum sentences for crimes.The AFL will never be tied to set penalties everything they introduce is geared around interpretation.

 

[pjcrows]

If you get the chance, listen to Christian on 5AA this arvo re: Martin/Hawkins/umpire contact. The bloke is absolutely effing clueless and making it up as he goes along.

 

[kickazz]

If you get the chance, listen to Christian on 5AA this arvo re: Martin/Hawkins/umpire contact. The bloke is absolutely effing clueless and making it up as he goes along.

Yeah it was hilariously shite

 

[RegHickeyStand]

If you get the chance, listen to Christian on 5AA this arvo re: Martin/Hawkins/umpire contact. The bloke is absolutely effing clueless and making it up as he goes along.

It's true that there are grey areas in the AFL Rules.

However, this isn't one of them.

"Intentional" has a quite simple, clear-cut, straightforward and longstanding plain English meaning.

It means deliberate, done on purpose.

Christian and Hocking haven't 'interpreted" it, they've unilaterally changed the rule by replacing the word "intentional" with a collection of words meaning something else.

The worst opinions I have heard re the Hawkins contact is literally word for word the same as Christian's new interpretation.

They are still conscious of targeting Hawkins, and how that now looks. The AFL line (as propagated by Slobbo) that somehow the Hawkins contact is different to all the others in some kind of special way.

 

[Hello Kitty]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I find too much evidence pointing to one in this case.

I have come to the conclusion, over the years, that I believe that the AFL, with the advice of the top clubs, are doing everything to "nobble" Geelong.

Look at the evidence. May (Gold Coast), the Curnows (Carlton) and Dusty (Richmond), all play for AFL clubs that the AFL cater to, because they provide huge crowds or are their pet project.

I am convinced that teams like Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn and Essendon, don't like Geelong having success.

For decades, Carlton, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Essendon have brought big crowds, and as a result, put a lot of pressure on the AFL, to "look after them". Gold Coast and GWS are projects the AFL need to have succeed, at any cost. Even Sydney constantly being in finals please the AFL.

But, with Geelong, it is different. Geelong climbed the ladder on its own, without AFL intervention or "favours". We got out of our $9 million debt, and didn't have to tin-rattle, like Richmond and Fitzroy did.

We succeeded because we got a good president and a highly-credentialled CEO in 2000, and they appointed the right people at the right time (and yes, despite being a critic at times, I include Mark Thompson in that, and Chris Scott as well). We succeeded, because we made good decisions, and reaped the rewards of it.

However, the other clubs didn't like this. They accused Geelong of succeeding off father-son, so changed the rules after we got Tom Hawkins (forgetting that Collingwood and Richmond used it just as often, for similar results). They demand that they don't want to play games at GMHBA stadium, and petiton the AFL not have finals there. They claim that it gives Geelong an "unfair advantage" (which is bull, since we only play teams there that we would beat no matter where we played them, and when we play a good team there, like Sydney, they beat us). I notice no-one objects to the unfair advantage Hawthorn get by playing "home" games in Tassie.

The AFL don't like Geelong have their own home ground either. They tried to push to the 'G or Etihad, and I heard that Carlton, for one, were upset by this, since they were forced to stop playing games at Optus Oval. They stop us having a home final, that we earned, and Richmond, who have the AFL in their pocket, pushed for the final to be at the 'G (Richmond's home ground, when they finished third, and we finished second)because they are entitled crybabies who use their big supporter base and some success era they had over 30 years ago to get the AFL to bend over for them.

Also, the region of Geelong doesn't mean much to the current-day AFL. They care about teams with big-Melbourne based supporter bases, or interstate sides. The AFL has been "in bed" with these teams for years, and given them every success. Geelong has had to do it on their own, and stay successful, despite no receiving one cent from the AFL.

Too many things fall the way of the big clubs, and against us, that it is all bad luck or coincidence. Powerful people want to keep Geelong down, and suspending our players for tackles, jumper punches and touching umpires who walk in their path, is a way that the AFL set to "weaken" our finals runs, and strengthen the chances of their preferred clubs.

What a fantastic post, in which you offered rational + reasonable opinions, + you explained them very well.

One thing that should also be considered is that Geelong has baulked the AFL's equalisation strategy! The AFL + the big clubs hate it! We missed Finals in 2014. Yet the AFL play favourites with Hawthorn, who have also withstood the equalisation strategy.

Also, your point that Geelong kept KP is valid, while other teams sold off their home grounds. Plus Geelong kept their VFL team.

Perhaps the AFL hate Geelong because we've done so much right + that flies in the face of all the AFL was trying to achieve?

 

[Hello Kitty]

The worst opinions I have heard re the Hawkins contact is literally word for word the same as Christian's new interpretation.

They are still conscious of targeting Hawkins, and how that now looks. The AFL line (as propagated by Slobbo) that somehow the Hawkins contact is different to all the others in some kind of special way.

Quite frankly, Hawkins' contact with Margetts, by brushing his hand away, was probably the most innocuous of all the subsequent umpire contacts.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but I find too much evidence pointing to one in this case.

I have come to the conclusion, over the years, that I believe that the AFL, with the advice of the top clubs, are doing everything to "nobble" Geelong.

Look at the evidence. May (Gold Coast), the Curnows (Carlton) and Dusty (Richmond), all play for AFL clubs that the AFL cater to, because they provide huge crowds or are their pet project.

I am convinced that teams like Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn and Essendon, don't like Geelong having success.

For decades, Carlton, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Richmond and Essendon have brought big crowds, and as a result, put a lot of pressure on the AFL, to "look after them". Gold Coast and GWS are projects the AFL need to have succeed, at any cost. Even Sydney constantly being in finals please the AFL.

But, with Geelong, it is different. Geelong climbed the ladder on its own, without AFL intervention or "favours". We got out of our $9 million debt, and didn't have to tin-rattle, like Richmond and Fitzroy did.

We succeeded because we got a good president and a highly-credentialled CEO in 2000, and they appointed the right people at the right time (and yes, despite being a critic at times, I include Mark Thompson in that, and Chris Scott as well). We succeeded, because we made good decisions, and reaped the rewards of it.

However, the other clubs didn't like this. They accused Geelong of succeeding off father-son, so changed the rules after we got Tom Hawkins (forgetting that Collingwood and Richmond used it just as often, for similar results). They demand that they don't want to play games at GMHBA stadium, and petiton the AFL not have finals there. They claim that it gives Geelong an "unfair advantage" (which is bull, since we only play teams there that we would beat no matter where we played them, and when we play a good team there, like Sydney, they beat us). I notice no-one objects to the unfair advantage Hawthorn get by playing "home" games in Tassie.

The AFL don't like Geelong have their own home ground either. They tried to push to the 'G or Etihad, and I heard that Carlton, for one, were upset by this, since they were forced to stop playing games at Optus Oval. They stop us having a home final, that we earned, and Richmond, who have the AFL in their pocket, pushed for the final to be at the 'G (Richmond's home ground, when they finished third, and we finished second)because they are entitled crybabies who use their big supporter base and some success era they had over 30 years ago to get the AFL to bend over for them.

Also, the region of Geelong doesn't mean much to the current-day AFL. They care about teams with big-Melbourne based supporter bases, or interstate sides. The AFL has been "in bed" with these teams for years, and given them every success. Geelong has had to do it on their own, and stay successful, despite no receiving one cent from the AFL.

Too many things fall the way of the big clubs, and against us, that it is all bad luck or coincidence. Powerful people want to keep Geelong down, and suspending our players for tackles, jumper punches and touching umpires who walk in their path, is a way that the AFL set to "weaken" our finals runs, and strengthen the chances of their preferred clubs.

I think you're drawing a long bow there. First of all, I don't know if you were around back then but the Cats did tin rattle to get out of precarious debt situation from 2000 onwards (The Stand Up & Fight Campaign). We didn't trade out of debt either, it was the money raised by supporters and donated by our benefactors like Frank Costa who saved the team from going under. Last, it was the fact the Bendigo Bank wrote off about $3million (IIRC) that really saved our bacon. Geelong was able to build on success, sure, but it came later.

Sure, some of the powerful Vic clubs hobbled the F/S rule because of the Cats, but we've seen similar happen with COLA and the academy picks in interstate clubs too. The investigations into Tanking. The bottom line is, if any club has been lucky enough to take advantage of a loophole, then generally the other clubs try to close it.

The biggest problem with Geelong sometimes is at board and administration level we're often too nice. Yes, the bigger Vic clubs will play hard to get what they want sometimes, but Geelong rarely rocks the boat or makes a fuss. They don't consider that "The Geelong Way" a culture started with Costa & Cook.

Every rabid supporter of every club thinks like you about their team. But, the reality is if the Cats have to fight for what they get, just as the other clubs do. Sometimes we lose those fights, sometimes we win.

 

[Nickoo]

Quite frankly, Hawkins' contact with Margetts, by brushing his hand away, was probably the most innocuous of all the subsequent umpire contacts.

That’s what I thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Hello Kitty]

That’s what I thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Great minds hey Nickoo

 

[dazbroncos]

What I find frustrating with this is the Goal Post shift - called emphasis or interpretation shift by Christian - that seems to magically occur after the MRP decide to take a stand, and then magically water it down the following week.

The Hawkins jumper punch followed by the Hawkins Hand push are clear cases of examples being made and then a softening of goal post shift barely weeks later.

its a joke, its inconsistent and its poorly managed for a billion dollar industry to be so flighty in its operation

GO Catters

 

[InnocentBystandr]

I am not one for conspiracy theories, but......

I've always thought if its a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, back incompetence every time!