Opinion Non-Crows AFL 7

[FR0GGY]

Why?
the rule literally states it's a fine for the first offence.

Well lucky it’s his first offense then

 

[Truck25]

Soligo with a fine for umpire contact. Extremely lucky if you ask me.

Yeah he should've run him down and give him a hug which apparently is ok.

 

[BACCS]

Will Day is so good.

Agree and not sure why he wants to play in a team that will likely be planted in the bottom 6 for at least the next 2-3 years.

 

[jackster83]

Agree and not sure why he wants to play in a team that will likely be planted in the bottom 6 for at least the next 2-3 years.

Probably getting paid an absolute bucket load to stay there.

 

[Scorpus]

Agree and not sure why he wants to play in a team that will likely be planted in the bottom 6 for at least the next 2-3 years.

Millions of dollars in his bank account would have a strong say

 

[dogs105]

 

[MarcusP2]

Agree and not sure why he wants to play in a team that will likely be planted in the bottom 6 for at least the next 2-3 years.

 

[daniel_4tw]

Why?
the rule literally states it's a fine for the first offence.

Intentional vs Unnecessary? Does that matter?

Seem to remember Toby Greene getting six weeks so there is clearly a scale.

 

[50BC]

Intentional vs Unnecessary? Does that matter?

Seem to remember Toby Greene getting six weeks so there is clearly a scale.

There are a number factors, the Toby Greene one was assessed as forceful and intimidating which I don't think you could suggest that with Soligo

 

[arrowman]

Why?
the rule literally states it's a fine for the first offence.

That would be this:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

(2021, but assume it's current in this area at least)

Section 3.2 "Direct Tribunal Offences" includes "Intentional Contact with an Umpire".

Section 3.3 "Fixed Financial Offences" includes "Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact with an Umpire" for which the penalty is $2500 ($1500 with an early plea) for a first offence.

Which is kind of confusing, because I don't see a clear distinction between "Intentional Contact" and "Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact". Really, Soligo's contact with the goal umpire could fall under either, depending on which dialect of English you speak

Maybe this article from 2018 provides some insight:

'Intentional' umpire contact rule changed

The AFL have reinterpreted the rule surrounding intentional contact with umpires, with Tiger Dustin Martin controversially fined for only careless contact.

www.theage.com.au

OK, nearly 5 years ago (and Sam McLure LOL) but:

The current rules surrounding intentional contact with umpires are extremely limited. It is listed as one of eight offences that the AFL's match review officer can send directly to the tribunal "without an assessment of the offence using the Classification Table".
But on Monday afternoon, MRO Michael Christian admitted that he and the AFL had sought to clarify the rule internally.
"Taking into account recent tribunal decisions, particularly involving the incident with [Gold Coast captain] Steven May in round eight, it was decided to charge Dustin under the careless contact provisions."
"Because those guidelines around intentional umpire contact are not specific, at match review level we have decided to interpret those guidelines for intentional umpire contact as being when a player disrespectfully, aggressively, dismissively or indeed forcefully intentionally touches an umpire."
But Christian denied they had changed the rules.

"No, what we are doing is trying to interpret the rules as they are laid down," he said.
"There's nothing really to change because at the moment there's no real clear, specific guidelines around what constitutes the various aspects of umpire contact … we've certainly tried to interpret what that actually means for intentional umpire contact in what the spirit of the guidelines are meant to be written in."

...and then, after discussion of some (then) recent cases, this:

Clearly the rule surrounding "intentional contact" with an umpire has been udpated [sic] to include some form of aggression or malice.

...and I think this is probably right. After all, Soligo's contact was - using the normal English definition of the word - intentional, but maybe in Match Review / Tribunal speak it was "careless", because it didn't include any "aggression or malice".

Intentional vs Unnecessary? Does that matter?

As I said above, it seems to me that those two are not mutually exclusive. Apparently "Intentional" means not just intentional (e.g. a pat on the shoulder) but it must also include "aggression or malice".

Seem to remember Toby Greene getting six weeks so there is clearly a scale.

Indeed. And Greene's contact was IMO intentional - not just "careless" and included an element of aggression.

But overall it seems to me that the way these rules are worded does not make it clear.

It does seem, based on Soligo's case at least, that the MRO is indeed doing what Christian said in 2018 - as above:

"Because those guidelines around intentional umpire contact are not specific, at match review level we have decided to interpret those guidelines for intentional umpire contact as being when a player disrespectfully, aggressively, dismissively or indeed forcefully intentionally touches an umpire."

- Even if they haven't actually changed the wording of the rules, they have changed the interpretation.

 

[kirky]

What the **** is wrong with people?

 

[cleanhands]

WTF is going on, SM needs to be held accountable to find these grubs

 

[kirky]

Intentional vs Unnecessary? Does that matter?

Seem to remember Toby Greene getting six weeks so there is clearly a scale.

So you can’t see the difference between a goal umpire and field umpire and secondly, the nature of the contact?

Just to refresh everyone’s memory

 

[kirky]

On another issue, how soft was Geelong’s draw for the first 8 weeks of the season - with only two games against last years finalists - Collingwood and Sydney?

We will have played 4 of last years finalists in the first 8 weeks (Richmond, Fremantle, Collingwood and Geelong).

 

[50BC]

That would be this:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

(2021, but assume it's current in this area at least)

Section 3.2 "Direct Tribunal Offences" includes "Intentional Contact with an Umpire".

Section 3.3 "Fixed Financial Offences" includes "Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact with an Umpire" for which the penalty is $2500 ($1500 with an early plea) for a first offence.

Which is kind of confusing, because I don't see a clear distinction between "Intentional Contact" and "Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact". Really, Soligo's contact with the goal umpire could fall under either, depending on which dialect of English you speak

Maybe this article from 2018 provides some insight:

'Intentional' umpire contact rule changed

The AFL have reinterpreted the rule surrounding intentional contact with umpires, with Tiger Dustin Martin controversially fined for only careless contact.

www.theage.com.au

OK, nearly 5 years ago (and Sam McLure LOL) but:

The current rules surrounding intentional contact with umpires are extremely limited. It is listed as one of eight offences that the AFL's match review officer can send directly to the tribunal "without an assessment of the offence using the Classification Table".
But on Monday afternoon, MRO Michael Christian admitted that he and the AFL had sought to clarify the rule internally.
"Taking into account recent tribunal decisions, particularly involving the incident with [Gold Coast captain] Steven May in round eight, it was decided to charge Dustin under the careless contact provisions."
"Because those guidelines around intentional umpire contact are not specific, at match review level we have decided to interpret those guidelines for intentional umpire contact as being when a player disrespectfully, aggressively, dismissively or indeed forcefully intentionally touches an umpire."
But Christian denied they had changed the rules.

"No, what we are doing is trying to interpret the rules as they are laid down," he said.
"There's nothing really to change because at the moment there's no real clear, specific guidelines around what constitutes the various aspects of umpire contact … we've certainly tried to interpret what that actually means for intentional umpire contact in what the spirit of the guidelines are meant to be written in."

...and then, after discussion of some (then) recent cases, this:

Clearly the rule surrounding "intentional contact" with an umpire has been udpated [sic] to include some form of aggression or malice.

...and I think this is probably right. After all, Soligo's contact was - using the normal English definition of the word - intentional, but maybe in Match Review / Tribunal speak it was "careless", because it didn't include any "aggression or malice".

As I said above, it seems to me that those two are not mutually exclusive. Apparently "Intentional" means not just intentional (e.g. a pat on the shoulder) but it must also include "aggression or malice".

Indeed. And Greene's contact was IMO intentional - not just "careless" and included an element of aggression.

But overall it seems to me that the way these rules are worded does not make it clear.

It does seem, based on Soligo's case at least, that the MRO is indeed doing what Christian said in 2018 - as above:

"Because those guidelines around intentional umpire contact are not specific, at match review level we have decided to interpret those guidelines for intentional umpire contact as being when a player disrespectfully, aggressively, dismissively or indeed forcefully intentionally touches an umpire."

- Even if they haven't actually changed the wording of the rules, they have changed the interpretation.

Every incident, regardless of what the offence is, can be referred to tribunal if the statutory penalty is deemed to be potentially inappropriate

 

[GROTTO]

On another issue, how soft was Geelong’s draw for the first 8 weeks of the season - with only two games against last years finalists - Collingwood and Sydney?

Its important for Victorian Fairytale stories to go back to back.

 

[jackster83]

What the * is wrong with people?

There are some absolute grubs out there that post stuff like that to get a reaction.

The social media sites don't care - bots and burner accounts make up a large percentage of their traffic these days.

 

[StonesThrow]

Agree and not sure why he wants to play in a team that will likely be planted in the bottom 6 for at least the next 2-3 years.

Remember it's hawthorn you're talking about.

 

[DJ75]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Port have only one injury on their entire list (Fantasia).

I'd be pretty bl00dy worried about that if I was them, because their AFL and particularly their SANFL are looking very ordinary considering they have a full list.

 

[ams4crows]

Now Freo players are being racially vilified? What is happening on social media?? They are always untraceable?? It's beyond ridiculous now, surely the SM companies have to do something

 

[MRB37]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Port have only one injury on their entire list (Fantasia).

I'd be pretty bl00dy worried about that if I was them, because their AFL and particularly their SANFL are looking very ordinary considering they have a full list.

One thing I think they'll always struggle with is trying to serve two masters in trying to be a "true" Magpies team in the SANFL, but one that also services the development of their AFL side.

So they have in the past recruited some very average AFL players with what seemed like the express purpose of making their SANFL side better. They've also got an issue in coaching in that they went to Gary Hocking to Chad Cornes to Matthew Lokan to Tyson Goldsack.

 

[crowholder]

Will Day

12

Will Day

Age

24

Ht

191cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.5

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

7.5

5star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.5

2star

D

17.5

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

7.5

4star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.0

2star

CL

0.5

3star

D

17.5

5star

K

10.0

4star

HB

7.5

5star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.5

3star

out for 2 weeks, so he will not play against the Crows

 

[GreyCrow]

Now Freo players are being racially vilified? What is happening on social media?? They are always untraceable?? It's beyond ridiculous now, surely the SM companies have to do something

One of the things I found interesting/odd was the person who had a go at Rankine set up a singular account to do so - it was a 1 post account

 

[GreyCrow]

One thing I think they'll always struggle with is trying to serve two masters in trying to be a "true" Magpies team in the SANFL, but one that also services the development of their AFL side.

So they have in the past recruited some very average AFL players with what seemed like the express purpose of making their SANFL side better. They've also got an issue in coaching in that they went to Gary Hocking to Chad Cornes to Matthew Lokan to Tyson Goldsack.

Chad got them to a GF at least

 

[MrBarry]

The whingeing from the VIC media about 'blockbusters' being in Adelaide makes no sense.

Is it not a good thing that big games are being played at the first Gather Round? It makes the spectacle of the experiment more enticing.

Just very weird 'sour grapes' takes.

I saw this come from one or two people and it's just the worst take ever. Surely when you seek to create a concept like this you want it to be as successful as possible? Isn't that the point?

Some media outlets are just painfully reactionary and it's so tiring.