Suspending players for touching umpires

[AstonSouffle]

Feel you guys miss the point of why they run in or use names, it’s precisely to maintain control so it doesn’t boil over and then everyone starts flogging each other. As well as to diffuse situations.

Bit like your less brazen if you see a cop car sort of deal, and if you’re not doing anything wrong then why should you care anyway?

Just don’t touch umpires it isn’t hard, do any of you saying it’s okay even play? You should know touching an umpire is actually a reasonably difficult endeavour, so rightly so you get pinged if you somehow manage to achieve it.

 

[Micksy]

Well, we have the blueprint now...

Just plead guilty to careless contact and then it's up to the afl to prove without doubt it was intentional.

I wonder if this works for every offense, or just umpire groping.

 

[Back One Out]

If umpires don't wish to be to touched, then why don't they stop getting in player's faces and maintain their distance? If they're going to plant themselves in between two players who are arguing, or get right up in the face of an angry player, then of course they're going to receive some minor incidental contact.

I'm sick of reactionary clowns blowing up every incident and demanding "consistency" and black and white adjudications. Treat each case on merit, I say. If a player is hostile toward an ump and touches him, then suspend him for 4 weeks (minimum). If it's incidental contact, then just let it go, for f**k's sake..

----------------------------------------------

LOL at all these campaigners in the media who bash the umpires non-stop for 2 hours and question every single umpiring decision, but then they turn around and say "Oh no! You can't touch them! The umps are sacrosanct! We need to send the right message to all the kiddies who are watching"

The hypocritical football media makes me want to puke.

 

[FRUMPY]

Fines should be enough of a penalty unless they actually physically assault and umpire then throw the book at them

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Mahlepi]

Read my post above yours.

The key difference is probably ump felt threatened by Hawkins whereas wasn't by May.

and again, its ok to touch an umpire if you have sensual hands and blue eyes

seriously

 

[Navara79]

and again, its ok to touch an umpire if you have sensual hands and blue eyes

seriously

I guess that's why a Geelong player didn't get cited directly after the Hawkins incident

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

So for $1000 you can now cop a feel of a female umpires chest.

Good on the AFL for thinking through their new 'Acceptable touching of an umpire' policy.

 

[The Final Word]

Good to see the the Hawkins decision sent a clear message that you cannot touch the umpire

 

[Navara79]

Fixed it for you

Good to see the the Hawkins decision sent a clear message that you cannot touch the umpire in an aggressive manner and make the umpire feel threatened

 

[The Final Word]

Fixed it for you

Did "threatened" ever come up in the Hawkins matter? Or are they making it up as they go?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-...-for-one-week-for-contact-with-umpire/9740116
"This is one of those instances where the force of the contact is not the point," the AFL's legal counsel Jeff Gleeson SC told the tribunal.

"In that hostile environment he intentionally made physical contact with the umpire … an angry, frustrated movement of the arm."

Gleeson told the hearing it was important the tribunal sent a message in deciding Hawkins' fate.

"This is the point at which we say, 'if you intentionally make contact with an umpire, you will be suspended'," he said.

 

[Navara79]

Did "threatened" ever come up in the Hawkins matter? Or are they making it up as they go?

When the umpire tells Tom not to touch him, it means he felt threatened. Watch the footage and turn the volume up.

 

[The Final Word]

When the umpire tells Tom not to touch him, it means he felt threatened. Watch the footage and turn the volume up.

Not arguing that, heard it live, not even arguing Hawkins suspension. He's got form with respect to these things and deserved his week off. Hell I'm not even arguing that the Curnow's should go for 2 weeks which would see them miss playing Geelong.

Point is that the AFL is on the record through their legal counsel saying "if you intentionally make contact with an umpire, you will be suspended" which is what happened and a week later they role over. If Jeff Gleeson doesn't appeal then he's gone back on his word a week later.

 

[JackFlash]

When Footy fans picture what goes on in the Tribunal, they imagine austere former players and QC's arguing and deliberating on an issue that will decide the fate of the player and the rule itself.
However at the AFL Tribunal, the former players and justices are forced to preside over bullshit more often than they should.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

When the umpire tells Tom not to touch him, it means he felt threatened. Watch the footage and turn the volume up.

So that's why the umpire moved closer and into his path then sent an arm at him?

Curnow had no such situation to deal with and time to think and he still pushed the umpire.

 

[HairyO]

Fixed it for you

The umpire in the Hawkins case said he did not feel threatened or man-handled. The only issue is that deliberate contact was made and that was all that was needed for him to get a week.

Then just one week later 2 players clearly put out the hands to move umpires and both are cleared.

This is exactly like Spider Everett many years ago. He makes minor contact with an umpire and copped a week. The following week a couple of players made minor contact with an umpire and were given fines, and at the end of the year the AFL changed the rules around umpire contact.

Here I am defending a Geelong player and feeling bad for them. If you need any more proof that this whole thing is screwed up I dont know what that proof could be.

 

[Seeds]

I guess that's why a Geelong player didn't get cited directly after the Hawkins incident

we have no idea why gregson didnt get cited either.

 

[Mahlepi]

I guess that's why a Geelong player didn't get cited directly after the Hawkins incident

totally agree

and now we can move on

 

[slashin_velvet]

I'm actually pretty happy the AFL has appealed the decision. Whilst I want them to play, I'd much rather the rules be consistently applied. That being said, I'm not impressed that they have appealed Charlie, but not May - in both cases the player was not looking at the umpire, and May's contact had significantly more force behind it.

 

[VL3OJ]

It's time that the umpires and AFL realise that this consistent player maul and the closeness of the umpires will result in the odd brush or push. How about being proactive and delving into this preseason and would a brush with a female umpire have more gravitas?

Whilst we are all grappling with the odd week here or there, imagine the same issue in the final series to a key player?

It all boils down to the AFL flog wanting to give Hawkins two matches for his touch and thus a week looked good to Geelong. Well done AFL, if you can bollox it up and ignore basic logic, they will.

 

[F_therest]

Not arguing that, heard it live, not even arguing Hawkins suspension. He's got form with respect to these things and deserved his week off. Hell I'm not even arguing that the Curnow's should go for 2 weeks which would see them miss playing Geelong.

Point is that the AFL is on the record through their legal counsel saying "if you intentionally make contact with an umpire, you will be suspended" which is what happened and a week later they role over. If Jeff Gleeson doesn't appeal then he's gone back on his word a week later.

Afl have shown themselves to be pretty dumb on many things.

So you can't touch an umpire even in a friendly way? Because that would still he intentional...******* stupid. Umpires sometimes touch players. There should be context on whether it was aggressive or threatening manner, not only intentional or incidental.

Both umpires for curnows said they didn't have any issue with it...one couldn't even remember it happening. It's called common sense afl Jesus.

 

[BRADLESTICKS]

I just watched the first half replay of Carlton versus Essendon and counted five other incidents of players making contact with umpires David Myers twice Cripps once then Kobe Mitch and Ed Curnow in a different incident, Mutch and Curnows are within 20 seconds of each other, both touching the female umpire who had no issue with either, mutch with 51 seconds left in the second quarter and ed Curnow with 34 seconds left, the mutch incident is similar to the Charlie incident in that he is almost protecting the umpire when making contact. I guess my point is the afl can’t just pick and choose which ones get a suspension and which ones don’t, if I can find 5 seperate incidents just in a half the AFL severely underestimates how much contact their is between players and umpires during games and they have opened up a can of worms if they are going to start suspending players for minor incidental contact that even the umpires have no issue with.

 

[bkozican]

OP, Although I respect your opinion, I completely disagree with the post. The line has to be set and it has to be clear to everybody playing the game, From the Pro's to the Under 11's. You can argue your case all you want (Ump wont change his mind) but touching the ump, Trying to intimidate the ump is a strict No from me.
It was drilled into us as young kids, Dont ever touch the ump, EVER!, You can argue all you want but the line is there and you must respect that.

 

[DamoESP]

Well AFL, gonna be busy this week with another case of Intentional contact with the Umpire??

 

[hoss]

Typical Margetts. Campaigner started all this with his precious, 'I'm bigger than the game' attitude. Guy will sink to any depth to be in a headline.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[zyzzbruh]

What's there to complain about here? idiots like you lot and blokes like Danger etc saying that they're confused. confused about what? do players actually need to know in what way they are permitted to touch an umpire in order to not be confused? It's actually ok to be confused in this situation, the key is just don't F*****g touch the umpire simple as that. If you do you are putting yourself on that knife edge where you may or may not cop a week. Whether you think its not malicious this and that it doesn't matter, the AFL has made it clear not to touch so just don't do it.

These incidents aren't as clear cut as a purposeful shove which is why they are hard to judge. Unless you want the AFL to write a novel explaining in detail every possible move a player can biophysically and neurologically make in an offence and it's punishment then I suggest everyone shuts up and gets on with it.