Tap Tap Tapperoo
Club Legend
Amateur hour. They knew he didn't deserve to get a week, so manipulated the gradings and graded it as careless because he wasn't looking at razor. How can Christian say that with a straight face.
Suspending players for touching umpires
- Thread starter PP34
- Start date
- Tagged users None
indisputable fact: the grading system is entirely fake and the AFL just uses it to suggest there is fairness and consistency to what is a fundamentally inconsistent and unfair process.
Yep, knew when I heard on ‘Access All Areas’ Show on the website the panel saying that he shouldn’t be suspended for this that the media narrative was set and he would get off.
Anyone with a live pass on the AFL app and is interested in either tribunal consistency or getting rid of this bullshit rule should watch around the 5.20 mark of Q4 of GWS v Essendon.
I'm a moron with a tablet but this is the best I could do with screenshots. If you watch for yourself without pausing Tippa clearly handles the umpires arm. Surely if umpires are to be protected the MRP needs to review entire games looking for this sort of contact? Or is your fate entirely up to whether channel 7 catches it in their telecast? Are we suspending players or not?
I love watching Tippa play so don't think this is anti Tippa or anti Essendon etc, it's anti inconsistency and trial by media. It is also anti can't touch an umpire even light heartedly (unless you are Treloar and you did it 8 weeks ago because the AFL was not concerned about umpire safety then)
I'm a moron with a tablet but this is the best I could do with screenshots. If you watch for yourself without pausing Tippa clearly handles the umpires arm. Surely if umpires are to be protected the MRP needs to review entire games looking for this sort of contact? Or is your fate entirely up to whether channel 7 catches it in their telecast? Are we suspending players or not?
I love watching Tippa play so don't think this is anti Tippa or anti Essendon etc, it's anti inconsistency and trial by media. It is also anti can't touch an umpire even light heartedly (unless you are Treloar and you did it 8 weeks ago because the AFL was not concerned about umpire safety then)
Agreed, just like a Monty python skit-laughable, but not really-minister for silly walks or something.
From the AFL app
Christian said in deciding to grade Rioli's contact with Chamberlain as careless rather than intentional he, in consultation with AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking, had taken into account the recent Tribunal and Appeal Board hearings on umpire contact.
"I suppose in sitting down and assessing the contact the overriding factor was what has happened over recent weeks, particularly at the Tribunal and at the Appeal Board," Christian said.
"In discussion with Steve Hocking, (we decided) it was certainly prudent in this particular case to grade the case careless rather than intentional."
Christian said Rioli's case was similar to that of Carlton forward Charlie Curnow, who was cleared of making intentional contact with umpire Matt Stevic by the Appeal Board, given neither player had been looking at the umpire when they touched them.
Talk about contrived. So much for the rule being mechanical. What happened to was there contact, was it intentional?
That appeal hearing looks more and more ridiculous
Christian said in deciding to grade Rioli's contact with Chamberlain as careless rather than intentional he, in consultation with AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking, had taken into account the recent Tribunal and Appeal Board hearings on umpire contact.
"I suppose in sitting down and assessing the contact the overriding factor was what has happened over recent weeks, particularly at the Tribunal and at the Appeal Board," Christian said.
"In discussion with Steve Hocking, (we decided) it was certainly prudent in this particular case to grade the case careless rather than intentional."
Christian said Rioli's case was similar to that of Carlton forward Charlie Curnow, who was cleared of making intentional contact with umpire Matt Stevic by the Appeal Board, given neither player had been looking at the umpire when they touched them.
Talk about contrived. So much for the rule being mechanical. What happened to was there contact, was it intentional?
That appeal hearing looks more and more ridiculous
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,248
- 15,913
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Eds was not aggressive in the slightest. He put his hand up to say he understood why the decision was made. Didn't push at all.
You're right that they know not to touch the umpires, and yet here we are talking about Willie intentionally touching the ump as acknowledgement, and yet calling it careless because his eyes werent directly looking at the umpire at the time?
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Don't think any Carlton fans want Rioli suspended but surely others can see why we might be aggrieved - the goalposts have changed merely a week after the AFL suspended one of our best and tried hard to suspend the other. Apparently was there contact, was it intentional doesn't apply if you intentionally pat an umpire on the butt (would be strange if Rioli looked to be honest).
No one should be suspended for this farce of an interpretation but yeah the AFL are kidding themselves if they think what they said last week doesn't apply to Rioli.
No one should be suspended for this farce of an interpretation but yeah the AFL are kidding themselves if they think what they said last week doesn't apply to Rioli.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,489
- 40,665
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Burton and Fyfe and Sandi were all accidents. Nic Nat said it was deliberate and he wasnt going to change.
Do you want the AFL punishing accidents and letting deliberate damaging acts happen?
The fundamental problem the AFL has is it is trying to give the illusion that what are still plainly case by case judgement calls are actually following some kind of objective standard.
Im amazed that the rigid, pseudo-legal grading system was created by anyone who had actually watched a football game- it simply can't cope with the huge variety of things that can happen on a football field, and following it makes the system more, not less inconsistent.
And I say pseudo-legal because there is a specific reason courts in Australia absolutely do not follow that kind of formulaic grading approach when sentencing for criminal offenses- because it produces absurd results and prevents judges from using their common sense and paying close attention to the specifics of the case in front of them.
What the AFL needs to do is
-scrap the grading system
-create 4 or 5 broad offense categories that encompass everything reportable you can do on a football field. (Eg, striking, fighting, unsportsmanlike conduct, acts likely to endanger an opponent, etc)
- list a series of aggravating and mitigating factors that will be taken into account in assessing the seriousness of any offence (e.g. that the conduct was intentional, that the victim was injured, that the conduct had a capacity to bring the game into disrepute, that the offender has a record, whatever) but do NOT give them numerical values or list specific consequence, just say these are what are taken into account.
- appoint a series of MRP assessors consisting of former players and lawyers who double check each other's work and get consensus before handing out suspensions.
-keep a public database of previous decisions which lists the type of offence, aggravating and mitigating factors and aspire to consistency.
That is all they need to do to end this farce. The system they've created is actually the problem.
Im amazed that the rigid, pseudo-legal grading system was created by anyone who had actually watched a football game- it simply can't cope with the huge variety of things that can happen on a football field, and following it makes the system more, not less inconsistent.
And I say pseudo-legal because there is a specific reason courts in Australia absolutely do not follow that kind of formulaic grading approach when sentencing for criminal offenses- because it produces absurd results and prevents judges from using their common sense and paying close attention to the specifics of the case in front of them.
What the AFL needs to do is
-scrap the grading system
-create 4 or 5 broad offense categories that encompass everything reportable you can do on a football field. (Eg, striking, fighting, unsportsmanlike conduct, acts likely to endanger an opponent, etc)
- list a series of aggravating and mitigating factors that will be taken into account in assessing the seriousness of any offence (e.g. that the conduct was intentional, that the victim was injured, that the conduct had a capacity to bring the game into disrepute, that the offender has a record, whatever) but do NOT give them numerical values or list specific consequence, just say these are what are taken into account.
- appoint a series of MRP assessors consisting of former players and lawyers who double check each other's work and get consensus before handing out suspensions.
-keep a public database of previous decisions which lists the type of offence, aggravating and mitigating factors and aspire to consistency.
That is all they need to do to end this farce. The system they've created is actually the problem.
Hahaha up yours AFL!
Made a mess of your Hawkins suspension and have been embarrassed since.
Not one incident should have been reportable, Hawkins a fine and now fining players for friendly taps because the simpletons at the AFL stupidly say intentional contact is a suspension.
It’s not that black and white!
Rioli should be getting nothing $0 no suspension, nothing!
Suspending Hawkins rather than fining him has created a freaking mess.
Made a mess of your Hawkins suspension and have been embarrassed since.
Not one incident should have been reportable, Hawkins a fine and now fining players for friendly taps because the simpletons at the AFL stupidly say intentional contact is a suspension.
It’s not that black and white!
Rioli should be getting nothing $0 no suspension, nothing!
Suspending Hawkins rather than fining him has created a freaking mess.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,847
- 21,903
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
While I completely agree with you, you’re forgetting a couple of things that ruin your argument. In appealing the Curnows the AFL made it very clear that intent is no consideration. There are only 2 things to consider according to them. Was there contact? Was it deliberate?
A bum tap is a deliberate action.
Heard on 3AW last night, Dwayne Russell say the Fox Footy producer on the game asked him whether they should replay the Rioli incident multiple times to make an incident on it and Dwayne said No because he didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
Highly revealing as to how some incidents get massively hyped up while similar ones get ignored. It seems to come down to the views of a TV producer and commentator how the hype and narrative around an incident is managed and the public (and Michael Christian) are manipulated on it.
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,248
- 15,913
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Interesting. This is sorta what I've been saying about reports needing to come from an umpire directly. At this stage it's just put up in the spotlight for talking points.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,489
- 40,665
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
What if she initiates the contact? No may mean no, but what if the door is half ajar?
Hopefully the AFL has a policy response in place.
Hawkins' was the worst, Rioli's was the mildest, and Ed Curnow's fell somewhere in between. None should have gotten a week, and probably only Hawkins should have gotten a fine.
I wonder how much this week being indigenous round had on the decision to let Rioli off. Probably far too much of a consideration id suggest
That would be interesting wouldn't it?
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,248
- 15,913
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Was paid a free kick and 50 meter penalty.
And he got a $1,500 fine for misconduct.
Similar threads
- Locked
