Player Spotlight The Blues Brothers - Ed and Charlie Curnow

[prodigy]

The Player Spotlight Series returns!

Ground rules;

• Under no circumstance is there to be any posts that would discourage opposition supporters contributing to the thread.
• There will be thread bans handed out should we consider any post to be detrimental toward the discussion.
• This is NOT a banter thread by any stretch of the imagination.
• There is going to be a ZERO tolerance policy to this series and we hope you respect the rules set out.

This is probably less about the two players above and more of a spotlight on the MRO and AFL judiciary system.
What an absolute shambles it has been!
However, for this thread I want to focus on umpire contact and whether there should be different gradings and levels that either warrant a suspension or a fine, or whether there should be a blanket one game suspension for any intentional umpire contact?
I'm mainly referring to the Tom Hawkins, Steven May, and the Curnow boys incidents.
Obviously any contact over and above the contact the above players did would be dealt with in a more serious manner.

I think it's good that the AFL is appealing the decision made by the tribunal to clear the Curnow Brothers because it was just sending the wrong message to the lower leagues, junior footballers and their families.
There needs to be a level of consistency and I would have been happy if the Tom Hawkins incident set a precedent and it was adhered to moving forward... but clearly I was expecting too much.

Where do people stand on umpire contact?
What would you consider to be the right process moving forward?

 

[prodigy]

Goldust
Thought you'd want to know when one of these was created again

Michaels After listening to half of the podcast this morning, I have a feeling you may want to weigh in.

 

[TJASTA]

they are k i guess

 

[Sterge]

Garbage that they suspended Hawkins but not the other 3, either had to be everyone or no one.
But we all know the MRP/MRO is still a complete balls up, the new bloke was supposed to fix it but he is still playing favourites.

 

[Michaels]

if we had of recorded the podcast last night i reckon i would have taken over a full 25 minutes worth of discussion.. lol.

ok here is my issue.

Tom Hawkins gets a week for contact with the umpire - fair enough, we don't want to see it in the game.

To the best of my knowledge, the AFL come out and only ever made reference to the fact that we don't want players touching umpires, nothing about that it had to be in an agressive manner, just that no intentional touching of umpires was allowed, which is also fair enough.


Steven May: I get that he was showing the umpire a motion in regards to a free kick that was paid, however he was standing right in front of the umpire, knew exactly where he was standing and STILL delibratley made contact with the umpire in his demonstration. How they can possibly say that wasn't intentional is astounding.



Curnows: I have only seen one of these incidents, but basically he was giving the umpire a 'dont argue' hand to the chest. Once again, how on earth is that no delibrate





How both of these can be classed as anything but intentional is an absolute joke. If I were Tom Hawkins i would be fuming.

 

[tigs2010]

I have no issue with the May one. He brushed against him while demonstrating something.

The pushing of the umps is not on.

Nostradumbass I believe you've been eagerly awaiting the next of these threads.

 

[Roachy8]

Ed Curnow one is far worse that Hawkins one IMO - pushes umpire away in a dismissive fashion - force does not matter for me it's the disrespectful look that it gives - like "don't talk to me buddy".

 

[tugga]

The May one was the worst. No malice, but sheer stupidity to bump an umpire to illustrate a point.
I have a solution. Anyone touching an umpire, deliberate or not, get a mandatory suspension.

 

[Goldust]

Goldust
Thought you'd want to know when one of these was created again

Michaels After listening to half of the podcast this morning, I have a feeling you may want to weigh in.

Cheers prodigy
Sadly - even though world's apart - this has become a bit like the two women (use the word loosely), who just walked free after having their sentence for bashing and injuring two paramedics quashed.
Just as those found guilty will now go down the 'mental incapacity', every AFL player s now going to use the 'I didnt even know the umpires were there' route.
You touch an umpire, however slight, you get a week.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

The May one was the worst. No malice, but sheer stupidity to bump an umpire to illustrate a point.
I have a solution. Anyone touching an umpire, deliberate or not, get a mandatory suspension.

Well...then you just get oppo players bumping into good players forcing them into the umpire...bloody nightmare!
Player scrubbed for GF for bumping an ump....accidentaly on purpose by the oppo team...laughable...

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

Im sure somehow this is RIchmond fault

Not content to simply Kill the game, now we have moved onto the Tribunal

 

[tugga]

Well...then you just get oppo players bumping into good players forcing them into the umpire...bloody nightmare!
Player scrubbed for GF for bumping an ump....accidentaly on purpose by the oppo team...laughable...

Then in that case, the player pushing the other player would be suspended.

 

[Goldust]

Then in that case, the player pushing the other player would be suspended.

EXACTLY ... like how many times in AFL/VFL history have players intentionally bumped another player into an umpire for advantage?
Commonsense is not a strength for some.
Plenty easy to police.

 

[HTT]

I think Charlie should get off. Looks to me as though he didn't think it was an umpire. Didn't do any harm, wasn't exactly disrespecting the umpire. He should be fine.

 

[_Cayz_]

May was fine.

Both Curnows deserve a week. Glad the AFL appealed.

 

[prodigy]

I think Charlie should get off. Looks to me as though he didn't think it was an umpire. Didn't do any harm, wasn't exactly disrespecting the umpire. He should be fine.

I think both might be in trouble. I can see where you are coming from though with Charlie, but when we start adding in different interpretations is when it gets confusing.

P.S. Just noticed what you set your location to on BigFooty - Hillary Step - Best.

 

[Goldust]

May was fine.

Both Curnows deserve a week. Glad the AFL appealed.

Agree.

 

[TigersMan4]

Charlie should cop the fine, ed and may should be suspended
But may is going to china with gold coast, so tin foil hat says its why his wasnt challenged by the tribunal

 

[These 4 Walls]

The communication around the Hawkins one is what muddies the waters.

I think that independently each of the 4 decisions is correct, with Ed being the luckiest of the lot and it entirely depending on the umpires understanding of the conversation.

It is on the main board but it seems that it goes something like

MRO - Accidental contact = Fined(not fine), Non-Accidental contact - Tribunal
Tribunal - Considers guilt, then intent, then penalty.
AFL - Not happy with monetary penalty, all non-accidental should be suspendable.

Unfortunately the issue comes from the media reporting that the AFL & the Tribunal & the MRO are all one and the same. The AFL wanting to push for 2 weeks for Hawkins doesn't actually mean that he would have got 2 weeks if he didn't appeal & the intent difference between Ed & Hawkins is right for a 1 & 2 week push from the AFL respectively. Therefor, Ed had nothing to lose by challenging and found out that the tribunal was open to his pleas and no sinister intent.

When it gets simplified to "Touching umpire = bad" is when it becomes super murky. What about shaking their hand? What if they fall and you help them up? What about the Gregson still on the MB where I doubt the umpire even know he was touched.

If you touch an umpire, you get assessed by the MRO. If the MRO thinks it was accidental you get a fine.
If they think it was intentional you go to the tribunal & you either plead guilty, contest that it was intentional or present your case on how serious your intentional contact was & the appropriate penalty for the above. A fine is still a penalty.

The AFL is separate to the above.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

should've all got done

I hate the umps but you can't have players touching officials. no need for it. Should be zero tolerance for intentional touching and all of them were intentional even if they weren't necessarily in a heap of anger or whatever. None of them were accidents

 

[sante]

I have no issue with the May one. He brushed against him while demonstrating something.

The pushing of the umps is not on.

Nostradumbass I believe you've been eagerly awaiting the next of these threads.

Agree with this. Nostradumbass has been waiting for a long time.


But seriously, you’re right, May shouldn’t have even been asked to go to the tribubnal.

Ed Curnow should get one week. Charlie 2.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Then in that case, the player pushing the other player would be suspended.

Oh yes...the old boy's whinge coming on board with the pathetic lame...how many times in the past...who cares what players did in the past!
Players are smarter now...the games's faster now...accidents do happen on the field and will happen again...two players wrestling bump a third...
Lots of scenarios can happen...and probably will...
Sometimes it's not clear cut...black and white...but a suspension for umpire touching is extreme...

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

There are certain fundamental truths that the entire cosmos hinged upon. Laws of the universe with which all reality as we know it would collapse without. How forces interact with each other, how chemical reactions occur, Joel Selwood always having the most free kicks received in any given season.


In all my years of watching the MRP lotto I always held fast to the knowledge that there was one rule they couldn’t balls up. The rule is simple, you cannot touch an umpire. I felt validated in my belief last week, Hawkins regardless of his arguments of ignorance or lack of force, touched an umpire and thus was given a week. Justice served and precedence set. Lay your hand upon one of the AFL’s sacred cows and you were in the gun for a week.


But now, now I do not know what to believe. The entire framework of my belief has come crashing down upon me. For apparently there’s now a grey area for something that once seemed so black and white. The evils of Intent, Agressiveness, and force have some how managed to weasel their way into this discussion.


Its simple really, if you touch an umpire you get a week, and only an organisation as moronic as the AFL could stuff it up so royally.

 

[captain blood 17]

The AFL and brand protection. It’s sickening how corrupt this league is. Geelong should rightfully be furious.
Reality is Carlton couldn’t afford to lose those two players so the AFL stepped in to ensure Carlton could put up more of a credible effort.
The GC player got off as they are representing the brand in China and they wanted the best teams available. It’s bullshit.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Nothing wrong with what any of what the four players did. The only issue the is the muppets responsible for handing out the penalties. Hawkins shouldn't have got a week and umpires should be allowed to be touched on the basis that it is not an aggressive action, which it is pretty clear to see what is aggressive and what isn't. They're grown men for *s sake and idea that they can't handle any form of physical contact in nonsense.