AFL to appeal decisions against Curnow brothers

If you think so

What a load of rubbish Kane. If there was a no tolerance these incidents wouldn't happen.

Clear as mud. It’s nothing more than a chook raffle.

All of them should have got off, all it was was incidental. No malice in any of them. What needs to happen is for the umpires to get out of the players space. The players are high on adrenaline and very instinctive during a game of footy, almost twitchy. Umpires should be heard and not seen. If a player pushes an ump in anger then yes, throw the book at him but these little touches here and there, let it go. Let the umpire decide whether it needs to go to the tribunal because after all, they're the one that is on the spot in the now and then because how in the world would the MRO know what the player is thinking or where he's looking?

All of them should of been suspended. If you can get fined for incidental contact with an umpire, when you physically touch an umpire by choice (no matter the force) when it completely and utterly unnecessary you should get suspended.

I'm slightly surprised that Charlie Curnow got off - the behind the goals vision shows him looking straight at the umpire and stepping over towards him to make the contact.

Ed gets 1 week. So to recap, Hawkins slaps an umpires hand away - umpire doesn't think to report him but he gets a week May pretends he is a bull and pushes his head into an umpires chest - umpire doesn't think to report him and he gets off Ed Curnow runs his hand down an umpires chest as he is running away - umpire doesn't think to report him and he gets a week. Charlie Curnow puts his hand on the umpires chest while watching a scrum - umpire doesn't think to report him and he gets off. Everything seems pretty clear!

Appeal verdicts in - Charlie got off, Ed found guilty. Sentence to come

Just following the appeal on the fox footy website, the afl were updating the feed every 5 minutes or so when their QC was speaking, haven't heard a word from them in 25 minutes since the Carlton QC started - the phrase "shaping the narrative" springs to mind.

You know it would be lot easier if they just blanket ruled you come in touch with an umpire outside of the involvement of the game (ie you trying to get to the footy and you accidentally come into contact is exempt) you get a week. The only determination, did you touch the umpire? Yes... Well here's a suspension.

Perry - it is very hard to see May looking directly at the umpire and driving his head into the umpires chest as anything other than an intentional act. Also I hardly call it "pragmatic" to treat 3 very similar rulings in 2 different ways while also having a 4th incident having been pressured into taking a plea - causing mass confusion is almost the exact opposite of pragmatism.

Of all 4 incidents - only one could be suggested as a clumsy accident - and that is May. You could argue that one all you want - however - the other 3 were in no way accidental. It appears a line has been drawn of sorts. And we know the rule is about 'deliberate/intentional' contact with an umpire. The AFL has made a call. It effectively draws a line - - the AFL probably just feel that the Curnow incidents are MORE deliberate and MORE worthy of appeal and MORE likely to be - on balance of evidence - to be overturned. I'd suggest that's why they haven't gone after May. I know a lot of people are trying to push the conspiracy - perhaps there is, perhaps common sense suggests that since he was in flight to China and they'll get smashed anyway and he's the captain - - then, let's defer to the lenient side rather than the hard line rrrr'swhole approach. A little pragmatism perhaps??

I would say that given the umpires evidence that they barely noticed they were being touched and the fact that both Curnow brothers were looking in the opposite direction to the umpire when the touch occurred the tribunal downgraded their intent. As for May I have know idea. I would say that I think the tribunal is fudging a little on the "intentional" part due to the incredibly minor nature of the "touching" but they have been consistent with this interpretation.

Give the boys a week's break so that they can soak in the sun on the Gold Coast.

What is not clear at all is what actually constitutes intentional? How did the tribunal decide May and the Curnow brothers didn't intend to touch the umpires? Ed is the only one who may have a case to say it wasn't intentional but the rest, including Hawkins are dead set intentional.

Equity: A week to Bolton for his uncouth behaviour towards an opposing player in keeping with the runner suspension. Another week each to the Curnows for touching the umpires which will make for consistency. Now..isn't it strange that the AFL´s double standards once again involve a certain club situated on Royal Parade Parkville??? Brings back memories of dirty days gone by for Magpie, Bomber and Tiger,supporters.

The part of the ruck nomination everyone is missing is to do that the actual laws of the game must be changed.

15.5 FREE KICKS – RELATING TO RUCKS Each Team must have no more than one Ruck to contest any bounce, throw up or boundary throw in. A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where the Player: (a) who is not a designated Ruck contests a throw up or boundary throw in; (b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a boundary Umpire; or (c) who is contesting the football as the Ruck at any bounce, throw up or boundary throw in makes contact with the opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand.

Seems like the AFLs left hand, doesnt know what its right hand is doing.

Yeah that had me baffled to Col - the reasoning is apparently to speed up the bounce to stop congestion but they are keeping the "ruckman nomination" that takes all the time and dropping the "coming out this way boys" which takes about 1 second.

Cat, I am not on a witch hunt, just pointing out the inconsistencies within the AFL. IMO Hawkins should have been fined not suspended. There was no malicious intent as there was none in all the recent cases. A few weeks ago 5 players were fined for touching the umpire and all received fines and there was no public outrage. Now that they suspended Hawkins every umpire contact will be heavily scrutinized by the media and the public will be expecting suspensions. I believe suspensions should only be applied if their is clear intent and a degree of force. A heavy fine to Hawkins would have been sufficient for me. Incredulously the AFL have now told umpires that they no longer have to indicate to players the direction they are going after a ball up. This was introduced to limit player/umpire contact and now the onus has been placed on the players to know where the umpires are moving to. I can't wait to see how the AFL will treat the first contact made when an umpire backs into a player.