Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

[cookie2]

He's actually right in what he says though
Free +50 would be sufficient for any of those in my opinion.

Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either,  or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.

[Lods]

Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either,  or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.

I mentioned it earlier on...
One of the major concerns is the message it sends to the kids if players get away with touching umpires.
Now we cant fine kids ....but a free +50 would be a big penalty for them and they'd think twice about doing it.

Naturally, at any level, if there is malice or aggression, throw the book at them.
But there was no malice or aggression in any of those over the last week...a bit of a hissy by Hawkins maybe, but not worth games.

[PaulP]

He's actually right in what he says though
Free +50 would be sufficient for any of those in my opinion.

Not a great fan of the Scotts myself but I don't have a problem with what CS is saying here either,  or your proposal for that matter Lods. IMO the umps should also exercise all care to keep out of the way of players.

Agree with both gents. The Scott boys might be irritating, but they know how to work the system, and I hope Bolts is paying attention.

[cookie2]

I mentioned it earlier on...
One of the major concerns is the message it sends to the kids if players get away with touching umpires.
Now we cant fine kids ....but a free +50 would be a big penalty for them and they'd think twice about doing it.

Naturally, at any level, if there is malice or aggression, throw the book at them.
But there was no malice or aggression in any of those over the last week...a bit of a hissy by Hawkins maybe, but not worth games.

Apologies - missed that Lods. Tbh, I haven't been following this topic that closely on here as I find a lot of the wrangling about the tribunal etc etc as not that interesting, especially the more tiggy-touchwood aspects.

[Lods]

No need to apologise cookie..
Like Paul...I think there has been a massive over-reaction to this whole thing.
With the modern game there is going to be umpire contact.
But there is incidental,non-aggressive contact that should be treated with a minor penalty
A 50+ free is more than adequate and also totally applicable to minor leagues.
Yes..umpires must be protected, and if the acts are aggressive they should attract severe penalties.
But none of the indiscretions of the last two weeks deserve that level of penalty.

[LP]

The fines are right, they must protect umps at lower levels were any "threshold of contact" is not measurable or police-able!

Scott's comments are ignorant of the situations where you can have teenagers or girls umpiring men as part of a suburban or regional match day panel. No level of contact is acceptable, the AFL is the standard bearer!

I have no problem with the AFL fines or bans.

I have a huge problem with Scott, Dangerfield and the AFL media speaking out because their motives are self-indulgent and not pure! They made the issue all about them when in fact there is a much bigger picture!

I'd assert if some lowly Geelong player had come out and made those Dangfield comments the media would have keelhauled them!