Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

[flyboy77]

x2.

Great saying "x2" but we've just seen - very clearly - with the May decision, that the rule is not clear and transparent.

Quite the opposite sadly.

[flyboy77]

There's not..... but it's probably worth the risk to challenge given our ladder position.
Worst case we get to play a couple of other players (maybe Kerr) for a few weeks

If nothing else, it's going to make the AFL look like total dumb ass amateur clowns - which they obviously are (allegedly)...

[Gointocarlton]

Great saying "x2" but we've just seen - very clearly - with the May decision, that the rule is not clear and transparent.

Quite the opposite sadly.

Im suggesting its a fine as opposed to suspension. May was attempting the show the umpire what happened and made contact in doing so. Charlie almost tried to shield the ump from the scuffle. Eds one? Not sure. Still reckons its a fine.

[flyboy77]

Im suggesting its a fine as opposed to suspension. May was attempting the show the umpire what happened and made contact in doing so. Charlie almost tried to shield the ump from the scuffle. Eds one? Not sure. Still reckons its a fine.

A fine is a sensible outcome - but it's not an AFL strong point (being sensible).

I (arguably) know what May (and I agree with you) was trying to do but the impact on the umpire was 20x the impact from either of the Curnow touches....

[Gointocarlton]

A fine is a sensible outcome - but it's not an AFL strong point (being sensible).

I (arguably) know what May (and I agree with you) was trying to do but the impact on the umpire was 20x the impact from either of the Curnow touches....

We are in agreement here, but I think we are splitting hairs. I have watched them all and in all three cases, the umpire is moved back slightly by the contact. Lets see what happens.

[Sexybronco]

We are in agreement here, but I think we are splitting hairs. I have watched them all and in all three cases, the umpire is moved back slightly by the contact. Lets see what happens.

1 week for Ed and a fine for Charlie IMO, unless we can argue that Ed's contact was also careless as opposed to intentional which is the the tipping point.

[Baggers]

This particular crackdown is starting to look a bit silly.

There's probably a dozen instances of umpire contact a round.
Trivial contact shouldn't even be an issue.
Common sense needs to come in to play.
If an umpire feels a line has been crossed report the player...otherwise, play on!

Ah, yes, I remember those days... the AFL tribunal and common sense seem mutually exclusive!

[flyboy77]

1 week for Ed and a fine for Charlie IMO, unless we can argue that Ed's contact was also careless as opposed to intentional which is the the tipping point.

He's clearly looking elsewhere when he makes contact, that should stand for somerthing?

Must nplayers wouldn't expect the umps to be literally so close....?

[Gointocarlton]

He's clearly looking elsewhere when he makes contact, that should stand for somerthing?

Must nplayers wouldn't expect the umps to be literally so close....?

This is definitely an issue. In fact, you see umps actually touching players alot also (which I reckon is also an issue).

[Thryleon]

If Ed or Charlie go then we need to issue a please explain for why the runner didn't get cited for making contact with Plowman last week against Adelaide.  We didn't even get a free kick because he took the mark anyway and it should have been a fifty metre penalty.

This is rubbish.  Issue a fine and move on.