TOPIC:

Number 3 I reckon AM. Deliberate and not incidental contact with an umpire = 1 week according to the man who sentenced Tom Hawkins to that amount. Somehow the same man delivers a reprimand to Martin for deliberate contact with an umpire. Michael Christian has now lost all credibility and should be sacked.

Well done Dusty you prick. All other offenders sent straight to tribunal.
However you went & saw daddy so your'e sweet.
BUT that's TWO fines now so is next fine a automatic suspension..
Very unChristian like..

mikeh wrote: Number 3 I reckon AM. Deliberate and not incidental contact with an umpire = 1 week according to the man who sentenced Tom Hawkins to that amount. Somehow the same man delivers a reprimand to Martin for deliberate contact with an umpire. Michael Christian has now lost all credibility and should be sacked.

Sorry mikeh but you are several weeks too late in recognising that he has lost all credibility. When he chose to let players off who have knocked out players when bumping. This was exacerbated when he gave Fyfe a week for high contest when the player was able to continue. Does anyone really think that if Ballantyne did the same that he would have received the same sanction as Martin?

Untouchable because they couldn’t hack the thought of another potential Brownlow winner being suspended.

swan42 wrote:

mikeh wrote: Number 3 I reckon AM. Deliberate and not incidental contact with an umpire = 1 week according to the man who sentenced Tom Hawkins to that amount. Somehow the same man delivers a reprimand to Martin for deliberate contact with an umpire. Michael Christian has now lost all credibility and should be sacked.

Sorry mikeh but you are several weeks too late in recognising that he has lost all credibility. When he chose to let players off who have knocked out players when bumping. This was exacerbated when he gave Fyfe a week for high contest when the player was able to continue. Does anyone really think that if Ballantyne did the same that he would have received the same sanction as Martin?

You’re right, your two favourite players of your favourite club certainly wouldn’t have received the The leniency that dusty did.

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

mikeh wrote: Number 3 I reckon AM. Deliberate and not incidental contact with an umpire = 1 week according to the man who sentenced Tom Hawkins to that amount. Somehow the same man delivers a reprimand to Martin for deliberate contact with an umpire. Michael Christian has now lost all credibility and should be sacked.

Sorry mikeh but you are several weeks too late in recognising that he has lost all credibility. When he chose to let players off who have knocked out players when bumping. This was exacerbated when he gave Fyfe a week for high contest when the player was able to continue. Does anyone really think that if Ballantyne did the same that he would have received the same sanction as Martin?

You’re right, your two favourite players of your favourite club certainly wouldn’t have received the The leniency that dusty did.

58s there have been many ridiculous comments posted on this site but for you to assert that Fremantle Dockers is my favourite club is without peer. One can only hope that it wasn't written Kubla Khan ST Coleridge style. It is so patently ridiculous and is as accurate as saying that Bazza is politically left of me and that you are a 100% Freo Dockers supporter. It is as accurate as saying that I have the highest opinion of John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison.

mikeh wrote: Number 3 I reckon AM. Deliberate and not incidental contact with an umpire = 1 week according to the man who sentenced Tom Hawkins to that amount. Somehow the same man delivers a reprimand to Martin for deliberate contact with an umpire. Michael Christian has now lost all credibility and should be sacked.

Mike you may have been away at the time but that buffoon Christian should have been sacked after the absolutely ridiculous suspension on Naitanui for a tackle he won a free kick for....if at all possible Christian has even out done himself almost every week after since with either ridiculous suspensions for minuscule misdemeanours and or not suspending players for what seemed logical penalties.
What a mess the afl house is with all of those that currently work there and also in the recent past.

I'm not with you lot on this one. Nice to see common sense prevail for once within the AFL system. Umpire was never physically threatened in any way shape or form. Dusty was just doing him a solid by explaining the rules of the game. Pity common sense wasn't applied on previous occasions to provide some consistently to where the mark should have been set previously. Totally for treating umps with utmost respect and allowing them to do their job but we need to be careful re inconsequential contact such as this one. I'd rather blokes like Christian start making the right decisions in the spirit of the game than continue to make poor ones. We must protect umpires but we also need to employ common sense in doing so. What values do we want our game to represent? Our game is precious but the last thing we need is for it to become too precious to the point we accept pettiness as the new standard.

Dirty Weekender wrote: I'm not with you lot on this one. Nice to see common sense prevail for once within the AFL system. Umpire was never physically threatened in any way shape or form. Dusty was just doing him a solid by explaining the rules of the game. Pity common sense wasn't applied on previous occasions to provide some consistently to where the mark should have been set previously. Totally for treating umps with utmost respect and allowing them to do their job but we need to be careful re inconsequential contact such as this one. I'd rather blokes like Christian start making the right decisions in the spirit of the game than continue to make poor ones. We must protect umpires but we also need to employ common sense in doing so. What values do we want our game to represent? Our game is precious but the last thing we need is for it to become too precious to the point we accept pettiness as the new standard.

DW in the context of previous decisions and the ongoing discussions re the long term consequences of concussion did he get the decisions correct when players were concussed as a DIRECT result of players' bumps?

Dirty Weekender wrote: I'm not with you lot on this one. Nice to see common sense prevail for once within the AFL system. Umpire was never physically threatened in any way shape or form. Dusty was just doing him a solid by explaining the rules of the game. Pity common sense wasn't applied on previous occasions to provide some consistently to where the mark should have been set previously. Totally for treating umps with utmost respect and allowing them to do their job but we need to be careful re inconsequential contact such as this one. I'd rather blokes like Christian start making the right decisions in the spirit of the game than continue to make poor ones. We must protect umpires but we also need to employ common sense in doing so. What values do we want our game to represent? Our game is precious but the last thing we need is for it to become too precious to the point we accept pettiness as the new standard.

DW I agree with your views however this is all beside the point. Christian made his bed when he suspended Hawkins for a week for similar contact with the umpire and has now been seen to be totally inconsistent in his application of this.