TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:

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?

If you are talking about the Higgins one from earlier in the season where the Hawk player got off the answer is an emphatic NO.... I've missed a lot of footy over the past 2 months being overseas so hard to comment on others. I hate seeing players get rubbed out for incidents where players make mistakes of execution trying to play the game ie non deliberate indiscretions. I agree contact to the head needs to be umpired out of the game, ie free kicks given every day of the week but feel if a matter of poor execution rather than deliberate dirty action players shouldn't be crucified for genuine accidents in the field of play. The Higgins one the Hawks player bumped deliberately and should have been suspended for breaking a bloke's jaw. No excuses there, they got it wrong.

I think we are far removed from the days when coaches and players hatch plans to deliberately injure their opponents.....intention should always be at the forefront of any decision to suspend....and as for physically threatening umpires we should not confuse a tap on the bum or shoulder as anything more than what it is, a quite natural way for one human to grab another's humans attention. If the umpire felt threatened in any way it should have been an immediate free kick. Clearly this was not the case and I'm glad to see the tribunal act rationally with the Dusty incident. He meant no harm whatsoever to the ump...case closed in my books move on

mikeh wrote:

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.

My thoughts are the Hawkins incident was not so much in discussion with the ump but a reflex action of Tom's where he pushed him away...albeit without a lot of force...should have been a big fine in my books, a silly action from Hawkins, still far from a physical threat albeit closer to crossing the line than the Dusty contact which to me appeared to be a discussion about rule interpretation. Inconsistency for sure by the tribunal which has always been an issue. Still I'd much rather see them start to get it right immediately with the next adjudication rather than continue to suspend players for incidents that equate to pretty much nothing when you consider what damage was done. The ump shut Dusty down in the moment which was the perfect response. Only correct decisions will lead to consistency by the tribunal and in this case they got it right in my books, understanding the Hawkins incident had a slightly different tone to it.