Everitt charged

[Swansinger]

I'm no great fan of Spider.
But I hope he gets off at the tribunal.

The AFL emphasises the need for players to be careful.
I think , especially at a ruck contest , they should also place emphasis on the umpire to get out of the way.
And would the umpires get this much sympathy , if they did not look in such dire need of a square meal and six months weight training?

[penga]

i would like to see the incident, i reckon if the player has eyes for the ball and runs into the umpire, it should be the umpires fault... in fact everything is the umpire's fault... i dont know why they have the rule at all... :D

[Skells]

I haven't seen this incident but I think that this rule is a joke when the player is trying to get to the ball. If the umpire is too slow to get out of the way a player can be rubbed out for a number of weeks. Fair enough if the player doesn't have his eyes on the ball (Ala Greg Williams in 96 I think) but otherwise the umpire should take responsability to a certain extent.

[NMWBloods]

I saw the incident and it sparked a lot of discussion by the commentators. As they said, he definitely appeared to have eyes only for the ball, however he did take a few steps before hitting the umpire and he may have come in at a strange angle. Hawthorn are arguing the umpire moved too slowly.

The key thing will be how the tribunal interpet contact this year. In past years, there was no excuse - contact was simply not allowed.

[Skells]

The way I look at it, these days the players are focused on the ball once it leaves the umpires hands and are not always aware of who is beside them.

If the umpire gets bumped a little it might make them move a bit quicker next time.
If the player deviates toward the umpire though they should be rubbed out.

I play a non contact sport and sometimes run into the umpires. All that happens is you turn around and appologise and nothing more happens. It seems that in the past the AFL has been too harse in these reports IMO.

The umpires are in the think of it, there is going to be an umpire getting in the way every now and then especially as there is three of them. When the umpire is in the way it could eventually cost a team a win imagine the uproar then. The AFL seems to be a bit more lenient IMO

[tez]

Having a blanket policy on this is unfair to the player
contesting the ball in a fair manner and each case should
be treated individually. Contesting a bounce down with
his eyes focussed on the ball and without intent to make
contact with an umpire should not be penalised by
accidental contact . A Brownlow could be denied to a
good and fair player because of this blanket approach.

Jason Ball was out for a couple of weeks for this and I
consider him to be fair player.

[Skells]

It does seem that the AFL is softening their approach a little after not charging Paul Wheatley from Melbourne but it still has a way to go IMO.

[CureTheSane]

Yep, if the umps can't take the odd bump, I say we need tougher umpires.

The only time this should come up is when the umpire thinks he has been taken out on purpose by a player...

[Skells]

I couldn't agree with you more!

[Cheer Cheer]

Well Spider has just got a week for the incident

[Jimmy C]

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
Well Spider has just got a week for the incident

No Brownlow for him then :D

[Swansinger]

Originally posted by Jimmy C
No Brownlow for him then :D

Well , Hawks say they are planning an appeal.
But , yes , still no Brownlow for him !

[JIM4]

I think spider was a bit stiff considering wheatley wasn't even sited and brad scott was cleared of striking when it was quite clear that he struck peverrill.