MRP / Trib. Eric Hipwood to tribunal - Result $2500 fine

Remove this Banner Ad

HTPunter

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 27, 2014
12,017
17,023
AFL Club
North Melbourne

Log in to remove this ad.

I wonder if the AFL will use this to set an example, normally straight to tribunal means 3 weeks.

What if the umpire got injured? Was pretty reckless. Reckon it might be more then 1-2 weeks people are suggesting
 
Brad Scott being an ex Brisbane player is a conflict of interest. But they may also play Geelong in finals so another conflict of interest

Deserves 1 probably 2. No real punishment for Brisbane with the way he is playing
 
My favourite part is Gardner gets up to check on the umpire. Good sport. Shit defender but Hipwood went and kicked a goal.
 
I wonder if the AFL will use this to set an example, normally straight to tribunal means 3 weeks.

What if the umpire got injured? Was pretty reckless. Reckon it might be more then 1-2 weeks people are suggesting

Mate if the tribunal find it was intentional, he's looking at much more than 3. Toby got 6 for something far less.

Intentional or careless is going to be a world of difference here.
 
Umpires fault, get out of the way of the players. There was 50m2 of space for him to be in and he chooses to stand in front of 2 big boys.

Edit: looking at that vision, I can’t see the evidence that showed his eyes during the incident. I reckon he is looking at the ball and does what every player does and shoved his opponent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wonder if the AFL will use this to set an example, normally straight to tribunal means 3 weeks.

What if the umpire got injured? Was pretty reckless. Reckon it might be more then 1-2 weeks people are suggesting
It’s 3+ for regular gradeable actions.
Then, I think, it’s also straight to the tribunal for actions that don’t come under the grading system.
That said, he’s still probably looking at 3+.
 
Umpires fault, get out of the way of the players. There was 50m2 of space for him to be in and he chooses to stand in front of 2 big boys.

Edit: looking at that vision, I can’t see the evidence that showed his eyes during the incident. I reckon he is looking at the ball and does what every player does and shoved his opponent.

Umpire was in the right position for that act of play, 25m away, side on to contest. Umpires shouldn't have to worry about players deliberately pushing another player into them.
 
Umpire was in the right position for that act of play, 25m away, side on to contest. Umpires shouldn't have to worry about players deliberately pushing another player into them.

You know where would be better? 2 metres closer to the ball. Ump had zero awareness and the dogs player wouldn’t have tumbled if that yellow dufus had an idea.
 
If the AFL have been consistent about any rule in the past 20 years its that umpires are sacred.

If the tribunal believes that act was truly intentional he's in a lot more trouble than a game or two.
 
You know where would be better? 2 metres closer to the ball. Ump had zero awareness and the dogs player wouldn’t have tumbled if that yellow dufus had an idea.
I'm seeing a lot of very similar and quite hilarious mental gymnastics being offered by a number of Brisbane fans on this (my brother included).

Genuine Dog act. He'll only get a week at best due to how terribly the laws are written but deserves to be watching most of the rest of the season from the stands
 
Brad Scott being an ex Brisbane player is a conflict of interest. But they may also play Geelong in finals so another conflict of interest
What does this have to do with it? Could also claim as an ex Hawthorn player and North coach he's further conflicted. But I can't see how that changes the decision Michael Christian has made to refer this to the tribunal and let them decide.
 
I'm seeing a lot of very similar and quite hilarious mental gymnastics being offered by a number of Brisbane fans on this (my brother included).

Genuine Dog act. He'll only get a week at best due to how terribly the laws are written but deserves to be watching most of the rest of the season from the stands
Don’t be a fool. The rules clearly say that careless secondary contact is a financial sanction and it won’t even be that since there is no evidence to say he had an intent to impede his opponent with the umpires body. Hipwood isn’t making us a better team at the moment, if he had a case to answer then I wouldn’t be averse to him having a couple weeks off.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Eric Hipwood to tribunal - Result $2500 fine

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top