Round 3 Discussion / Results

[Hard Justice Stan]

Doing the Grand Final alone is worth five figures.

[Agent Provocateur]

Doing the Grand Final alone is worth five figures.

I'm surprised that more of the so-so players don't go into umpiring...
60K per year got to be better then what they'd earn playing in the lower leagues...

[hardz]

Umps are on base Salary and then they get match payments on top of that and most have jobs Take everyone's favorite ump Micheal Vozzo he is the superintendent out at Eastwood golf club he would be on $80k or more a year

[Rudi]

A light tap on the arm could hardly be considered abuse. I do kind of understand where you and Dan are coming from, but it still just doesn't seem right to have the tribunal make a decision based on potential precedent. In my opinion each case should be judged solely on its individual merit.

Man. Making decisions based on potential precedents is what judiciaries do. Have you ever heard the term 'to make an example of'?

EDIT: Just to clarify on one point, when I said I understand where Dan and Rudi are coming from I wasn't including Rudi's rubbish view about umpires being above the players.

What? That's not my 'rubbish view,' that's the entire point of umpires. They're supposed to be above the players. Like I explained, the word LITERALLY means 'not a peer', meaning in this case 'the higher authority which the players absolutely must respect'. If you don't respect the umpire then you're going to have a lot of problems aren't you? If you can't understand this then you're never really going to be able to understand sport as a concept.

[Agent Provocateur]

Umps are on base Salary and then they get match payments on top of that and most have jobs Take everyone's favorite ump Micheal Vozzo he is the superintendent out at Eastwood golf club he would be on $80k or more a year

What they earn outside of football is irrelevant to this discussion

[Strife]

Man. Making decisions based on potential precedents is what judiciaries do. Have you ever heard the term 'to make an example of'?
What? That's not my 'rubbish view,' that's the entire point of umpires. They're supposed to be above the players. Like I explained, the word LITERALLY means 'not a peer', meaning in this case 'the higher authority which the players absolutely must respect'. If you don't respect the umpire then you're going to have a lot of problems aren't you? If you can't understand this then you're never really going to be able to understand sport as a concept.

Well I guess Eddie McGuire is never going to be able to understand sport as a concept either.

Eddie takes his fight to the top | The Australian

[Hard Justice Stan]

That's already pretty well established.

[Rudi]

Well I guess Eddie McGuire is never going to be able to understand sport as a concept either.

Eddie takes his fight to the top | The Australian

Man are you actually using the Collingwood club president as back up here? Of course he's going to argue that his player shouldn't be banned. I wasn't putting this up for debate by the way. It's not my 'view', I was actually defining the role of the adjudicator in AFL to you because you genuinely didn't (and still don't) seem to understand it.

[Strife]

My point was that saying that I'll "never... be able to understand sport as a concept" just because I have a particular view on what is clearly a controversial issue is pretty dumb.

[Rudi]

I was obviously exaggerating but really, the only people who I've seen arguing that Shaw's suspension wasn't justified are people who fundamentally can not understand the role of the umpire in footy. My point is that your view is incorrect. You can't really have an opinion on this as such because it's pretty clearly defined. Also the AFL said early this season that contact with umpire was going to be subject to a crackdown, so it's entirely Heath Shaw's own fault.