MRO Thread

[Happy Days]

Reading the updates - I reckon we've stuffed this up

"It has been accepted that there was a classifiable offence to the head, and carelessness."

And even better;

"Brennan admitted to pinning Cordner at the elbow, which isn't the same as pinning down by the sides of the body but he says it's pinning nonetheless."

Really should have attacked the perspective that this warranted any sanction, rather than trying to be Cool Hand Luke and working within the system.

[Testekill]

Was always going to miss once Gil came out backing Christian's decision.

[Happy Days]

Megan Hustwaite saying that we didn't refer to the Dees medical report (which reflected no damage) in our evidence...

Where did we find this "advocate" exactly?

[Sedat]

We need to employ Kagiso Rabada's lawyer for future tribunal hearings.

[bornadog]

What an absolute farce the whole thing is. Basically we now have a situation where Brennan has been suspended for two weeks for a rough tackle. Under the mens rules she would have copped a fine.

[bornadog]

Megan Hustwaite saying that we didn't refer to the Dees medical report (which reflected no damage) in our evidence...

Where did we find this "advocate" exactly?

The advocate was pathetic, pleading to the tribunal to allow Katie to play beacuse we don't want a situation like Bob missing a GF.

From Twitter:

A/Prof Kate Seear
‏ @Kate_SeearFollowFollow

@Kate_Seear

A/Prof Kate Seear Retweeted AFL.com.au
As I understand it, Katie Brennan didn't have the option of paying a fine for the 2nd offence b/c fines aren't an available sanction in #AFLW. If that is indeed correct, then the Bulldogs should have argued THAT as "compelling and exceptional circumstances to reduce her penalty.

and

A/Prof Kate Seear
‏ @Kate_Seear 4h4 hours ago

Also, if my understanding is right, then this is a prime eg of how gender differences in AFLW/AFLM have material impacts for women. Did Katie Brennan's advocate argue sex-based discrimination as a "compelling and exceptional circumstance" for reduced penalty? And if not, why not?

If we go to the appeals board, hope we follow the professors advice.

[SonofScray]

Whoever ran this on Katie's behalf is a dead set dud. What I am seeing in the reports is just farcical on our behalf, embarrassing. Our players deserve better.

[Rocket Science]

Jeezus, the 'Bob' angle's a real masterstroke.

[soupman]

Denis Denuto style stuff. What an absolute embarrassment.

We decide to challenge a ruling that put almost every category at the lowest grade, with almost the entire thing arguable as to whether there was sufficient force, intent or impact for it to be worth anything more than a freekick, and our gameplan is to validate that ruling by agreeing with it, then pulling out a farcical argument involving: Claiming that Brennan missing would be bad for the growth of the game (wtf?), then pulling out a completely irrelevant and frankly pathetic point that hadn't we suffered enough because the captain of a different side missed a premiership two years ago (despite that player probably being the player most associated with that premiership and only missing because he was injured, not rubbed out for some careless tackle).

That tribunal would have been itching to let her off:
-seriously she is a poster girl of the competition; good looking, a star and super polished in the media)
-the tackle was a little careless but hardly malicious, and honestly not much worse than about 10 other tackles from the same game
-missing a GF for a reprimand is bullshit

We had so many easy ways to play this case in our favour and instead we presented an argument that boiled down to "the good bloke defence". She never stood a chance with that argument.

What a joke.

[SonofScray]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

[bornadog]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

I am with you SOS. Soon we will be watching touch football. The AFL has basically lost the plot.

Have a look at this for the past 3 Bulldogs suspended:

1. Easton Wood - Love tap as he walked past McGovern - ends up 1 week

2. Redpath - Pushed Davis close to his throat, but it was in the chest - Davis falls like a bag of shit - end result after appeal 2 weeks

3. Katie Brennan - Tackles a player, appeals, 2 weeks when a male footballer would have been fined.

Fair to say we have copped our fair share of unfair penalties.

[Axe Man]

The jury of Jason Johnson, Richard Loveridge and Sharelle McMahon disagreed, however, upholding the charge set by match review officer Michael Christian and adding an extra week because of Brennan's unsuccessful appeal.

Nothing against Sharelle McMahon but why is an ex-netballer sitting on a football tribunal? Would a footballer adjudicate netball matters? I know they need a woman on there, how about a woman from a football background?

[Happy Days]

I can't believe so many people are prepared to even concede the tackle is problematic. It was a well executed skill of game, free of malice and applied fairly. If you hit your head while getting tackled, bad bloody luck. Dodge, weave, evade, dispose of the ball.

That was my biggest issue with the defence - we so readily ceded that it was a dangerous offence, which was probably the biggest point of contention.

Now that I've slept on it, bringing up Bob Murphy as our trump card argument is probably the most embarrassing thing I've ever heard us do.

[Happy Days]

I've long suspected that barristers kind of take the piss out of footy-related briefs and view it as an easy payday - they get paid their usual rate to navigate through a pretty simplistic set of rules as compared to what they usually deal with, and dish up an effort to reflect that.

This pretty much confirms it.

[bornadog]

I've long suspected that barristers kind of take the piss out of footy-related briefs and view it as an easy payday - they get paid their usual rate to navigate through a pretty simplistic set of rules as compared to what they usually deal with, and dish up an effort to reflect that.

This pretty much confirms it.

WE needed some of these law experts to represent us:

Liam Elphick‏ @LiamElphick_

@LiamElphick_

The legal reality under AFL Tribunal rules is that if Katie Brennan was a male player, she would have been given a $5,000 fine for this offence and be cleared to play in the Grand Final. This isn’t right, and it isn’t fair #AFLW #sportslaw