MRO Thread

[Mantis]

We have appealed the decision to suspend KB, hearing to be held tomorrow.

[bornadog]

We have appealed the decision to suspend KB, hearing to be held tomorrow.

Let's hope we don't stuff up this time.

[Axe Man]

Hopefully with Peter Gordon, his son and Rob Stary around the club we can mount a better case this time.

Dogs to appeal Tribunal's Brennan decision

WESTERN Bulldogs captain Katie Brennan is exhausting all options to play in Saturday’s NAB AFL Women's Grand Final, taking her two-match suspension to the AFL Appeals Board.

It is believed the Bulldogs will argue that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.

The bid to clear the star forward will be held on Thursday afternoon, to avoid a clash with the AFL season opener between Richmond and Carlton.

Under AFL regulations, it will cost the Western Bulldogs $5000, with $2500 refundable in the event of a successful appeal.

The initial one-match ban was upgraded to two matches following the failed tribunal appearance on Tuesday night and Brennan stands to also miss round one 2019 if she is unsuccessful.

Brennan's second offence came in Saturday night's win over Melbourne where she was found to have carelessly driven Demon Harriet Cordner's head into the ground with a dangerous tackle.

She was reprimanded for a dangerous tackle on Fremantle's Stephanie Cain in round one.

Lawyers worked into the early hours of Wednesday morning determining the challenge after Tuesday night's appeal to the AFL Tribunal was thrown out.

[Bulldog Joe]

We had better start using some advocates with a touch more competence.

What we have served up for both Redpath and Brennan is just disgraceful.

[Ozza]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

[bornadog]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

sex-based discrimination is against the law

[Happy Days]

I don't see the point of arguing 'that if Brennan was playing in the men's competition, her two rough conduct charges would result only in a fine.'

Its not the men's competition - there have been different rules set in place for the women's competition at this point in time.

Everyone involved knew the rules, 2 reprimands equals a suspension. The rules may or may not be to everyone or anyones liking - but that's what they have been working with this season. They can't retrospectively change the rules to let KB play in the grand final.

If we are going to argue that the tackle wasn't a sling tackle and didn't warrant a reprimand - then fair enough. But the 'extenuating circumstances' type defence put up so far, sounds pathetic - as was the concession we/KB has made that it was careless and that KB had apologised to the Demons player.

I agree that challenging the tackle is a preferable course of action, but I totally disagree with the argument that the different rules somehow generate an equitable outcome; she's being victimised by an allegedly neutral body because she has the misfortune of being paid less for the same work.

The different set of rules create for a ridiculous disparity in punishment and it should (and can be easily) remedied.

[FrediKanoute]

Who was the last male player to be suspended from playing in a Grand Final as a result of a transgression in a prelim?

[Sedat]

sex-based discrimination is against the law

This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

[bornadog]

This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

Another of the many rules the AFL make up without any foresight or thinking ahead.

The women don't get paid enough to fine them so let's reprimand them, however two repreminds = 1 match suspension. However, they didn't think about the consequences of missing a GF, plus the penalty is too harsh for the crime. Now we have the total farsical situation that a strong tackle has resulted in 2 match suspension.

[Twodogs]

Who was the last male player to be suspended from playing in a Grand Final as a result of a transgression in a prelim?

It was Anthony Rocca and to be fair it was only 15 years ago.

This is true but then so is restraint of trade, thus the draft is also technically against the law. If we win at the tribunal based on this then some fundamental competition rules will need to be ripped up and re-written - I'm not necessarily against this by the way

Other rules apply to the AFl like OH&S so it's not right to say all of society's laws don't apply to football. the restraint of trade issue has always been there but outside of getting a run by a club or individual that is unhappy with a recruiting outcome it's never really been an issue. All the parties realise that the system we have helps provide the most money for everyone.

An Equal Opportunities defense might apply. After all if they can then proving it wasn't followed shouldn't be hard when Cotchin played in the Grand Final. And they have to prove the finding was wrong in law before the appeal can be successful, maybe this is a way they can do that.

[LostDoggy]

As BAD said the situation is a farce, are basketball players on the tribunal? The appeal should be based on the physics of the tackle itself, there was no malice or intent, just a spur of the moment tackle in which the Melbourne player could of protected her fall more. THis is footy everyday of the week, don’t make a mockery of AFLW. Case closed, go and win the GF, sorry for being jerks Katie.

The pay equality argument is worthy too but which clown went the ‘but she’s a star’ argument? That just puts people offside.

Redpath and Wood suspensions last year should really have prepared me for this. What will Ratface Greene get away with this week?
Farcical.

[Twodogs]

I can't believe we went the "let her off, she's a star. Oh look, here's Bob Murphy!"

WTF was Murph supposed to say? "Hey, I'm here twice a day-try the *!*!*!*!ing fish? For Gods sake!

[Axe Man]

Some updates of the proceedings currently underway, some pretty compelling arguments in my view:

KATIE Brennan's AFL Appeals Board hearing has begun at Etihad Stadium without the forward in attendance.
The star Bulldog was not required to attend today's hearing, where a team of seven - including Dogs president Peter Gordon - is attempting to have her rough conduct charge overturned.
Brennan will miss the Grand Final if they fail.

The Bulldogs are arguing that the suspension was "manifestly excessive or inadequate", and say that differences between the AFL and AFLW are key in this case. A male player would be fined, while Brennan has been suspended.

"One of our primary submissions is that it’s close to extraordinary that a woman in the women’s league could have a penalty of suspension when an equivalent in the mens’ league does not amount to a suspension," Jack Rush QC has told the Appeals Board.

"Opportunities (for female players) to obtain and compete and get exposure…are more limited than male players. The women are played less and exposed to being suspended more for comparable transgressions to their male counterparts. "

The Dogs are appealing on all four elements: error of law, penalty manifestly excessive, classification of offence and failure of the tribunal to act reasonably in the circumstances.

RUSH: " Cordner had the time to be able to protect herself in that tackle had she chosen to do so. The circumstances were it was a close game … the free kick became a vital consideration for her. There is increased momentum from Cordner … she pivoted away from the goals in the tackle and her decision to handball are fundamental elements (to what should be considered)."

He says Brennan has met the test of "reasonable".

He's now referencing a High Court decision as precedent. In the case, the judge references that it "required a more elaborate enquiry .. .looking forward to see what a reasonable person would have done, not looking back ... what would a reasonable person have done?"

Rush says the benefit of hindsight must not be employed. He says what Brennan did was "exactly what one might have expected" from a prudent player.

"She laid a tackle in accordance with her training and that Cordner .. .would land to protect herself. Over the course of a split second, players cannot be expected to allow for every contingency arising from their opponent's decisions." (That's the error of law argument) He says there is nothing in the tackle that was careless. "There was nothing inherently unreasonable in her tackle."

Bulldogs are using precedent of a Jack Redden decision - careless, low impact, high. It's playing now.

It was Redden's tackle on Josh Kelly from last year. He was fined. Dogs' legal team says the duration of the tackle meted out by Redden is considerably longer than Brennan's. Say it's clear that Kelly was completely deprived of any opportunity to dispose of the ball, and that one arm was entirely restricted and pinned - the arm on the side of the pivot, and that the pivot was driven by Redden.

Dogs have shown another example from the men's comp featuring former Bomber Ben Howlett.Rush now says the AFL Tribunal did not have to apply the two-week sanction. Said there was nothing to restrict mitigating or exceptional and compelling circumstances being applied on Tuesday night. Says there definitely are those circumstances in this case. "It's not appropriate just to say 'the rules are the rules'." Also says the tribunal was not properly told how to apply the situation."For a male player, a fine of $2000 for an early guilty plea...second, $3000 for an early guilty plea. A third chance ... $5000 for an early guilty plea. Those are dealt with in completely different ways. The woman is suspended for 1/7th of the season. The male player is fined."He says the two-match ban is proportionate to a six-match ban in the men's, and that this is the ultimate example of exceptional and compelling circumstances and that the tribunal did not take these matters properly into account.

The Dogs say the ban is "unfair and discriminatory."

Rush says there will also be commercial consequences for Brennan by not playing. "The problem with any one size fits all solution, there are inevitably going to be situations where one size does not fit all."

Says there has been injustice.

Dogs say the circumstances "cry out" for another penalty to be applied in place of the two-match ban. We're now moving onto the errors of law the Dogs claim happened on Tuesday night. "Discrimination on the basis of a person's gender .. .which involves direct discrimination under the Sexual Discrimination Act."

The AFL treats male and female footballers differently on the basis of their gender, Rush says. "It is a fundamental breach in relation to the sexual discrimination act."

They're now citing the Respect and Responsibility Policy that the AFL introduced in August 2017.

Rush says that the discrinination is "manifestly obvious" and he can't believe it wasn't raised on Tuesday night. Says the recognition "couldn't be clearer" of what is now being considered. "This sort of discrimination - through the powers of this board - is (eradicated) by the imposition of another penalty".

Dogs say it's unlawful for a qualifying body to discriminate ... against female players on the basis of their gender. Says there is discrimination in employment which is prohibited by the Act, that players have been discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment.

Also referencing the Equal Opportunity Act, and says discrimination is the very basis of the way Brennan has been dealt with. Says it is a direct "outcome which is less favourable than that handed to a male player in equivalent circumstances".

[bornadog]

Western Bulldogs are arguing there has been a breach of federal sexual discrimination laws with Katie Brennan's appeal.