The Tribunal

[Twodogs]

Re: The Tribunal

Bobby did last year, though he only got a week. The only sense I can make of this SS is that the league believe that the greater majority of head hits are avoidable. My playing days are so long ago that I have no idea if this is a reasonable assumption.

I think also that they are petrified of having another Neil Sasche case, not just for the compensation it might cost, but for the impact on the image of the game. At the moment they just look pretty silly, they don't want to have a life threatenning situation on their hands.

You get no points from me for bringing in a QC, a clasic case of the Wollypuds trying to get and getting special treatment. Next we'll need a High Court Judge on the Appeals panel.

If it weren't something as vitally important as football it would make me laugh.

Collingwood had no choice other than to bring in a QC (Arent they SCs these days?) because of the highly legalistic nature of their appeal. I think the interesting thing about this case is the ex-footballers with no legal experience on the initial panel suspended him but the quasi-legal panel of two QCs and a retired judge took only 5 minutes to overturn.



I think the problem in this situation is Adrian Anderson. He clearly doesnt understand the legal process-and given he is a lawyer that's not a bad effort-but was still given responsibility for setting up the new tribunal system. At one stage last year he said that no precedent applied to tribunal decisions. This despite the fact that the new system was brought in to stop clubs/players appealing to the legal system. Sorry Adrian but you cant pick and choose what bits of due process applies-if you want your system to be bulletproof then it comes with all the bells and whistles.

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

Collingwood had no choice other than to bring in a QC (Arent they SCs these days?) because of the highly legalistic nature of their appeal. I think the interesting thing about this case is the ex-footballers with no legal experience on the initial panel suspended him but the quasi-legal panel of two QCs and a retired judge took only 5 minutes to overturn.



I think the problem in this situation is Adrian Anderson. He clearly doesnt understand the legal process-and given he is a lawyer that's not a bad effort-but was still given responsibility for setting up the new tribunal system. At one stage last year he said that no precedent applied to tribunal decisions. This despite the fact that the new system was brought in to stop clubs/players appealing to the legal system. Sorry Adrian but you cant pick and choose what bits of due process applies-if you want your system to be bulletproof then it comes with all the bells and whistles.

What the football background group did was to understand the intent of the rule, what the legal mob did was to point out that the rule did not say that.

You are being far too kind to the Wollypuds, I'm concerned... have you had a check up lately?

They didn't even think, they don't ever think in such situations, they begin as programmed, with a loud squawk response, while they work out which of the various outrageous grounds they are going to seek dispensation on. And then they practise in front of the mirror looking sincere and stoney faced.

That they had a case was probably a bigger surprise to mr media than to the rest of the football public. The squawk has been replaced with a lot of carolling, it's even reached the depths of Eltham.

Yes, SC has replaced QC but there are still QCs around they don't get converted it's just no new QCs are being created. I have no idea if we are really talking about QCs, SCs or both. I don't think I care.

It says very negative things about their external legal advisors that their work was so quickly consigned to the trash can. The one thing we can be certain of is that no one will be sending AA a please explain about why we are a laughing stock and don't seem to understand our own rules. Perhaps mr media owes them a favour and will help out. Please watch the sunset for signs of flying pigs.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: The Tribunal

I understand that Motlop and Young both got off.

I didn't see the Motlop one but I'm buggered if I can understand how Young got off. Charging at the body while his opponents in the air? Isn't that the exact reason the charging rule was there?

I just don't get it.

Ever.

[always right]

Re: The Tribunal

I only have one part of this head high issue I need clarified.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that you can be reported for head high contact even if you bump the player legitimately but the impact results in a clash of heads (think Gia v Kosi) through the whiplash effect. This seems so ludicrous it may just be right....please feel free to set me straight.

In the Maxwell case I'm still unsure whether he was originally outed for contact to the other player's head with his shoulder or the resultant head clash. Anyone care to explain?

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

I understand that Motlop and Young both got off.

I didn't see the Motlop one but I'm buggered if I can understand how Young got off. Charging at the body while his opponents in the air? Isn't that the exact reason the charging rule was there?

I just don't get it.

Ever.

SS you are correct it doesn't make sense, unless they have legal advice that the rules about head high contact are unenforceable as currently written.

On the other hand it could be a typical AFL flip flop when under pressure.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

I only have one part of this head high issue I need clarified.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that you can be reported for head high contact even if you bump the player legitimately but the impact results in a clash of heads (think Gia v Kosi) through the whiplash effect. This seems so ludicrous it may just be right....please feel free to set me straight.

In the Maxwell case I'm still unsure whether he was originally outed for contact to the other player's head with his shoulder or the resultant head clash. Anyone care to explain?

The wording of the rough conduct rule is

"A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to the opponent's head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conducted shall (my emphasis) be deemed to be negligent."

It’s poorly worded but the intent seems to be that if you make forceful contact to the neck/head when bumping, then the conduct is at least negligent, n such thing as accidental, another way of saying, if you strike the head, you’re gone.

The MRP and the Tribunal penalised him because they deemed his forceful striking of the head to be negligent.

The Appeals Board focused on the words “which in the circumstances is unreasonable” and found that Maxwell’s actions were reasonable because he had no option but to go through with it. They seemed to be saying that because the rules allow bumping within 5 metres of the ball, then to bump is reasonable. They said

"1. The contact made by Maxwell was reasonable and permitted under the laws of the game and the guidelines, and was therefore not negligent contact.

2. The head contact was accidentally caused by reason of that contact. The tribunal jury were not required to answer all of the questions that they ought to have in arriving at their decision and, in particular, whether Maxwell's shepherd was reasonable in the circumstances."

Having found the conduct reasonable, they didn’t have to decide anything further.

The head protection issue is a result of warnings given by medical officers about the increase in head injuries. Once warned, if a serious injury occurs and the AFL hasn’t done something about it, it has little or no defence to a damages claim. It’s clear what the AFL want. The Appeals Board interpretation has thrown a spanner in the works. If the AFL is consistent, and on this issue I believe it will be, then the rule will be reworded to reduce or eliminate discretionary words like “reasonable in the circumstances”.

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

I have always had a problem with the attempted faux legalise that AFL and before them VFL rules are/were couched in.

In fact I have in the past unsuccessfully sought a grant to translate them into common speak, admittedly they hadn't called for tenders when I made the approach.

If it's been good enough for Victorian laws for a fairly long time, why should the AFL hide behind obscure, baffling and outdated language. I'm all for traditions as long as they don't get in the way of advacing the code.

The only reason I can come up with is that it gives them room to manoeuvre.

But have a look at the rules of the world wide game, no such difficulties.

At times when the Doggies aren't playing I've asked why is it so?

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

The wording of the rough conduct rule is

The Appeals Board focused on the words “which in the circumstances is unreasonable” and found that Maxwell’s actions were reasonable because he had no option but to go through with it. They seemed to be saying that because the rules allow bumping within 5 metres of the ball, then to bump is reasonable.

What they are saying is that what you think the words mean and what they mean at law are very different.

Sloppy work by whoever framed the rule.

Why do I have so little faith in those who earn a fortune but produce so little that is productive?

Is it because the AFL administration is one of the few areas of human endeavour where ego is bigger and more important than performance?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: The Tribunal

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

Why are we bothering at all? Everyone in the world should just take up chess.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?
If the the ball player blind sided can be cannoned into and is only protected by a free or 50(not both) then the game is definetly stuffed. Did Young actually correct Davey's spine alignment? No wonder Hawthorn won the GF.
Last year a number of bumps where a player basically stands up straight braces and the ball player should expect a collision was given weeks.

I don't care about what the right rule is or what it isn't, just want some consistency.

[mjp]

Re: The Tribunal

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?
If the the ball player blind sided can be cannoned into and is only protected by a free or 50(not both) then the game is definetly stuffed. Did Young actually correct Davey's spine alignment? No wonder Hawthorn won the GF.
Last year a number of bumps where a player basically stands up straight braces and the ball player should expect a collision was given weeks.

I don't care about what the right rule is or what it isn't, just want some consistency.

Young should have been suspended. I cannot see how that incident has been let go by the AFL.

I think Hawthorn led the league in reports/suspensions last year though ES - not sure that this kind of decision helped them win the grand final.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

If thats the case then how did Clinton Young get off?

He's offered a reprimand and loses his no claim bonus. If he doesn't accept that he gets 1 match and can chance his arm at the Tribunal. The MRP is consistent in Young's case. It's held its nerve following the Maxwell verdict. Sentencing is a different issue. Half the community think judges are too lenient.

Colliding into another player blindsided isn't forbidden by the rules. With no offside rule, a player has to expect contact from any angle. Bump, shepherd, shirt-front are words used to describe an attack by one player with eyes on the player on another with eyes on the ball. Those words sanitise what is an unfair action. It's not a feature of the game that I admire but the rules permit it.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

Young should have been suspended. I cannot see how that incident has been let go by the AFL.

I think Hawthorn led the league in reports/suspensions last year though ES - not sure that this kind of decision helped them win the grand final.

Thats how they played in the GF. Young has learnt quickly that this type of play wins premeirships cos there were no suspensions after the GF.

[LostDoggy]

Re: The Tribunal

He's offered a reprimand and loses his no claim bonus. If he doesn't accept that he gets 1 match and can chance his arm at the Tribunal. The MRP is consistent in Young's case. It's held its nerve following the Maxwell verdict. Sentencing is a different issue. Half the community think judges are too lenient.

Thats not true, the MRP is just as bad. Who had cases to answer after 2008 GF? I thought they were going hard on GF misdemeanours?
If sentencing is a lenient then how did Maxwell get 4 originally? They are all over the shop there too.

Colliding into another player blindsided isn't forbidden by the rules. With no offside rule, a player has to expect contact from any angle. Bump, shepherd, shirt-front are words used to describe an attack by one player with eyes on the player on another with eyes on the ball. Those words sanitise what is an unfair action. It's not a feature of the game that I admire but the rules permit it.

Satinise the game? Since when have you been able to cannon into someone back? Its almost always been forbidden by the push in the back rule. They was no realistic attempt to play the ball and a better attempt at trying to injury someone.
I'm not sure what incident you are talking about but if you only get a reprimand for the Young/Davey type incident then its time to recruit the 70s type snipers.

[alwaysadog]

Re: The Tribunal

So the AFL are concerned that a player might get injured and they will get sued?

Why are we bothering at all? Everyone in the world should just take up chess.

No SS you are going a bit far. It's not the possibility of any injury. I'm sure some has tweaked a muscle moving chess pieces.

They are concerned IMHO about the likely public reaction and subsequent costs if a player received a very serious head injury.

On the other hand I'm not sure they are any longer given the recent shenanigans.