MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

SPP would get 10-12 weeks base with journos pushing for 14, interviewing crying hysterical mothers, interviewing the front row who were closest, getting juicy soundgrabs about how SPP had "death in his eyes" and "could only see blood", how the crunch brought back shellshock for their grandpa who died on the spot, bringing the AFL brand into disrepute etc
 

Log in to remove this ad.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Didn't think they would go all in. 👏


By going for 8, the AFL is being serious.

Knockout out a bloke where there is some mitigating circumstances, get 4, knock him out when you don't have to, get 8, will definitely set the standard for the rest of the year.

I suspect the panel will go for 6 or 7 unless the St Kilda counsel is hopeless.
 
Any jokes from Zita like he rolled out during SPP's Tribunal appearance last week?

I'm just keeping an eye on the Fox Footy feed, and it's been straight up reporting. No zingers.
 
By going for 8, the AFL is being serious.

Knockout out a bloke where there is some mitigating circumstances, get 4, knock him out when you don't have to, get 8, will definitely set the standard for the rest of the year.

I suspect the panel will go for 6 or 7 unless the St Kilda counsel is hopeless.

Yep. I'm impressed.

But why would the panel knock it down from the AFL demands given the emphasis on their new guidelines to observe community standards and to not be held by precedent?
 
Isn’t that what we call a precedence?

What the tribunal is under no obligation to follow from previous years?

And which the AFL counsel pointed out a few minutes earlier.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top