MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[TennisPlayerAndy]

So they should.

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[Samsquanch]

Tribunal to furbish video of Toby Bedford and Charlie Cameron's tackles to be used to provide clarity on what is not acceptable around tackling for the rest of the season and to provide examples of when three week suspensions will be issued.

 

[One Eyed Roo]

Surely it is as simple as doing a quick name change before the hearing to get off.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Horizons_00]

Slowly, bit by bit, making AFL touch footy

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

Reasons:

The decision of the Tribunal really revolved around the AFL Tribunal guidelines.

It had particular emphasis on guideline 4.3(E) Rough Conduct and subrule three of that guideline dealt with dangerous tackles and described rough conduct as being unreasonable in the circumstances.

There were four factors which the guidelines recommended the Tribunal to look at.

One of the factors was whether or not the tackled player was left in a vulnerable position, and the second factor taken into account by the Tribunal was whether Cameron had slung, driven or rotated his opponent into the ground with excessive force.

The Tribunal made a finding that the conduct of Cameron was unreasonable in the circumstances.

However, what the Tribunal did not do was deal with the elements of the charge which is set out in the laws of Australian Football. In particular, what the Tribunal did not deal with was Law 18.7, which is entitled ‘Rough Conduct’.

That rule provides as follows, 18.7.1, spirit and intention, players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player which is likely to cause injury.

We accept that the Tribunal below found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, but it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence, that is whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.

Absent that consideration and absent any reference to law 18.7, we consider that the Tribunal below fell into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision.

Unless and until the Tribunal had material upon which it could make a finding that the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury, it could not find that Cameron had committed any offence.

And in a sense, we were assisted by the video, because we of course, read the transcript and looked closely at the video.

It couldn't be said by any member of this board that it leads us to the conclusion the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury.

It would have been a matter that would be open to a Tribunal to make that finding or not. But in this case, made no such finding.

It was not referred to law 18.7 and it made no reference in its reasons to the existence of law 18.7 or the two elements, the two important elements which needed to be established to establish the guilt of Cameron - the charge of rough conduct.

We've dealt in the past with the guidelines; we've said in the past that the guidelines give assistance to the Tribunal below, its chairperson, and the players and the clubs, but reliance wholly solely upon the guidelines was another error that we perceive the Tribunal fell into.
Whether or not it had any material effect, is another question that we don't need to determine in light of the reasons we've given above.

But it's important the laws of Australian football have primacy over the guidelines if there is any contradiction or inconsistency. And here law 18.7 very clearly states, not only must the conduct be unreasonable, but the conduct must be found to be likely to cause injury, and it's that second element that the Tribunal was completely silent upon.

Accordingly, it's not necessary for us to go on and determine the reasonableness ground of appeal, it's not necessary for us to do so, and we don't descend into adjudicating upon that second ground of appeal.

So for the reasons we've given above, the appeal by Cameron is allowed, and the order of the appeal board is that the charge put against Cameron before the Tribunal and on appeal to this appeal board is dismissed.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Reasons:

The decision of the Tribunal really revolved around the AFL Tribunal guidelines.

It had particular emphasis on guideline 4.3(E) Rough Conduct and subrule three of that guideline dealt with dangerous tackles and described rough conduct as being unreasonable in the circumstances.

There were four factors which the guidelines recommended the Tribunal to look at.

One of the factors was whether or not the tackled player was left in a vulnerable position, and the second factor taken into account by the Tribunal was whether Cameron had slung, driven or rotated his opponent into the ground with excessive force.

The Tribunal made a finding that the conduct of Cameron was unreasonable in the circumstances.

However, what the Tribunal did not do was deal with the elements of the charge which is set out in the laws of Australian Football. In particular, what the Tribunal did not deal with was Law 18.7, which is entitled ‘Rough Conduct’.

That rule provides as follows, 18.7.1, spirit and intention, players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player which is likely to cause injury.

We accept that the Tribunal below found the conduct to be unreasonable, which is one element of the offence, but it completely failed to consider the second critical element of the offence, that is whether the conduct was likely to cause injury.

Absent that consideration and absent any reference to law 18.7, we consider that the Tribunal below fell into an error of law that had a material impact on its decision.

Unless and until the Tribunal had material upon which it could make a finding that the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury, it could not find that Cameron had committed any offence.

And in a sense, we were assisted by the video, because we of course, read the transcript and looked closely at the video.

It couldn't be said by any member of this board that it leads us to the conclusion the conduct of Cameron was likely to cause injury.

It would have been a matter that would be open to a Tribunal to make that finding or not. But in this case, made no such finding.

It was not referred to law 18.7 and it made no reference in its reasons to the existence of law 18.7 or the two elements, the two important elements which needed to be established to establish the guilt of Cameron - the charge of rough conduct.

We've dealt in the past with the guidelines; we've said in the past that the guidelines give assistance to the Tribunal below, its chairperson, and the players and the clubs, but reliance wholly solely upon the guidelines was another error that we perceive the Tribunal fell into.
Whether or not it had any material effect, is another question that we don't need to determine in light of the reasons we've given above.

But it's important the laws of Australian football have primacy over the guidelines if there is any contradiction or inconsistency. And here law 18.7 very clearly states, not only must the conduct be unreasonable, but the conduct must be found to be likely to cause injury, and it's that second element that the Tribunal was completely silent upon.

Accordingly, it's not necessary for us to go on and determine the reasonableness ground of appeal, it's not necessary for us to do so, and we don't descend into adjudicating upon that second ground of appeal.

So for the reasons we've given above, the appeal by Cameron is allowed, and the order of the appeal board is that the charge put against Cameron before the Tribunal and on appeal to this appeal board is dismissed.

Hope the Bedford one goes the same way, although there are significant differences, because that tackle was not “likely” to cause injury either.

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[Rod Stroker]

LOL! Giants changed their strategy once they saw Cameron get off on the "likely to cause injury" angle

Comp is ****ed!

 

[Rod Stroker]

The downside is that this will sadly further justify why lawyers are "needed" in tribunal hearings

 

[giantroo]

Reasons:

The matter we raised with council for Bedford at the beginning of his address was the impact of law 18.7 of the laws of Australian Football.

(Law) 18.7.1, 'spirit and intention', reads as follows. "Players should be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition player, which is likely to cause injury."

Now what is plain that follows from the proper construction of that law is that there are two elements to the offence of rough conduct.

First, there's got to be unreasonable conduct, and secondly, the conduct must be likely to cause injury.

We accept that the Tribunal below found unreasonable conduct, however it made no finding about whether or not the conduct of Bedford was likely to cause injury.

There's nothing in the reasons of the Tribunal that indicate any consideration that second element of the offence of rough conduct, nor is there anything in the transcript dealing with the evidence or submissions of counsel.

In our previous case, we upheld the appeal of the player because there was no consideration of the second element, being was the conduct likely to cause injury.

Similarly, in this case, we uphold the appeal on the ground that there was an error of law that had a material impact upon the outcome in the tribunal below. That error of law being a failure to take into account second element of the charge of rough conduct set out in law 18.7.1.

We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.

There's simply not a conduct there that would enable the Appeal Board to somehow substitute its own decision instead of the failure by the Tribunal below to come to its decision accordingly.

For those reasons, the appeal will be allowed and the order of the Appeal Board is that the charge brought against the player Bedford is dismissed.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

And the AFL is made to look like the absolute arse covering clowns that they are.

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

‘Everyone’s confused’: AFL ‘error of law’ appeal explained as footy world baffled

‘What the hell does that mean!?’ Loophole AFL appeal explained as footy world baffled

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Devington]

The baffling part to me is that I would have expected this be redirected back to the tribunal with a note saying they didn't do their job fully, but instead it's just a get out of jail free card.

 

[gokangas]

What an absolute fuggin mess. Laura doing a stellar job.

 

[muttley45]

How much do those clowns on the tribunal get paid ? based on their performance and results should be peanuts, but i sincerely doubt it.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Shouldn't have even needed to go as far as finding a loophole to get off for those tackles.

Should have literally been 1 watch by anyone and then tick the charge off as bullshit.