Greene's One Week - Mabo, the Vibe, Justice

[foreigner]

Appealing it is just gonna distract them even more.

Yup, let them fly their entire team in to give evidence, better still let's have the hearing on Saturday just before the game

 

[foreigner]

Life ban?

You reckon blinding someone does not deserve a life ban and a jail sentence?

 

[Queenie Hearts]

The Appeal goes to the Appeals Board but they must meet the grounds for an appeal. These are:
(a) an error of law;
(b) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made the decision based upon the evidence; or
(c) the sanction was either overly excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The AFL Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and the standard of proof is only to the “comfortable satisfaction” of the majority of the Tribunal including the chairman so it is hard to see how this appeal could succeed.

The appellant cannot bring in fresh evidence unless it was not available to them at the time of the hearing.

Provided Toby’s arguments were heard, which they were, there is no grounds for appeal, especially when the Tribunal has to decide based upon comfortable satisfaction. The sanction meets a formula (intentional, high contact and low impact) equating to one week so is not overly excessive.

A monumental waste of time and money and a massive distraction for GWS coming into a crucial game.

GWS need to take a leaf out of Geelong’s book, stop encouraging the behaviour and take a longer term view of the player’s welfare to teach him this is not okay. The footage where his fingers rake over the eyes is shocking and is sufficient evidence of the charge.

The burden was on GWS to prove that the finding of unreasonable and unnecessary contact in the region of the eyes should not be upheld. This is not likely given where his fingers are in the footage.

The last week’s charge was the wrong charge and going straight to the Tribunal with a guilty plea and apology meant that no evidence was heard by the Tribunal. If it had been a finding of the MRO on this charge , it would have played out differently.

One does not impact the other.

The way the law in this context works is to allow an inconsistent result one week to the next. If you don’t bring the right charge, you get the wrong result.

This week they rectified the approach.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

re the Tribunal.................... some things / Clubs never change .............

View attachment 748008

Remember the John Elliott line from 2009 'We'd pay the sheilas off and wouldn't hear another word' defending a cover up of four lots of rape allegations against Carlton players?!

 

[Aishole]

Its interesting. The first video I saw shown on the Sunday Footy show was a slow mo of a different angle and Green clearly seemed to lean into the pack and give Neale a jab to the chin/nose with his right arm.

That footage that has been thrown around with the eyes thingo clearly shows his other hand scratching at his eyes.

Was the first footage wrong or has Green scratched Neales eyes and gave him an uppercut too?

Because, to me, he used both hands on the face of Neale. Whys everyone just focusing on the one thing.

 

[Kirby]

You reckon blinding someone does not deserve a life ban and a jail sentence?

Yeah if he seriously gouged an eye and blinded someone.

 

[TKiL]

Remember the John Elliott line from 2009 'We'd pay the sheilas off and wouldn't hear another word' defending a cover up of four lots of rape allegations against Carlton players?!

I remember those exact words - John Dorman Elliott mmmm - not the nicest person going around

 

[jathanas]

If Greene did something moronic enough to cause someone lasting damage, could the AFL be liable if it can be demonstrated that they did not do enough to protect other players from him?

As much as they want to sell finals tickets, there's a bigger issue here. We don't want our kids playing a sport that doesn't protect the face/eyes.

I accept that others have a different view of this, but at the same time I'm struggling to see how one could dismiss the seriousness of Greene's actions and how unsportsmanlike they are. Do you want to follow a sport that allows eye gouging?

He should have been rubbed out last week, a fine was insufficient.

 

[Anzacday]

Hadn't heard the news - suspension upheld.
Must say that's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Yeah if he seriously gouged an eye and blinded someone.

For a full blinding, I think an appropriate punishment would be to surgically remove his eyes from their sockets. An eye for an eye etc.

 

[domus]

Remember the John Elliott line from 2009 'We'd pay the sheilas off and wouldn't hear another word' defending a cover up of four lots of rape allegations against Carlton players?!

I can't imagine anyone who was r*ped accepting money in place of justice.

 

[CFC2010]

Why jump in a thread and tell everyone how pathetic they are for discussing a relevant topic to this weekends game? That's the definition of sad IMO

I am sad because our team has made a Prelim and I would like to make it about us this week.

Enjoy your circle jerk and negativity with your cohorts.

Nothing but whingers.

 

[CFC2010]

No one is Forcing you or Other to read this Thread.

Nothing against you CFC2010 but just saying what I thought of that Post

No offence taken from you Dave.....ever.

I think I will be taking your advice.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

The Appeal goes to the Appeals Board but they must meet the grounds for an appeal. These are:
(a) an error of law;
(b) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made the decision based upon the evidence; or
(c) the sanction was either overly excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The AFL Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and the standard of proof is only to the “comfortable satisfaction” of the majority of the Tribunal including the chairman so it is hard to see how this appeal could succeed.

The appellant cannot bring in fresh evidence unless it was not available to them at the time of the hearing.

Provided Toby’s arguments were heard, which they were, there is no grounds for appeal, especially when the Tribunal has to decide based upon comfortable satisfaction. The sanction meets a formula (intentional, high contact and low impact) equating to one week so is not overly excessive.

A monumental waste of time and money and a massive distraction for GWS coming into a crucial game.

GWS need to take a leaf out of Geelong’s book, stop encouraging the behaviour and take a longer term view of the player’s welfare to teach him this is not okay. The footage where his fingers rake over the eyes is shocking and is sufficient evidence of the charge.

The burden was on GWS to prove that the finding of unreasonable and unnecessary contact in the region of the eyes should not be upheld. This is not likely given where his fingers are in the footage.

The last week’s charge was the wrong charge and going straight to the Tribunal with a guilty plea and apology meant that no evidence was heard by the Tribunal. If it had been a finding of the MRO on this charge , it would have played out differently.

One does not impact the other.

The way the law in this context works is to allow an inconsistent result one week to the next. If you don’t bring the right charge, you get the wrong result.

This week they rectified the approach.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Could they discuss perception of bias as an error of law, given two Tribunal members were ex-Pies?

 

[Sea fog]

Could they discuss perception of bias as an error of law, given two Tribunal members were ex-Pies?

You would think they would lose points here for questioning the integrity of the AFL. Williams played the second part of his career at Sydney, Wakes was also a Saint for part of his.

 

[NeverWobble]

The Appeal goes to the Appeals Board but they must meet the grounds for an appeal. These are:
(a) an error of law;
(b) the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made the decision based upon the evidence; or
(c) the sanction was either overly excessive or manifestly inadequate.

The AFL Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and the standard of proof is only to the “comfortable satisfaction” of the majority of the Tribunal including the chairman so it is hard to see how this appeal could succeed.

The appellant cannot bring in fresh evidence unless it was not available to them at the time of the hearing.

Provided Toby’s arguments were heard, which they were, there is no grounds for appeal, especially when the Tribunal has to decide based upon comfortable satisfaction. The sanction meets a formula (intentional, high contact and low impact) equating to one week so is not overly excessive.

A monumental waste of time and money and a massive distraction for GWS coming into a crucial game.

GWS need to take a leaf out of Geelong’s book, stop encouraging the behaviour and take a longer term view of the player’s welfare to teach him this is not okay. The footage where his fingers rake over the eyes is shocking and is sufficient evidence of the charge.

The burden was on GWS to prove that the finding of unreasonable and unnecessary contact in the region of the eyes should not be upheld. This is not likely given where his fingers are in the footage.

The last week’s charge was the wrong charge and going straight to the Tribunal with a guilty plea and apology meant that no evidence was heard by the Tribunal. If it had been a finding of the MRO on this charge , it would have played out differently.

One does not impact the other.

The way the law in this context works is to allow an inconsistent result one week to the next. If you don’t bring the right charge, you get the wrong result.

This week they rectified the approach.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Brilliant explanation.

 

[foreigner]

I am sad because our team has made a Prelim and I would like to make it about us this week.

Enjoy your circle jerk and negativity with your cohorts.

Nothing but whingers.

I think we've done all possible combinations of Reid, Varcoe, Aish, Scharenburg over the last 1.5 weeks already. This will be the main news over the next 3 days, so better get used to it.

 

[ColinMochrie]

I wouldn’t want to stop the circle jerk you are involved in atm mate.......enjoy.

We’re in a Prelim and this is the number one thread.......that’s f kn sad IMO.

I mean we have had 2 weeks of nothing, how long can we expect to debate whether Reid or Varcoe comes in? The pre match thread will pick up again when the team is announced. Until then this is the main story that has anything to do with our final.

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

You would think they would lose points here for questioning the integrity of the AFL. Williams played the second part of his career at Sydney, Wakes was also a Saint for part of his.

Twitter user named Chris Kaias who is a self-described lawyer, has an interesting thread where one of the Tribunal members (not sure who) was in the rooms after the QF win on Roaming Brian saying how he hoped Pies would go one better this year.

 

[Chameleon75]

I can't imagine anyone who was r*ped accepting money in place of justice.

what if it was the moran’s that were handing over the money?

 

[grayza2018]

Let the appeal circus roll on, if he gets off he's spent a lot mentally before the game even comes around.

I do side with the ones saying he is unlucky though

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

 

[Chameleon75]

I like Chris, he was on bigfooty a while back, but I do think he has his carlton hat on with that comment.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Does anyone think that if North were playing a final this weekend that Schimma would've said anything different? If we banned everyone who supports a club (or has a history) from holding an "independent" judgement position then there wouldn't be many people to choose from.

 

[josewales]

Amazing how this Greene thing is now turning into a Collingwood conspiracy