Hawks appeal hearing 5:30pm Thursday - APPEAL DISMISSED

[Changa10]

This is the bit that gets me:

"In closing, appeals board chairman Peter O'Callaghan said he and his fellow members were in support of Tuesday night's tribunal jury which comprised "three distinguished and experienced members".

He had also highlighted that the case was not a re-hearing and that the appeals board did not have the jurisdiction to overrule Tuesday night's findings."

So, why exactly did we take this to the Appeals Board then??

 

[Big Ronnie]

Billy Fat Guts hate of the Hawks is very evidant once again in his trying to blow this topic away.

we realy hurt the fat tarts feelings last september (and in 89) didn't we?

 

[grizzlym]

This is the bit that gets me:

"In closing, appeals board chairman Peter O'Callaghan said he and his fellow members were in support of Tuesday night's tribunal jury which comprised "three distinguished and experienced members".

He had also highlighted that the case was not a re-hearing and that the appeals board did not have the jurisdiction to overrule Tuesday night's findings."

So, why exactly did we take this to the Appeals Board then??

My theory is that it gave the AFL a chance to back down rather than going to court and losing. Some of the legal opinions being posted here opined that in a 'real' court it would be thrown out.

It will be very interesting.

 

[Gilbert_Hodge]

Billy Fat Guts hate of the Hawks is very evidant once again in his trying to blow this topic away.

we realy hurt the fat tarts feelings last september (and in 89) didn't we?

Reminded me of a time on the Sunday Footy Show after we played West Coast. Buddy kicked 4 and had a solid game, yet Bill told Buddy to get on his bike. Complained that the majority of the goals he kicked were from running plays rather than marks, even though Buddy run the legs off his opponent. I lost respect for Billy when he said that.

 

[Saigan]

Ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the bump, its all about one player. If this had been one of your fringe players it would have come and gone with little fanfare. Its all about your star player. That’s it. And that’s why the impending court action (if its true) will fail

 

[thommus]

What was Sam going on about a free kick and 50 meter penalty? Must be referring to Buddy being held down as that Rance dog hit him with a cheap shot. In a way, that incident angers me more than Buddy copping weeks for his bump

 

[MinerBoy]

Ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the bump, its all about one player. If this had been one of your fringe players it would have come and gone with little fanfare. Its all about your star player. That’s it. And that’s why the impending court action (if its true) will fail

Still about arse hat?

 

[Changa10]

Grizzly,

I hear what your saying mate.

My point is though, if the Appeals Board don't have the Jurisdiction to override decisions made at the Tribunal, then why do we have an Appeals Board at all?

And why the hell would an educated QC come out with that comment at the Appeals Board. Ridiculous!!

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

This is the bit that gets me:

"In closing, appeals board chairman Peter O'Callaghan said he and his fellow members were in support of Tuesday night's tribunal jury which comprised "three distinguished and experienced members".

He had also highlighted that the case was not a re-hearing and that the appeals board did not have the jurisdiction to overrule Tuesday night's findings."

So, why exactly did we take this to the Appeals Board then??

And can we get the fifteen grand back if there was no real purpose to it?

 

[thommus]

Supreme Court Injunction!! YESSSS!!!!

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

Not a Jeff Kennett fan usually, but his comment quoted on the TFS was great

 

[thommus]

Can anyone inform me on what specific point of law we could take the AFL to court on?

 

[Gilbert_Hodge]

Not a Jeff Kennett fan usually, but his comment quoted on the TFS was great

Agreed and agreed! Was fantastic.

 

[Saigan]

What was Sam going on about a free kick and 50 meter penalty? Must be referring to Buddy being held down as that Rance dog hit him with a cheap shot. In a way, that incident angers me more than Buddy copping weeks for his bump

No, he said Buddy gave away a free and 50 for the hit on Cuz. Strange, he just admitted he done wrong, but was adamant Buddy didnt do anything wrong

 

[grizzlym]

Grizzly,

I hear what your saying mate.

My point is though, if the Appeals Board don't have the Jurisdiction to override decisions made at the Tribunal, then why do we have an Appeals Board at all?

And why the hell would an educated QC come out with that comment at the Appeals Board. Ridiculous!!

And I hear you.

It's stupid. I honestly don't know the machinations, but I think they can overturn if they find an error in how the rule was applied or if a loophole is discovered i.e. the Maxwell decision. But they don't have the power to change a rule.

But I might be wrong.

 

[ShirtFronter]

From what i've heard, the rule was changed but never properly applied. If this is the case, then in a court of law, the new rule doesn't exist, so the tribunal has to assess buddy on the original rule.

 

[Gilbert_Hodge]

From what i've heard, the rule was changed but never properly applied. If this is the case, then in a court of law, the new rule doesn't exist, so the tribunal has to assess buddy on the original rule.

That's exactly the arguement I've been trying to get across!

 

[bluejoker]

My Blues may be playing the Hawks next week in a final, but I would rather lose to a team sporting Franklin playing AFL as it was meant to be played then win against a team without Franklin playing a game that is called AFL but without the spirit that made it great to begin with.

Fight the AFL Hawks fans, make a stand. You have most of the AFL world behind you!

 

[ShirtFronter]

That's exactly the arguement I've been trying to get across!

Without actually having a look at what our legal team was trying to represent, It's hard to say exactly what they were trying to show. But it does sound like they were trying to pass it through the AFL first, without having to go to the courts. So they must be onto something

 

[Gary Shadforth]

.

Hawks' football manager Mark Evans leaves the tribunal after three hours of putting our club's case. The decision to reject the appeal had taken only six minutes.

Evans said that the club has called for the AFL to meet it post season.

The news about this affair gets more disgusting as the days go on.

In all my 43 years as a paid-up member and before that my seven or so as a freebie schoolboy member I consider this week as being the darkest in the club's history.

Alright we can move on an play the Bombastics on Saturday but the whole affair leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. The AFL is not tasty ... it's rotten fish.

 

[franklinfan1990]

What did Kennett say? Was in transit

 

[Gary Shadforth]

What did Kennett say? Was in transit

Haven't heard of him saying anything as yet .... give it time. Maybe the training staff have gotten to him with some sticky-tape

 

[Brishawk]

And I hear you.

It's stupid. I honestly don't know the machinations, but I think they can overturn if they find an error in how the rule was applied or if a loophole is discovered i.e. the Maxwell decision. But they don't have the power to change a rule.

But I might be wrong.

I believe they require new evidence to be presented before they consider a new decision. I think what he was saying is that they cannot overtun a decision based on the same evidence.

 

[hawks_time]

Haven't heard of him saying anything as yet .... give it time. Maybe the training staff have gotten to him with some sticky-tape

The footy show talked to him. He was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that the game was now non-contact and was in competition with basketball. Or words to that effect.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

.

Thanks, ht. The Footy Show is just about to come on at 11:30 pm here on the Gold Coast.