Hawks appeal hearing 5:30pm Thursday - APPEAL DISMISSED

[Jayd19]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Whilst, I agree somewhat, I refer you to this thread:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15511847

In situations where a rule is manifestly unjust, we just need to find a good reason for the appeals board to rule in our favour. Failing which, we need to challenge the rule itself.

No legal fight is straightforward, and you cannot put too much weight on the wording of a particular rule. Despite disclaiming 'reasonableness', I believe there are sufficient mitigating factors in this case to at least mount a persuasive argument. Obviously, the silk(s) retained by the Hawks agree.

That thread is talking about action in the Supreme Court.

This is an appeal to the Appeals Board convened under the AFL rules. The rule itself cannot be challenged regardless of how bad it so clearly is.

 

[Hawker4Sewell]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Unfortunately, this is not correct.

The rule expressly says reasonableness or otherwise is not relevant.

This was an amendment following the Maxwell case and is designed precisely to avoid a repeat of the Maxwell decision which was based on Maxwell's conduct being reasonable.

The appeals board cannot override the rule.

Good on the Hawks for trying but I reckon we have more chance of wining the GF this year than this appeal has of being successful.

Hehe lets hope then he wins, cause if he does...we could go on to win the GF!

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Very happy that the HFC has decided to appeal the decision, but in doing so, it's turned this case into a political hot potato for the AFL, and this worries me.

Buddy's bump has shed light on a dubious rule. The question needs to be asked: can the AFL afford to lose face over this? If not, then there's no chance in hell the pseudo-autonomous appeals board will overturn the two-week ban.

The AFL's credibility is worth considerably more than the success of one of its franchisees.

What recourse does the HFC have if the appeals board doesn't overturn the ban on Thursday?

A higher court of Law...Been done before...

 

[Gilbert_Hodge]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Hehe lets hope then he wins, cause if he does...we could go on to win the GF!

Jumping ahead of yourself there aren't you?

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

That thread is talking about action in the Supreme Court.

This is an appeal to the Appeals Board convened under the AFL rules. The rule itself cannot be challenged regardless of how bad it so clearly is.

Well, maybe it's time ALL rules applying to the AFL, are BLACK & WHITE!! With no room to move on any of them..At least it would be consistent!!Change the wording in ALL the rules pertaining to penalties, and we won't even need a tribunal..
IF a head is so sacrosanct, then why weren't Selwood & Rance given two weeks for their head collision 6 weeks ago??Sure, it was an accident, but then so was Buddy's. There was no malice intended.. But neither Selwood nor Rance played with a duty of care!! Don't the rules state Any head high contact is a REPORTABLE offence..Go figure!

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

So, I'm assuming:


(b) Buddy will play poorly this week (similar to Big Bad Barry in the GF years ago) because he'll be emotionally drained from the whole week?

He was o'k in the 05 grand final, the one that had the tribunal lead up. 06 was his bad one.

Hope Franklin gets off. Wasn't malicious. Just a little unfortunate.

 

[Juza]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Wow...
Imagine the coaches planning this week,
Especially Essendon's with all the Rumors and Buddy!
Woah

Hawthorn had to appeal their was no other choice. We are not losing anything.
What happened to Buddy is injustice.
It's a disgrace its even got this far.
With Radio talkback and people absolutly hammering the AFL, the rule will be changed and Buddy should get off.
It has to happen.
HFC will put the best team, because its a joke of a suspension.

 

[hawk65]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

I'm scared. If Hawthorn/Franklin win the appeal the AFL are going to be very angry and Franklin is going to get a really tough run with the umpires.....oh wait!!!

 

[Finley Hawk]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

I'm scared. If Hawthorn/Franklin win the appeal the AFL are going to be very angry and Franklin is going to get a really tough run with the umpires.....oh wait!!!

hahaha, can't be given any worse of a run with the umpires than he already gets.

 

[noosa hawk mad]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Jumping ahead of yourself there aren't you?

an optimist like my self with plenty of coin on a Hawks Grand final win we can dream GH....

Here's the deal - everytime I want to hear the opinion of a pissant, I'll bang a drum okay - and then you can talk.

you make me laugh TWITA.......

Great news lets hope the right Verdict & the Lawyers get it right!

 

[Hawker4Sewell]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Jumping ahead of yourself there aren't you?

The last line of what i had quoted said that the hawks have more chance of winning the GF then winning the appeal. Was just playing on the quote in jest.

All in good humor. However, at the same time if we do make September then anything is possible.

 

[Blueboys11]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Well, maybe it's time ALL rules applying to the AFL, are BLACK & WHITE!! With no room to move on any of them..At least it would be consistent!!Change the wording in ALL the rules pertaining to penalties, and we won't even need a tribunal..
IF a head is so sacrosanct, then why weren't Selwood & Rance given two weeks for their head collision 6 weeks ago??Sure, it was an accident, but then so was Buddy's. There was no malice intended.. But neither Selwood nor Rance played with a duty of care!! Don't the rules state Any head high contact is a REPORTABLE offence..Go figure!

It would of been an accident, had Buddy been reaching for the ball. Buddy commited to the bump, and his intent was to bump him.

Quite clear cut. You can argue against the rule as much as you want, but as it currently stands, there is no way Buddy can possibly get off unless they change the rule...and thats not going to happen between now and tomoz night.

 

[pup23]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Blues boys get off the hawthorn board mate

 

[Baz_hawk]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

If this fails (which i should hope not), will we take it to higher places (ala court?)?

 

[Joelie]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

So, I'm assuming:

(a) this can go no longer than the night in question? (ie. is there a chance that the tribunal has to suspend a decision until more time is arranged...and Buddy is free to play this week?

(b) Buddy will play poorly this week (similar to Big Bad Barry in the GF years ago) because he'll be emotionally drained from the whole week?

Mate... I can assure you of one thing. Our Bud is a very resilient young man. He has coped with far worse sledging, slandering and innuendo for 2 years than he is facing right now. He ISN'T the sort of bloke who will flatten... he will bring his "A" game and if anyone thinks Clarko isn't going to bring an "US against THEM" mentality... they do not know the make up of this group.

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

He has very little chance of overturning the decision. The rule states that whether the bump is unreasonable or reasonable does not matter. The head must be avoided and obviously in this case Cousins head was hit with great force. Don't know what you'll be arguing but good on you for having a crack.

 

[Ledger]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

He has very little chance of overturning the decision. The rule states that whether the bump is unreasonable or reasonable does not matter. The head must be avoided and obviously in this case Cousins head was hit with great force. Don't know what you'll be arguing but good on you for having a crack.

See, that's the massive issue. The rule has been changed since the Maxwell incident and now it becomes almost pointless.

Earlier in the year when Rance and Selwood clashed heads at the MCG, based on the rules, they should both have been suspended. Every high tackle should result in a suspension. See how it makes no sense what so ever?

Buddy has a good chance IMO. Just up to the lawyer to argue a good case.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

He has very little chance of overturning the decision. The rule states that whether the bump is unreasonable or reasonable does not matter. The head must be avoided and obviously in this case Cousins head was hit with great force. Don't know what you'll be arguing but good on you for having a crack.

Please provide me with some evidence of this - I am yet to see anything that you would class as conclusive.

Even at impact on whats been available, his head doesn't rock back like it's taken the impact and recoiled.

 

[butchy]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

from what i can understand over the last day or so, the hawks need to prove one thing:

Buddy had no option but to lay a bump.

If a player bumps, when he had the option to tackle, whether the bump was unreasonable or not, and makes contact with the head, he is gone. But if we can prove that he had no option to tackle, then he will get off, no doubt about it. Hawthorn need to get all the scientists and nerds they can, into that tribunal tomorrow night and make them believe that in the time between Cousins getting round Rioli and changing direction to the right, there is no way Buddy could have tackled, or at least thought about tackling. I dont know what angle they come from, but this, IMO is the only option, and i think the fact that Cuz fumbled the ball a little, quick change of direction etc all contributed.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

[/B]

Mate... I can assure you of one thing. Our Bud is a very resilient young man. He has coped with far worse sledging, slandering and innuendo for 2 years than he is facing right now. He ISN'T the sort of bloke who will flatten... he will bring his "A" game and if anyone thinks Clarko isn't going to bring an "US against THEM" mentality... they do not know the make up of this group.

Very well said..The team won't lie down..

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

He has very little chance of overturning the decision. The rule states that whether the bump is unreasonable or reasonable does not matter. The head must be avoided and obviously in this case Cousins head was hit with great force. Don't know what you'll be arguing but good on you for having a crack.

Then pray tell me why Selwood & Rance did NOT get sighted..BOTH had duty of care!! Both were hit in the head!! REPORTABLE!! Neither had Duty of Care..End of Story..Inconsistent MRP...AND Rance was out for TWO weeks.. Go figure!!!
The rule quite clearly states that reasonable or unreasonable they should have been reported!!

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Please provide me with some evidence of this - I am yet to see anything that you would class as conclusive.

Even at impact on whats been available, his head doesn't rock back like it's taken the impact and recoiled.

What?

The guy had concussion and wasn't allowed to play the last quarter.

 

[bomba4eva]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

Then pray tell me why Selwood & Rance did NOT get sighted..BOTH had duty of care!! Both were hit in the head!! REPORTABLE!! Neither had Duty of Care..End of Story..Inconsistent MRP...AND Rance was out for TWO weeks.. Go figure!!!

They were both contesting the ball if I recall correctly.

 

[Ledger]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

They were both contesting the ball if I recall correctly.

Doesn't matter. Both hit the opponents hit and both caused the other to be concussed. It doesn't make sense - we know this shouldn't be reported but the rules state it does.

Terrible rule, AA will be shitting himself on this outcome. Rule MUST be changed if Buddy is cleared.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Hawks confirm appeal - hearing 5:30pm Thursday

They were both contesting the ball if I recall correctly.

So what was Buddy doing?? Going for a jog, cleaning up all the players in his view!!The rules state that a HEAD HIGH CONTACT IS REPORTABLE!! Doesn't matter whether it was accidental, reasonable, or unreasonable.. Read the rules.. Neither of them were taking duty of care!!! You must be cheering now that Buddy is not playing. Personally I doubt that he will get off. But that doesn't mean we can't win, I know our boys will give it a damn good go!! And what about when Buddy was smacked across the face so hard that he lost a tooth.Why wasn't Dawson sighted for that? And what about the punch he got on Sat night, with three players on top of him, of course that wasn't reportable either..I thought the rules stated that the HEAD was sacrosanct!! Buddy was not happy, and I don't blame him. The umpire penalises him for retaliating for the punch in the mouth.. I would be b...dy frustrated too!!!