MRP / Trib. James Sicily - 3 weeks for dangerous tackle - SUSPENSION STANDS!

[Kuuz]

Can someone explain to me why the AFL would want to block the input from a professional body? Wouldn't they want to chase the 'truth' ... Whatever that is in a tribunal case. It's not like we're don't have multiple angles of the incident on camera..

Just testing the evidence.

The counsel for AFL is a King's Counsel, so they're no slouch that's for sure.

You can't exactly engage a counsel and then go "hey we want you to kinda go 50%". I imagine they just give the counsel the brief to argue the original decision made by the match committee, including all aspects of defending an original decision like testing admissibility of evidence that could be contradictory to it.

Standard legal eagle shenanigans

 

[Bugs1977]

Liz Bradshaw – Biomechanist

 

[Buttonsticher]

‘Game is cooked’: AFL world in uproar as star Hawk banned amid shock tribunal ‘lottery’ reveal

‘Game is cooked’: AFL world in uproar as star Hawk banned amid shock tribunal ‘lottery’ reveal

www.foxsports.com.au

thanks

 

[Sleutheren]

Bradshaw says the dynamics would've been different if Brockman wasn't involved, but can't say to what extent.

"There's no way to tell would contact have actually occurred without the presence of Brockman."


Probably should suspend Brockman as well, just in case.

 

[Kuuz]

Liz Bradshaw – Biomechanist

View attachment 1712043

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Liz Bradshaw – Biomechanist

View attachment 1712043

I know it's a joke. I found her linked in picture, it's actually very similar

 

[birch]

Hannon (AFL) tries to unmute herself but says she's "lost her mute button".

Piss off Hannon

 

[Mojo]

Can someone explain to me why the AFL would want to block the input from a professional body? Wouldn't they want to chase the 'truth' ... Whatever that is in a tribunal case. It's not like we're don't have multiple angles of the incident on camera..

Nehhh, any evidence used against their case is invariably treated as antagonistic.

 

[theiaofseed]

Lol the updates, someone's had enough.

 

[Sleutheren]

Lol who's in charge of the live updates

 

[theiaofseed]

Lol who's in charge of the live updates

Someone that eats Schnitz.

 

[Mojo]

Who's the narrator for these updates?

 

[Kuuz]

Lol the updates, someone's had enough.

Poor sod has been there since 4pm. His brain would be draining out his ears by this point.

 

[Stranglers]

This is the problem with using lawyers to argue tribunal findings. The tribunal should be there to find the CORRECT outcome, not find who can make the most clever legal arguments. And the AFL representative shouldn't be there to argue for a suspension regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[peetoo]

Everyone agrees it mental but it’ll probably be three weeks:

Rationale:
1 james
2 sicily
3 hawthorn

 

[moginie]

Who's the narrator for these updates?

David Zita I think.

 

[peetoo]

This is the problem with using lawyers to argue tribunal findings. The tribunal should be there to find the CORRECT outcome, not find who can make the most clever legal arguments. And the AFL representative shouldn't be there to argue for a suspension regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Makes a mockery of sending it to tribunal ‘to get the right verdict’

 

[Stranglers]

Hannon (AFL): The AFL's contention is that the action itself was not significantly influenced by Brockman. It was the motion of the tackle that created force.

As evidenced by WHAT? You can't just say "because we said so".

 

[cryptor]

Who's the narrator for these updates?

David Zita is live tweeting it and these updates are the same.

 

[birch]

Hannon (AFL): The AFL's contention is that the action itself was not significantly influenced by Brockman. It was the motion of the tackle that created force.

As evidenced by WHAT? You can't just say "because we said so".

Exactly - bring in an expert to prove your case or stfu

 

[Baz_hawk]

Science vs 'trust me bro'.

Lets see which the Tribunal chooses.

 

[The A Team Van]

Hannon (AFL): The AFL's contention is that the action itself was not significantly influenced by Brockman. It was the motion of the tackle that created force.

As evidenced by WHAT? You can't just say "because we said so".

The AFL knows better than a leading biomechanist. Of course they do.

 

[JoeHawk]

Hannon (AFL): The AFL's contention is that the action itself was not significantly influenced by Brockman. It was the motion of the tackle that created force.

As evidenced by WHAT? You can't just say "because we said so".

sadly they can

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

I'm actually enjoing Zita's writing here. Nothing special but it's concise, entertaining and gets the info across very clearly. Not the norm for much of the AFL media landscape.

 

[Kuuz]

This is the problem with using lawyers to argue tribunal findings. The tribunal should be there to find the CORRECT outcome, not find who can make the most clever legal arguments. And the AFL representative shouldn't be there to argue for a suspension regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

100%

Although I find it very "AFL" that they see the need to have this litigated by bloody KC's, within what is effectively a private contractual tribunal (aka kangaroo court).

Just seems like all show, without much thought to the effect it puts in motion.

AFL is all about their dog and pony show, to justify their own ego