Movements for 2011.

Remove this Banner Ad

Slenko said:
Deccan18


Your delusions of grandeur are only exceeded by your obvious shallow and inept understanding of the law.

You appear to sing to the chorus that players should not be exempted from criminal charges just because it happens on a footy field but at same time state that such players should not have any legal rights as it is a game of footy not a court of law.

Here is some legal terms for you to read up on. "Due Process", "Separation of Power", "Natural Justice". Once you have read them and understand them come back and have your say.

You will understand that once a case is polluted and natural justice cannot be served the case cannot proceed.

The law affords more protection to the accused than the offended that is the fact. Do not blame me for that I live by those same rules as do you. The accused is afforded those rights as one is innocent until proven guilty. Where there is doubt the ruling must be in the accused favor.

If the tribunal decreed that due process had not been followed then simply the only finding is that natural justice cannot be served or seen to be served. Your anger or discontent should be directed at WFL as they are the ones who failed to follow due process (by my reading of WMT todays issue)

Again for your sake, just as a player is not exempted from the law on a footy field he is not denied his legal rights either just because it occurred on a footy field. Be smart enough to realise where fault lies and don't let your emotion rule your brain or whatever else you are currently thinking with!
Click to expand...

Olbomber is right, you just don't get it.
Save me you're rhetoric and take a look at the big picture for once. do you want to see the case looked at or not? Nothing has been achieved here whatsoever. Let's say JB is innocent, wouldn't you rather see the case heard and his innocence proven? Just like all we all want, the case to be heard and the find out what happened.

Yes, the WFL again has stuffed up. I wonder how many of us thought this would happen? :thumbsu:

But for the HFC to go to actively seek to have the case thrown out was the wrong thing to do. For once think of who has ended up with the rough deal here, think of the justice Matt Jones deserves.

So here's the challenge, let your next post lead me think you're not just another narcissistic horsham supporter!
 
Can someone explain to me what the issue is here ?
Reading between the lines, a player has incurred a broken jaw, his clubs launched an investigation and the failure to follow guidelines has seen the matter thrown out ?
If so, whats the issue with ******* , whom I assume is the opposing club , isn't it there responsibility, to there players, to ensure that the required process is followed ?
Irrespective of blantancy or severity of an incident, I'd suggest there is a process is in place to protect all ?
Also, who didn't follow protocol, the accrediated investigation officer, the lodging club or the league ?
 
pace to freeze said:
Can someone explain to me what the issue is here ?
Reading between the lines, a player has incurred a broken jaw, his clubs launched an investigation and the failure to follow guidelines has seen the matter thrown out ?
If so, whats the issue with ******* , whom I assume is the opposing club , isn't it there responsibility, to there players, to ensure that the required process is followed ?
Irrespective of blantancy or severity of an incident, I'd suggest there is a process is in place to protect all ?
Also, who didn't follow protocol, the accrediated investigation officer, the lodging club or the league ?
Click to expand...

Pace to freeze, you have nailed it in 1.

Only problem is you are going to have to type much much slower so that Oldbomber & Deccan18 can comprehend.

From my reading of WMT today WFL failed to advise the player or club that an extension from 5 days to 30 days had been granted.

Reading the VCFL handbook Rule 5.2 it clearly states this obligation.

Oldbomber & Deccan18 are running nothing more than an emotional arguement. Talk to any barrister, solictor, lawyer and they will tell you their kids go to private schools because of peoples emotions.

The law does not deal with emotion it deals with process first and fact second.

Not for me to judge if that is morally correct or not, but simply that is the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

I am sure on the emotional arguement there is an alternative view point from JB camp. Not that I want to hear it as I said it has nothing to do with emotion.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

pace to freeze said:
Can someone explain to me what the issue is here ?
Reading between the lines, a player has incurred a broken jaw, his clubs launched an investigation and the failure to follow guidelines has seen the matter thrown out ?
If so, whats the issue with ******* , whom I assume is the opposing club , isn't it there responsibility, to there players, to ensure that the required process is followed ?
Irrespective of blantancy or severity of an incident, I'd suggest there is a process is in place to protect all ?
Also, who didn't follow protocol, the accrediated investigation officer, the lodging club or the league ?
Click to expand...




Good question.

I think there are several issues. In this case it seems as though the league has stuffed up and Horsham have been able to get their player off because on a paper work technicality. They have been able to do this a couple of times in the past. In itself not much of an issue I guess.
In the WFL Horsham have been a very successful but also a very controversial club. It’s just too hard and probably pointless to list all the issues that have come up over the last few years. Big footy has been a great place for fans to discuss the topics of the day but when ever we get to issues around Horsham Slenko accuses others on the forum of slander etc and threatens legal action.
Unfortunately for the Horsham player concerned in this incident Slenko’s carry has caused much more heat then otherwise would have been the case.
 
Slenko said:
Pace to freeze, you have nailed it in 1.

Only problem is you are going to have to type much much slower so that Oldbomber & Deccan18 can comprehend.

From my reading of WMT today WFL failed to advise the player or club that an extension from 5 days to 30 days had been granted.

Reading the VCFL handbook Rule 5.2 it clearly states this obligation.

Oldbomber & Deccan18 are running nothing more than an emotional arguement. Talk to any barrister, solictor, lawyer and they will tell you their kids go to private schools because of peoples emotions.

The law does not deal with emotion it deals with process first and fact second.

Not for me to judge if that is morally correct or not, but simply that is the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

I am sure on the emotional arguement there is an alternative view point from JB camp. Not that I want to hear it as I said it has nothing to do with emotion.
Click to expand...

Slenko , I ain't a lawyer , but rule 5.2 simply states 'When a league grants and extension it shall do so in writting and advise all parties to this matter .'
Spelling mistake ' and ' instead of 'an ' included .
It doesn't stipulate , from what I can see , when that written notification must be given . It would be reasonable to suggest it should be provided before the 5 day time frame has elapsed but it doesnt appear to state as such .
Also my children go to a private school , I ain't a barrister, solicitor or lawyer and there is certainly emotion involved , when I see the payment come out of the bank account ?
Also please stick to the discussion , personal attacks don't add anything , others are entitled to their opinion , without you questioning their intelligence .
 
pace to freeze said:
Slenko , I ain't a lawyer , but rule 5.2 simply states 'When a league grants and extension it shall do so in writting and advise all parties to this matter .'
Spelling mistake ' and ' instead of 'an ' included .
It doesn't stipulate , from what I can see , when that written notification must be given . It would be reasonable to suggest it should be provided before the 5 day time frame has elapsed but it doesnt appear to state as such .
Also my children go to a private school , I ain't a barrister, solicitor or lawyer and there is certainly emotion involved , when I see the payment come out of the bank account ?
Also please stick to the discussion , personal attacks don't add anything , others are entitled to their opinion , without you questioning their intelligence .
Click to expand...




Did you ever see Leonard Nimoy play Dr Spock in Star Trek ? Spock had no emotion, because he was half Vulcan (no relation to the gas heaters). Apparently most of the Vulcan descendants went to private schools and became lawyers......interesting.
Darth Vader didn’t exactly wear is heart on his sleeve, although he was a bit of a hater so I guess that counts as emotion?
 
pace to freeze said:
Slenko , I ain't a lawyer , but rule 5.2 simply states 'When a league grants and extension it shall do so in writting and advise all parties to this matter .'
Spelling mistake ' and ' instead of 'an ' included .
It doesn't stipulate , from what I can see , when that written notification must be given . It would be reasonable to suggest it should be provided before the 5 day time frame has elapsed but it doesnt appear to state as such .
Also my children go to a private school , I ain't a barrister, solicitor or lawyer and there is certainly emotion involved , when I see the payment come out of the bank account ?
Also please stick to the discussion , personal attacks don't add anything , others are entitled to their opinion , without you questioning their intelligence .
Click to expand...

From what I read and hear it is not a matter a when written notification was issued but to its actual existence at all.

I would also think if the 5 day period has not lapsed why the need for an extension to 30 days. It would be expected that 5 days have lapsed but due to mitigating circumstances 30 days should be applied.

One would think that to be fair to accused party as soon as this becomes apparent they are advised to the situation (extension to 30 days) so that recollection of events by the accussed or their witnesses is not sacrificed or foresaken.
 
Slenko said:
From what I read and hear it is not a matter a when written notification was issued but to its actual existence at all.

I would also think if the 5 day period has not lapsed why the need for an extension to 30 days. It would be expected that 5 days have lapsed but due to mitigating circumstances 30 days should be applied.

One would think that to be fair to accused party as soon as this becomes apparent they are advised to the situation (extension to 30 days) so that recollection of events by the accussed or their witnesses is not sacrificed or foresaken.
Click to expand...

Slenk let's not confuse the situation , the rule you would think , is there to allow clubs more time to submit a request, for an investigation , should there be unusual circumstances of which would be known well before the 5 days is up , and the written notification would be given prior to the 5 days expiring.
However , by the wording if the league has granted the extension, the only obligation , if I understand it correctly , is to provide written notification .
It doesnt appear to be stipulated when that notification must be given , pre 5 day expiring , post investigation or post susequent tribunal .
 
Fancy said:
Did you ever see Leonard Nimoy play Dr Spock in Star Trek ? Spock had no emotion, because he was half Vulcan (no relation to the gas heaters). Apparently most of the Vulcan descendants went to private schools and became lawyers......interesting.
Darth Vader didn’t exactly wear is heart on his sleeve, although he was a bit of a hater so I guess that counts as emotion?
Click to expand...
Didn't think anyone could work Spock, private schools, lawyers and Darth Vader into a footy forum post but there you go. No idea what you meant but its kinda funny. I think I get the evil empire angle tho.

Rather than dragging the empire down, how about the rebellion getting its act together.
 
Willy Wonker said:
Didn't think anyone could work Spock, private schools, lawyers and Darth Vader into a footy forum post but there you go. No idea what you meant but its kinda funny. I think I get the evil empire angle tho.

Rather than dragging the empire down, how about the rebellion getting its act together.
Click to expand...




Forces are uniting across the galaxy as we speak.
 
By the sound of it Tuckey is up and about.
If he stays fit I am tipping Stawell to make the GF. I reckon Stawell's marking power will be the xfactor which will make them the first real contenders in years.
 
deccan18 said:
Farr is taking up space in the Demons forward line, the bloke can't kick a drop punt these days. He has been a serviceable player for the dees in past years but needs to bite the bullet and put his team first. He's past it. This is a bit of a go at Stuey but he and his team must surely realise that he is no longer a threat, he lacks pace, marking ability, ground skills and only kicks goals due to the constant chances given by the midfield. His skill remains as a leader so thats what he should be looking at. Leading his team into it's 9th successive grand final victory. The team that makes it into the grand final against the dees would be happy to see stuey in the mix rather than a beau nelson or scott batchelor.

The next question I'll put to the forum is who will make the grand final to compete against Horsham?

Stawell Dimboola or Warrack?
Click to expand...








I would imagine the young Demons playing in the Rebels will also qualify for the Wimmera League Finals. Surely the old stages won’t keep the younger more talented players out of the side?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just thinking about head high contact in general. The AFL and all footy has tried it’s best to get head collisions out of the game. Certainly the old elbow to the noggin is almost a hanging offence as is most intentional contact. There has also been a lot of rule changes with the old shirt front becoming a charge etc. A player can now even be charged with just being reckless.

I wonder if we will ever get to the stage where all serious contact regardless of intention would be investigated in an attempt to further understand how the most serious injuries occur? Seems amazing that these things can be swept away because of any type of paper work issues etc as a smashed in face is a fairly big step toward brain injury or even death. I don’t mean investigate in the sense of crime and punishment more of fact finding.

With intentional contact it seems that when people don’t feel that they have been heard locally they take it up as a civil matter. Who were those two swimmers? I think ones name was Darcy?
 
Purrfect Pussies said:
Burke & Hartigan to coach in 2012?
Click to expand...
I know that you have ended your sentence with a question mark. But are you asking a question or making a statement? I think it would be a good move for the empire for the 2012 season given Stu's probabley no longer in their top 21 players. Is Fancy seriously suggesting that Farr will not be on the field come finals this year?
 
I presume Fancy is talking about next year. Whisper l have heard puts Burke and Hardy in the top job.
Batch and Piggy still busting their gut to get back into the 1's. Surely no chance with Parish and a plethora of promising kids in mix including returning Rebels boys.
 
Slenko said:
Old Bomber, you need to have some understanding of law before you shoot your mouth otherwise it will be beyond reasonable doubt that your IQ is lower than your shoe size!

The Tribunal made the correct decision and the only decision they could make as WFL failed to follow due process. Processes are there to ensure every accused person receives a fair hearing.

I would be 100% sure if you were accused of something you would expect the same.
Click to expand...



Now that we know that the appeal is in, I guess the question for you is just, why?

If you had not have stirred the possum after the original decision, then people would not have become agitated.

If people had not become agitated then ‘pace to freeze’ would not have had to intervene and prove you so terribly wrong.
If you had not been proven wrong ,then Nhill would not have known that they had another avenue towards justice.

It must be that you think the perpetrator deserves his comeuppance? It may be that you didn’t realise the consequences of your actions? Could you have thought for a minute that JB was innocent and that a hearing would actually support him???

Surely, Spock , if you are to able to acknowledge that you have used the reputation of JB as a play thing, then there must be, at some point ,an acknowledgment of the hurt you have caused, both to him, his family, Matt Jones and the Wimmera Football league??
:mad:
 
Fancy said:
Now that we know that the appeal is in, I guess the question for you is just, why?

If you had not have stirred the possum after the original decision, then people would not have become agitated.

If people had not become agitated then ‘pace to freeze’ would not have had to intervene and prove you so terribly wrong.
If you had not been proven wrong ,then Nhill would not have known that they had another avenue towards justice.

It must be that you think the perpetrator deserves his comeuppance? It may be that you didn’t realise the consequences of your actions? Could you have thought for a minute that JB was innocent and that a hearing would actually support him???

Surely, Spock , if you are to able to acknowledge that you have used the reputation of JB as a play thing, then there must be, at some point ,an acknowledgment of the hurt you have caused, both to him, his family, Matt Jones and the Wimmera Football league??
:mad:
Click to expand...

Fancy, checks your facts before posting as you now look like a bigger &^$%^& than before.

Nhill had no appeal rights. The WFL have appealed the decision not Nhill FC but Nhill have paid the $5500 which now further pollutes the case.

Lets see what the VCFL have to say before you make a bigger goose of yourself.

How do you feel? As bad as you appear!
 
Slenko said:
Fancy, checks your facts before posting as you now look like a bigger &^$%^& than before.

Nhill had no appeal rights. The WFL have appealed the decision not Nhill FC but Nhill have paid the $5500 which now further pollutes the case.

Lets see what the VCFL have to say before you make a bigger goose of yourself.

How do you feel? As bad as you appear!
Click to expand...



I can see a bit of emotion there Spock.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Movements for 2011.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top