Just heard of an interesting decision at the tribunal last night. A player was found not guilty of a charge of dissent, in that he abused and was threatening towards an umpire. Having had that charge dismissed the tribunal gave him 2 weeks for failing to leave the field, interesting because he was not charged with this and the only charge on the charge sheet was dismissed. Can someone please explain to me how you can turn up to a tribunal to defend yourself against a charge, have that charge dismissed with no case to answer, only to then discover that you have been charged again without prior knowledge for something that the umpire or no other official thought was relevant on the day. This smacks to me of the old Kangaroo court of the old days, where club alliances and bias was the preferred method of handing out penalties, instead of logic, common sense and good old natural justice. I sincerely hope that the League takes a very hard look at this decision and makes amends, if not they will have opened up a can of worms that will look more like Snakes on a plane!!