No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIV

[kozi]

The fact Cripps got off on a technicality is a joke. This is not a court of law and arguments of procedure and due course should not be part of a tribunal hearing for disciplining players

Blues just had their last win of the season

 

[Area51]

What a farce… should double contest everything now. Rule book doesn’t matter, tribunal doesn’t matter, nothing makes sense anymore either inside or outside the game. Become a joke of a sport

Exactly, fair chance the AFL has ****ed up somewhere in the process. Doesn't matter if you have king hit someone 100m off the ball, if they don't provide procedural fairness, you are free to play. And we all know if the AFL are one thing, it's incompetent.

 

[chriso11]

Because the MRO decision was an administrative decision, not a hearing.
The tribunal decision was the first real hearing.
Any proper system of justice should allow an appeal from the first hearing to make sure there has been no miscarriage of justice.
I think the appeal board got it right by the way.
Even if Cripps did choose to bump, the allegation that he had chosen to bump was apparently never put to him during the first hearing.
Despite the alleged decision to bump being cited by the tribunal as the reason for the penalty being upheld.
That is a clear denial of natural justice.
The accused should always have the opportunity to answer the facts alleged.

There’s your problem

 

[Ctl]

Blues schooled the AFL, how embarrassing for Gil

 

[SplintWhisky]

Because the MRO decision was an administrative decision, not a hearing.
The tribunal decision was the first real hearing.
Any proper system of justice should allow an appeal from the first hearing to make sure there has been no miscarriage of justice.
I think the appeal board got it right by the way.
Even if Cripps did choose to bump, the allegation that he had chosen to bump was apparently never put to him during the first hearing.
Despite the alleged decision to bump being cited by the tribunal as the reason for the penalty being upheld.
That is a clear denial of natural justice.
The accused should always have the opportunity to answer the facts alleged.

Your whole argument would be sound if this was a court of law. However this is a hearing to see if an employee has breached the rules of a private charitable organisation and whether sanctions need to be applied. Due process does not apply in the same way it would in the courts.

Also the AFL can infer intent based on the actions taken and the footage available, they don't need to ask the player. The player would always say they never intended to bump. What you suggest would be that we should take murderer's testimony seriously when asked the question "did you intend to kill person X?" and they say they didn't despite carrying a knife and a gun to the scene of the crime.

 

[Tiges1229]

So afl lawyer ****s up Tuesday ? Why didn’t the scums lawyer call it out then ? Something stinks

 

[PetterdHoisted]

So afl lawyer *s up Tuesday ? Why didn’t the scums lawyer call it out then ? Something stinks

corrupt and disgraceful
The blues couldn't give a damn about the guy concussed with possible long term brain damage from Cripp's actions.

 

[theyellowsash]

corrupt and disgraceful
The blues couldn't give a damn about the guy concussed with possible long term brain damage from Cripp's actions.

Still waiting to see Cripps try and be physical with someone at least in his weight range. Still only picks on little blokes.

 

[peternorth]

Still waiting to see Cripps try and be physical with someone at least in his weight range. Still only picks on little blokes.

Will make them missing the finals (hopefully) all the more sweeter.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Your whole argument would be sound if this was a court of law. However this is a hearing to see if an employee has breached the rules of a private charitable organisation and whether sanctions need to be applied. Due process does not apply in the same way it would in the courts.

Also the AFL can infer intent based on the actions taken and the footage available, they don't need to ask the player. The player would always say they never intended to bump. What you suggest would be that we should take murderer's testimony seriously when asked the question "did you intend to kill person X?" and they say they didn't despite carrying a knife and a gun to the scene of the crime.

I am sure tiggywigs can defend his own post but I think you have a couple of things wrong here.

Procedural fairness needs to be extended in all employer/employee, club/member or similar disciplinary cases or the outcomes may not have any legal force for that reason alone. I have been perplexed about the way the tribunal operates in this regard and have written about it on this forum. I mean could you imagine losing your job in a disciplinary hearing in which you had no chance to explain yourself or cross-examine people making allegations against you?

Also in the Tribunal working out the player’s intent, how can it be preferable to infer the player’s intent over using a combination of questioning the player and making reasonable inferences? Quicker maybe.

Regarding your comment about a person on a murder charge, if it had been established the accused committed the act that caused the death of the victim, the whole case would then revolve around the intent of the accused. And there is no way you could establish the same satisfactorily without questioning the accused about their intent and giving consideration to their answers.

Putting aside the differences in our views, I think it is very clear there are flaws in the procedures the Tribunal follows. They possibly work fine while all clubs recognise it is preferable to expedite proceedings but in any crucial cases like this Cripps one, it would always be open to appeals on the grounds of lack of procedural fairness.

There are some other obvious issues as well. For example the MRO can effectively cap the penalty the Tribunal gives to a player because his submission is what the AFL argues for at the Tribunal. This is best understood by looking at the Stewart case. The MRO(effectively Brad Scott) submitted for a 4 week suspension. And Stewart’s advocate was arguing for 3 weeks. So very little difference between one side and the other, but the Tribunal is more or less compelled to decide one or the other. What should be happening of course is the AFL arguing for the maximum possible penalty and the player arguing for the least possible pemalty according to his plea. And the Tribunal having to decide on either penalty or something in between according to their judgement.

So what we saw in the Stewart case was the twin brother of the Geelong coach effectively capping his maximum penalty at 4 weeks. And of course we never got to hear Stewart’s explanation as to wtf he was thinking when he cleaned Prestia up. For all we know under questioning he may have revealed his coach told him if he gets a chance to make vigorous contact with an opponent, take it. Unlikely I know, but if you don’t ask you definitely don’t find out.

So to my way of thinking the MRO is there to expedite cases. Once it gets past him you should be conducting a proper hearing.

 

[tigers12]

What a ****ing joke he left the ground and chose to bump victim cops 2 weeks with concussion he gets off afl should be appealing the appeal and Pickett copped a week on potential to cause injury and the player got up and played out the match it does not make any sense

 

[joelsyt]

So the appeals board pussied out huh? I’m not surprised.

I hope Cripps gets booed to hell and back for the rest of the season. I’m no Brisbane fan however he concussed Ah Chee, he should be sitting on the sidelines for the next week or so just like Ah Chee will be and every other player that has concussed someone over the the last few years has done.

 

[jetbhag]

Precedent is set, appeal every decision.

Pickett right now

 

[panatha1908]

“I’m not sure where Blake Caracella

Blake Caracella

Age

47

Ht

186cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.5

4star

K

10.1

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

8.8

4star

HB

4.4

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.6

3star

is going to be next year, but he also has a rock solid two years left on a highly paid contract, but he will definitely be in a different role next year if he’s there at all.”

 

[joelsyt]

Precedent is set, appeal every decision.

Pickett right now
View attachment 1473943

I totally would lol. See how they like it when 17 other clubs appeal constantly.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

Does this leave Cripps liable to civil damages from the Brisbane player for failing the duty of care in the workplace?

 

[richo's dodgy hammy]

Didnt take long for Vince Mcmahon to find a new job, Afl Chairman lol.
Tribunal scripted like wrestling as well.
I cant stand Melb, but hope they win by 10 goals +.

 

[joelsyt]

Didnt take long for Vince Mcmahon to find a new job, Afl Chairman lol.
Tribunal scripted like wrestling as well.
I cant stand Melb, but hope they win by 10 goals +.

And Collingwood too the week after. I hope both Melbourne and Collingwood kick them back into 9th place.

Melbourne and Collingwood supporters better be as feral as we know they can be against Carlton lol

 

[lumpinee]

Shedda reaching 300 had more significance.

probably

 

[Nostradumbass]

Crippaaaaaaaaaa

 

[peternorth]

David king smashing the afl for messing the rules and crimps decision

 

[tigs2010]

So bears are one of there good players down this week due To concussion and this campaigner still gets to play

Never heard of him

 

[Nostradumbass]

Just checked who's playing tonight....

 

[STRUGGLETOWN EST1885]

And Collingwood too the week after. I hope both Melbourne and Collingwood kick them back into 9th place.

Melbourne and Collingwood supporters better be as feral as we know they can be against Carlton lol

The Karma bus is coming for Cripps. What goes around comes around. I can picture it now. Opening bounce Saturday night. Viney in an act of intent "accidentally" elbows Cripps into tomorrow. Over to you AFL

 

[Foley#41]

Did Ah Chee’s head receive procedural fairness?

Is this common sense? That the jury was unreasonable to find it was a high bump??