MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[The Hobo]

What a waste of time

Think Zak has been a bit close to the sun on a few occasions this season, probably a nice little reminder for him.

 

[Janey]

Any other decision would have been a complete joke.

 

[Festerz]

Any other decision would have been a complete joke.

Yep. And those posting yesterday that ‘he had in coming’ can FRO with their bs

Was nothing that doesn’t happen a half dozen times in every game.

 

[Festerz]

Don't expect the SANFL to be so rational.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Say what you will about the AFL MRO and Tribunal, their decision making processes are at least transparent.

I have no such faith in the SA parklands bush league HQ

 

[Janey]

Yep. And those posting yesterday that ‘he had in coming’ can FRO with their bs

Was nothing that doesn’t happen a half dozen times in every game.

The thing that makes me laugh is that whenever Zak is in "cheeky" mode, everyone is saying how great it is to see some spirit and passion, then this happens and it's all - no not like that. I just hope we don't get an over-reaction from Ken telling him to tone it down when he plays. We definitely don't want to see him play meek football.

 

[PAFC66]

My god when so we ever get this lucky…

SANFL will give Dixon 7 now

 

[Buget]

My god when so we ever get this lucky…

SANFL will give Dixon 7 now

We won’t be that lucky.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I know that lawyers can say almost any shit they want in court, unless the judge pulls them up, but the shit spoken by AFL counsel in a lot cases, should be called out by someone - wish it was a player - says to them that's bullshit, and asks is that what you really think? are you just saying because you thing you have to say something? or is the words coming from the AFL and its executives??

Twice AFL counsel have said that players have had the option to not go for the ball, which is rubbish, given the game's objective is to win the ball.

The verdict is in: Power star learns his fate at Tribunal

Port Adelaide gun Zak Butters has faced the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday

www.afl.com.au

"I believe in that moment it was more him flinching ... than the actual force itself," Butters said.

AFL counsel Sam Bird disagreed. "It's delivered with some momentum, and it's also an inherently dangerous act," Bird said. "This is not a glancing with a few fingers to the side of the face. This is a strike to the side of the face."

Luckily we were allowed to show the Hogan incident from earlier in the year that the tribunal dismissed the MRO's sanction.

Lawyer Ben Krupka, acting on Butters' behalf, showed an incident involving GWS forward Jesse Hogan

23

Jesse Hogan

Age

29

Ht

196cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.0

4star

K

9.3

4star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.4

5star

T

1.4

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

10.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

4.3

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

0.0

1star

G

0.0

1star

D

13.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

4.0

3star

M

6.4

5star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

from earlier this year. Hogan was initially handed a one-match ban for striking Carlton's Lewis Young

33

Lewis Young

Age

25

Ht

202cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.6

3star

K

7.5

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

197.9

3star

D

4.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

1.0

1star

M

3.0

3star

T

0.0

1star

MG

26.0

1star

D

14.4

4star

K

8.2

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

6.4

5star

T

2.0

4star

MG

181.6

3star

, but it was overturned after the Giants successfully argued it was negligible impact.

"In our case, the impact is clearly less than what is involved in (the Hogan) case," Krupka said.

How the hell this took 17 minutes to adjudicate is beyond me. Did that include time to boil the water and make the cup of tea and get the biscuits out of the tin??

Butters pleaded not guilty to the charge, with Port arguing the impact was not sufficient to justify a grading of low impact.

The three-member Tribunal panel of chair Jeff Gleeson, Jason Johnson

Jason Johnson

Age

46

Ht

180cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.6

5star

K

13.0

5star

HB

7.5

5star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.7

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.8

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.0

3star

and Paul Williams deliberated for just 17 minutes before clearing Butters, saying the force was negligible.

"The vision of this impact is not perfectly clear and does not clearly show that anything more than Mr Butters' fingers made contact with Mr Green's face," Gleeson said.

"Mr Green's head moves at about the moment of impact, but not significantly.

"He does not react in the manner one expects if he had suffered a forceful blow to the face of more than negligible impact."

 

[JB1989]

Fantastic result that should never have gone this far! I was expecting the worse and hoping for the best. We need him VS Brisbane!

 

[raptalia]

TEN news showed vision of a Carlton player who got off a similar charge earlier this year. The Carlton bloke's strike was much more vigorous the Zak's slap. Apparently Port used this vision to appeal Zak's verdict and for once it worked in our favour.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

TEN news showed vision of a Carlton player who got off a similar charge earlier this year. The Carlton bloke's strike was much more vigorous the Zak's slap. Apparently Port used this vision to appeal Zak's verdict and for once it worked in our favour.

No they used the vision of GWS' Hogan hitting the Carlton player. See my post above.

 

[philthy05]

I know that lawyers can say almost any shit they want in court, unless the judge pulls them up, but the shit spoken by AFL counsel in a lot cases, should be called out by someone - wish it was a player - says to them that's bullshit, and asks is that what you really think? are you just saying because you thing you have to say something? or is the words coming from the AFL and its executives??

Yes!

AFL counsel Sam Bird disagreed. "It's delivered with some momentum, and it's also an inherently dangerous act," Bird said. "This is not a glancing with a few fingers to the side of the face. This is a strike to the side of the face."

It’s pretty vile that it’s someone’s job to just make up outrageous shit in order to try to get the worst penalty they can. That’s clearly what this Sam bird is doing here.

What purpose does it serve to have an opposing counsel whose job, quite clearly from this quote, isn’t to get to the truth of what happened , but to argue whatever they can get away with in completely bad faith.

No one who saw that vision could believe that butters either struck green on the side of the face, or deliberately hit him in the face, or that it was dangerous. (Lol ! If that contact is dangerous what the hell do they think about all the legal happens a million times in the game contact that’s a part of the sport?) I don’t believe Bird believed that. It’s just a viable tactic in their job to stretch the truth as far as they can.

 

[TeeKray]

It's pretty vile that it’s someone’s job to just make up outrageous shit in order to try to get the worst penalty they can. That’s clearly what this Sam bird is doing here.

What purpose does it serve to have an opposing counsel whose job, quite clearly from this quote, isn’t to get to the truth of what happened , but to argue whatever they can get away with in completely bad faith.

Are you new to the adversarial legal system?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Are you new to the adversarial legal system?

Yeah I am, but this isn't a court of law. Application of common sense should be used and demanded.

The person representing the game's custodian shouldn't be saying - you had the option of not going for the ball.

 

[TeeKray]

Yeah I am, but this isn't a court of law. Application of common sense should be used and demanded.

The person representing the game's custodian shouldn't be saying - you had the option of not going for the ball.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think the whole tribunal thing is ridiculous and over the top. But if you're going to have KCs on one side acting like it's a murder trial, you can't be surprised when the AFL do the same on their side.

 

[240volt]

Yes!




It’s pretty vile that it’s someone’s job to just make up outrageous shit in order to try to get the worst penalty they can. That’s clearly what this Sam bird is doing here.

What purpose does it serve to have an opposing counsel whose job, quite clearly from this quote, isn’t to get to the truth of what happened , but to argue whatever they can get away with in completely bad faith.

No one who saw that vision could believe that butters either struck green on the side of the face, or deliberately hit him in the face, or that it was dangerous. (Lol ! If that contact is dangerous what the hell do they think about all the legal happens a million times in the game contact that’s a part of the sport?) I don’t believe Bird believed that. It’s just a viable tactic in their job to stretch the truth as far as they can.

He sounds like the sort of guy who would have burnt Ants with a magnifying glass as a kid.

 

[philthy05]

Are you new to the adversarial legal system?

No

Can I still point out the absurdity of it used at a football tribunal?

 

[MrPower]

The French Inquisitorial system would be much more appropriate

Inquisitorial system​

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Wikipedia

 

[Traveling_Power]

Thank goodness they used common sense.

Definitely

but you can't say that with bright spark cow supporters who seriously think that Butters is a protected species

 

[WillemDaDrew]

Nah KG wouldn't stand for rubbish at least.

Fair dinkum

 

[SteppingTiger]

Yeah I am, but this isn't a court of law. Application of common sense should be used and demanded.

The person representing the game's custodian shouldn't be saying - you had the option of not going for the ball.

Totally agree. Surely the footage, injury report etc is the evidence? The charge has been laid and the punishment decided.

The player advocate is merely contesting aspects etc. why a ‘prosecutor’ is needed with intent to maximise punishment is beyond me

 

[1954]

Yeah I am, but this isn't a court of law. Application of common sense should be used and demanded.

The person representing the game's custodian shouldn't be saying - you had the option of not going for the ball.

Agreed REH, `the you had the option of not going for the ball' was a ridiculous comment!

Unless there were absolutely exceptional circumstance, eg an obviously badly injured player between them and the ball, any one taking up that option would find themselves kicking the dew off the grass in the magoos within a very short space of time.

 

[raptalia]

No they used the vision of GWS' Hogan hitting the Carlton player. See my post above.

That is right, I had it the wrong way around. I had a look at that incident and Hogan appears to throw a clenched fist twice the second attempt does not appear to contact but the first one does. On the face of it the Tribunal had to uphold the appeal from Port.

How this made it as far as it did is a question the match review panel should be made to answer.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

How the AFL tribunal would like to operate (and how the sanfl probably will)

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

How the AFL tribunal would like to operate (and how the sanfl probably will)

The MRO would definitely like to operate like that. Its time for a new MRO. A fresh set of eyes is needed.