Let me guess his middle name.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round F1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 24 Winner: Bulldog Rick
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Season starts this weekend.
MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
DaTBird187
What D Farke?
- Feb 9, 2014
- 17,002
- 45,790
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Boston Celtics
Hinkley
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,953
The decision from the Tribunal for the Heeney and Rankine decision
www.foxsports.com.au
HEENEY DECISION REASONS
The swing of Heeney’s arm was forceful, and it was more than a swatting motion. Having looked carefully at the vision, we find that it falls comfortably within the language of clause 4.3(b), the guidelines, in that he was intending to forcefully push or fend off Webster to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball.
The guidelines distinguish between push and fend in a way that makes clear that a fend means something different to or at least more than a push, bearing in mind the obvious purpose of the rule to reduce the incidence of blows such as this would be illogical to capture pushes, but not capture forceful swings of the arm.
Clause 4.3(b) states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offense of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect. It was a forceful blow to Webster’s face.
This part of clause 4.3 is only engaged if a player is not intending to strike, only intending to push or fend.
As a player whose conduct is captured by this provision will always be in a position of saying they did not actually intend to strike their opponent.
The provision makes clear it will usually be so graded. We do not find that there is anything about the circumstances of this offence that would reasonably characterize it as other than usual, given the natural language of the provision and the evident purpose of the provision.
As we have said, Heeney’s swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster’s hands.
Then a submission that the act attracts the operation of regulation 19.6(a) two, in that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which would make it inappropriate to apply the consequences of appendix one to the classification that’s been determined by the tribunal for an offence.
We do not find that the circumstances of this strike that has been graded as intentional render it appropriate to apply the appendix A classification.
Mr Heeney has a good record, and his immediate and genuine concern for the consequence of his strike were apparent.
This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate.
RANKINE DECISION REASONS
Rankine forcefully bumped Brandon Starcevich a considerable distance from where the ball was trapped in a stoppage.
Both players were running in the same direction, and Starcevich was not expecting forceful contact. He had no reason to expect that he would be bumped.
The issue is whether Rankine intended to commit the reportable offence of rough conduct. In our opinion, it is clear that Rankine intended to engage in conduct which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
It was not reasonable to stop and forcefully bump Starcevich when Rankine must have known Starcevich was not expecting to be bumped.
Play had stopped, and although the bump was almost simultaneous with the umpire’s whistle, the Crows fairly accepted that neither player could reasonably have expected that the ball was about to come their way.
Rankine moved low and bumped in an upward motion. Starcevich was running at the time, he didn’t expect the bump and did not have the opportunity to protect himself.
Rankine must have known all of these matters, and it follows He intended to engage in conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances. We were satisfied that this was intentional, rough conduct.
‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month
‘Bog standard’ act ends Swan’s Brownlow dream as Crow stays sidelined for a month
www.foxsports.com.au
HEENEY DECISION REASONS
The swing of Heeney’s arm was forceful, and it was more than a swatting motion. Having looked carefully at the vision, we find that it falls comfortably within the language of clause 4.3(b), the guidelines, in that he was intending to forcefully push or fend off Webster to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball.
The guidelines distinguish between push and fend in a way that makes clear that a fend means something different to or at least more than a push, bearing in mind the obvious purpose of the rule to reduce the incidence of blows such as this would be illogical to capture pushes, but not capture forceful swings of the arm.
Clause 4.3(b) states that if the effect of such an action is that the reportable offense of striking is committed, the strike will usually be graded as intentional. We find that this was the effect. It was a forceful blow to Webster’s face.
This part of clause 4.3 is only engaged if a player is not intending to strike, only intending to push or fend.
As a player whose conduct is captured by this provision will always be in a position of saying they did not actually intend to strike their opponent.
The provision makes clear it will usually be so graded. We do not find that there is anything about the circumstances of this offence that would reasonably characterize it as other than usual, given the natural language of the provision and the evident purpose of the provision.
As we have said, Heeney’s swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster’s hands.
Then a submission that the act attracts the operation of regulation 19.6(a) two, in that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which would make it inappropriate to apply the consequences of appendix one to the classification that’s been determined by the tribunal for an offence.
We do not find that the circumstances of this strike that has been graded as intentional render it appropriate to apply the appendix A classification.
Mr Heeney has a good record, and his immediate and genuine concern for the consequence of his strike were apparent.
This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate.
RANKINE DECISION REASONS
Rankine forcefully bumped Brandon Starcevich a considerable distance from where the ball was trapped in a stoppage.
Both players were running in the same direction, and Starcevich was not expecting forceful contact. He had no reason to expect that he would be bumped.
The issue is whether Rankine intended to commit the reportable offence of rough conduct. In our opinion, it is clear that Rankine intended to engage in conduct which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
It was not reasonable to stop and forcefully bump Starcevich when Rankine must have known Starcevich was not expecting to be bumped.
Play had stopped, and although the bump was almost simultaneous with the umpire’s whistle, the Crows fairly accepted that neither player could reasonably have expected that the ball was about to come their way.
Rankine moved low and bumped in an upward motion. Starcevich was running at the time, he didn’t expect the bump and did not have the opportunity to protect himself.
Rankine must have known all of these matters, and it follows He intended to engage in conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances. We were satisfied that this was intentional, rough conduct.
- Mar 26, 2007
- 20,514
- 43,682
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- SA Spurs, Anaheim Ducks, White Sox
I don't understand some of the outrage regarding Heeney's suspension. Rioli Vs Jordan Ridley, did something significantly less intentional and softer, and copped a 3 week ban argued down to 2. Rioli has an accidental trailing arm clip the player. Heeney intentionally throws an elbow and smacks someone in the head.
It's pretty open and shut. If I was Heeney I'd be running laughing to the bank that you only got one.
It's pretty open and shut. If I was Heeney I'd be running laughing to the bank that you only got one.
Yeah, I have never heard a proper explanation as to why SPP was sent straight to tribunal & Rankine/ others weren’t
At the time I recall the MRO deduced 3 games for SPP but made a comment that this was inadequate given the public sentiment re head knocks, with Brayshaw just retiring, so used his discretion to send it to the tribunal. Eg he wanted a harsher sentence. Whilst in Rankines case the MRO felt the 4 games adequate
I guess he can use his discretion based on the vibe
Whether or not Heeney wins his appeal, you will know that the AFL has had a quick look at the Brownlow votes...
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,958
Lets see how independent The Appeals Board chair is. It will be one of Renee Enbom KC and Will Houghton KC. There are 2 panel members. I have no idea who those 2 people are but usually its ex players.
Cripps in 2022 got off because Gleeson QC now KC, according Appeals Board chairman, Murray Kellam, gave poor reasoning to the 2 ex players on the tribunal panel - “the failure to afford procedural fairness” by the Tribunal, which amounted to an “error of law,” while the Appeals Board also didn’t see how the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion Cripps’ actions were “in the bumping of an opponent”.
Carlton's argument was that Gleeson had impossed himself and overridden the evidence. From ABC
Christopher Townshend QC, acting for Cripps, argued that there was a "denial of natural justice" because AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson failed to give directions to the jury on Tuesday night before they retired to consider their verdict.
Townshend said Gleeson himself had created confusion by effectively stating Cripps' action was a bump. "In the absence of even Mr Cripps being asked if he wanted to bump his opponent … the chairperson later postures, 'Can you bump and contest at the same time?'" Townshend said.
"(The jury was told to consider a) thesis that the chairperson has suggested rather than what the evidence has shown.
"A fair examination of the whole of the evidence could not support clear satisfaction that the player was doing something other than an incident where both players had eyes for the ball, and both players contested the ball, as found by the Tribunal. "We say for the foregoing reasons the Tribunal's decision is infected by error and so unreasonable that it requires reversing."
From The Age
“The finding was unreasonable and did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness,” Kellam said, adding there was “an error of law”.
“We concluded [that the] finding of the jury was unreasonable.”
Kellam also said: “Failure to afford procedural fairness amounts to error of the law. Because we’re unable to identify the evidentiary basis of the finding, ‘the actions of Cripps were in the bumping of an opponent’, we conclude findings of the jury were unreasonable”.
I bet that pissed off Gleeson at the time, and the next few cases he went out of his way to over explain things to the 2 ex players.
This type of defence will be the only avenue Sydney have to get Heeney off, based on the below graphic. Points 2, 3 and 4 aren't grounds for appeal.
I still think most people think Rioli got Jordan Ridley with the elbow on his leading arm. Hence the calls about the two week penalty for him not being enough.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,960
Swan OUT of Brownlow race in Appeal call that ‘wreaks complete violence on the rules’
Swan OUT of Brownlow race in Appeal call that ‘wreaks complete violence on the rules’
www.foxsports.com.au
Sydney superstar Isaac Heeney is officially out of the Brownlow Medal race.
One of the main contenders for the AFL’s top gong, Heeney was unsuccessful in his last-ditch appeal of a one-game striking ban and will miss Saturday’s clash with North Melbourne.
The Appeals Board disagreed with all three elements of the Swans’ appeal, finding that the Tribunal was allowed to follow the new guideline (clause 4.3b), meaning it was within its rights to determine Heeney’s strike was intentional.
The board was not declaring whether Heeney was guilty or innocent, just whether the Tribunal made its determination following the correct processes or not.
The Swans had failed in their Tribunal appeal on Tuesday night, with coach John Longmire declaring he “can’t accept” that Heeney’s fend-off which left St Kilda defender Jimmy Webster with a bloody nose was intentional.
Heeney claimed his act was simply forward craft and happens “probably 50 to 100 times in some games”.
The Tribunal had found Heeney’s swing was “more than a swatting motion” and thus fell under new AFL clause 4.3(b).
“Heeney’s swing of the arm was a forceful blow, and he intended that blow to make contact with Webster, albeit not to his face. We are not satisfied that he intended only to make contact with Webster’s hands,” Jeff Gleeson said in relaying the Tribunal’s reasons.
“This was an intentional strike resulting in injury, and accordingly, we consider a one-match sanction is appropriate.”
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,961
APPEAL BOARD REASONS
The player has come to the Appeal Board, relying upon three grounds of appeal.
The first ground was that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal that had a material impact upon its decision.
The second ground was that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that it did.
The third ground was that there was manifest excessiveness in classifying the conduct as intentional.
FIRST GROUND
The question comes down to whether or not a finding of intentional conduct on the part of Heeney was open to the Tribunal.
We stress at this point that this Appeal Board is not here to conduct what lawyers call a merits review.
We are not here to decide the guilt or innocence of the player. We are here to oversee and review the decision of the Tribunal.
It’s enough that we find that there was evidence or material which made it open to the Tribunal to come to a finding of intentional conduct.
We looked at the videos a number of times, and counsel have addressed us about the videos. Certainly there was material before the Tribunal put by Miller that could have suggested carelessness or accidental conduct on the part of Heeney because he stopped momentarily after the incident and looked surprised by it.
There are other matters that may bear upon whether the conduct was accidental or careless.
For us, viewing the video evidence, reading the transcript of the evidence of Heeney, it’s apparent to us and we therefore conclude there was material before the Tribunal in which it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding of intentional conduct.
We therefore dismiss that ground of appeal.
SECOND GROUND
The second ground of appeal only that there was some manifest excessiveness in categorising the conduct as intentional must also fail, really, for the reasons we’ve outlined above, that ground of appeal is dismissed.
THIRD GROUND
Thirdly, the ground of appeal dealing with Tribunals acting reasonably - based historically upon the Wednesbury principle - also cannot be made out.
To our mind, having regard to all the material that was before the Tribunal, and looking carefully at the reasons expressed by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing, we do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably or unjustly or unfairly.
We therefore dismiss that ground.
Accordingly, the appeal by Heeney is dismissed.
The player has come to the Appeal Board, relying upon three grounds of appeal.
The first ground was that there was an error of law committed by the Tribunal that had a material impact upon its decision.
The second ground was that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the conclusion that it did.
The third ground was that there was manifest excessiveness in classifying the conduct as intentional.
FIRST GROUND
The question comes down to whether or not a finding of intentional conduct on the part of Heeney was open to the Tribunal.
We stress at this point that this Appeal Board is not here to conduct what lawyers call a merits review.
We are not here to decide the guilt or innocence of the player. We are here to oversee and review the decision of the Tribunal.
It’s enough that we find that there was evidence or material which made it open to the Tribunal to come to a finding of intentional conduct.
We looked at the videos a number of times, and counsel have addressed us about the videos. Certainly there was material before the Tribunal put by Miller that could have suggested carelessness or accidental conduct on the part of Heeney because he stopped momentarily after the incident and looked surprised by it.
There are other matters that may bear upon whether the conduct was accidental or careless.
For us, viewing the video evidence, reading the transcript of the evidence of Heeney, it’s apparent to us and we therefore conclude there was material before the Tribunal in which it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding of intentional conduct.
We therefore dismiss that ground of appeal.
SECOND GROUND
The second ground of appeal only that there was some manifest excessiveness in categorising the conduct as intentional must also fail, really, for the reasons we’ve outlined above, that ground of appeal is dismissed.
THIRD GROUND
Thirdly, the ground of appeal dealing with Tribunals acting reasonably - based historically upon the Wednesbury principle - also cannot be made out.
To our mind, having regard to all the material that was before the Tribunal, and looking carefully at the reasons expressed by the Tribunal at the end of the hearing, we do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably or unjustly or unfairly.
We therefore dismiss that ground.
Accordingly, the appeal by Heeney is dismissed.
Nick Daicos must've been far enough ahead in the voting to save the AFL's blushes. Now put those voting slips back in the safe before anyone sees them.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,963
WTF is the Wednesbury principle??
The concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness as a ground of review raises concerns as to the extent to which both constitutional and practical limitations of judicial power are maintained. It has been suggested that the courts, when reviewing decisions under this ground, essentially look at the substance result of the decision rather than the process by which the decision is made. By holding that an actual decision reached by an administrative body is deficient on its face rather than considering the way in which the decision was made, the courts are arguably usurping the power of Parliament.
......
The concept of unreasonableness as an independent ground of review was defined by Lord Greene in the UK Court of Appeal decision in Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223. Essentially, it subjects to review, decisions that are ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to [them]’.3 This ground of review was envisaged by Lord Greene as a safety net, which operated to catch those decisions that were manifestly absurd but might escape review on the other more specific grounds.4 Alternatively, it has been suggested that the ground was to serve as an ‘umbrella’, under which to gather related themes and principles applying in judicial review, or as a ‘springboard’, from which to define new (or adapted) legal standards to guard against executive abuse.5
.......
MrMeaner this is your field
The concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness as a ground of review raises concerns as to the extent to which both constitutional and practical limitations of judicial power are maintained. It has been suggested that the courts, when reviewing decisions under this ground, essentially look at the substance result of the decision rather than the process by which the decision is made. By holding that an actual decision reached by an administrative body is deficient on its face rather than considering the way in which the decision was made, the courts are arguably usurping the power of Parliament.
......
The concept of unreasonableness as an independent ground of review was defined by Lord Greene in the UK Court of Appeal decision in Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223. Essentially, it subjects to review, decisions that are ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to [them]’.3 This ground of review was envisaged by Lord Greene as a safety net, which operated to catch those decisions that were manifestly absurd but might escape review on the other more specific grounds.4 Alternatively, it has been suggested that the ground was to serve as an ‘umbrella’, under which to gather related themes and principles applying in judicial review, or as a ‘springboard’, from which to define new (or adapted) legal standards to guard against executive abuse.5
.......
MrMeaner this is your field
Put simply, it’s where a decision is so unreasonable no reasonable decision maker could have made it.
It is generally an administrative law principle but applies more generally.
It is quite hard to win on because it is such a high standard.
It is encapsulated in the second ground of appeals you put up before this appeal.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,367
- 195,959
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,965
We know a bit about that concept
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #2,966
Has anyone won the brownlow when there is 7 games to go? Ollie polled 12 votes and Dusty 15 and they have polled the most with 36.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,367
- 195,959
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,967
According to the umpire - "Play on" 
- Mar 10, 2014
- 9,669
- 11,329
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd, Celtic, Tanunda
Nothing to see here.
Move along now peeps.
- Mar 10, 2014
- 9,669
- 11,329
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man Utd, Celtic, Tanunda
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,367
- 195,959
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,970
Remember Byron getting 6 weeks for a bump on a crows player in a trial game who then played the following week. They love testing out their new toys on us.
RossFC
Moderator
- Moderator
- #2,971
Glenelg’s Oscar Adams has been handed a reprimand for striking Port’s Tom Scully at Alberton Oval on Saturday.
Oscar Adams (Glenelg) – Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand
Oscar Adams (Glenelg) – Striking
Finding: This is deemed as a low-level offence.
Penalty: Reprimand
According to the umpire - "Play on"
From memory the player with the ball then waltzed past Evans who was on the ground clutching his head, and the suns kicked a goal (I think?)
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,367
- 195,959
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,973
Yes, they did
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 80,367
- 195,959
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #2,974
Similar threads
