MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Still don’t really understand the outrage. Our only hope of a downgrade was leniency due to his good record.

According to the guidelines he’s responsible for his head slamming into the ground and concussion. It doesn’t matter where the initial contact was. It’s regarded as high contact and severe.

Was always going to be multiple weeks with how the guidelines are now.

Again it’s very disappointing but to be expected as soon as his head cannoned into the ground.

 

[Rising Power]

Ok next option is a Face/Off scenario with Jed.

 

[240volt]

It’s been 20 mins of deliberating, wtf they doing? Having a few bevvys at the back

It’s all you can eat Buffet tonight.

 

[bow and arrow]

Poor Dan! We're run by incompetents!

On SM-S711B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Reasons:

In our view, none of the matters that Houston raised relate to any error of law, the Tribunal was said to have made.

They relate to factual findings led by the Tribunal. Those findings are only appellable if there was no material for the Tribunal upon which it could find them.

Parties had every opportunity to put their respective cases on penalty below, and did so.

It was open to the Tribunal below to find that the breach was serious or significant, there's no requirement to put either party on notice that such a finding might be made.

It did make an observation in its reasons that there was the potential for more serious injury. Again, we do not find it necessary that it was essential for the Tribunal below to put the parties on notice of that finding.

Accordingly, we reject that ground of procedural fairness.

It made those findings about serious or significant harm and the potential for more serious injury on the basis of the video and photographic evidence.

There was material before the Tribunal which it could be found that there was forceful high contact to the neck and that there was forceful contact to the opponent's upper shoulder.

It was open to the Tribunal to find that the offence charge was serious and significant.

Again, we referred to the video evidence, which we've studied and the still photographs, accordingly, we dismiss that ground of appeal.

The next question is whether the penalty of five matches was manifestly excessive.

Again, the argument below seemed to rely very heavily upon comparable cases. Our point in the Appeal Board is whether or not there is argument based upon comparable cases.

It must be shown whether or not the sentence that might be available might be so plainly outside the range of sentences available to the judge, or in this case, the Tribunal, in the circumstances the case the appellate intervention is warranted …

What we look to is whether the sentence of five matches suspension so plainly outside range of sentences available that appellate intervention is warranted.

In argument for Houston, it was put to him that the sentence of five matches was perhaps within that range, keeping in mind the sentence of seven matches accorded to Webster earlier in the season, and keeping in mind the other cases that were relied heavily upon by counsel for Houston, which related to penalties of four matches.

Accordingly, we concluded that the penalty imposed is not mainly outside the range of sentences available, and we dismiss that ground of appeal.

Finally, Houston also submitted that the Tribunal failed to give weight or adequate weight to his exemplary record.

Again, this was the subject of submissions below, and reasons were given by the Tribunal.

In our view it could not be said the Tribunal did not give that matter by consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

 

[theouthouse]

Surely he can just Don the number 41 for the rest of the season and no one will be none the wiser.

 

[tribey]

Vegemite lid lol. Surprised they didn't come back and give him an extra week.

In the grand tradition of the fitness coach with moobs, the doctor who couldn’t deduce Aliir was concussed, we take along our finest legal mind:

 

[agmsy]

Vegemite lid lol. Surprised they didn't come back and give him an extra week.

 

[WillemDaDrew]

Waste of time.
We have the finals to focus on now.

Heck the media circus & heck the AFL.
Let’s not make this a distraction.

 

[tribey]

keeping in mind the sentence of seven matches accorded to Webster earlier in the season

lol

 

[240volt]

In the grand tradition of the fitness coach with moobs, the doctor who couldn’t deduce Aliir was concussed, we take along our finest legal mind:

View attachment 2087853

Pleading Guilty was always going to make it easy for the AFL to bend us over.
You’d think anyone with any legal experience would know that.
Even I can work that out FFS.

 

[backtozero]

According to the guidelineshe’s responsible for his head slamming into the ground and concussion. It doesn’t matter where the initial contact was. It’s regarded as high contact and severe.

Do you have a copy of these guidelines?

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Yes Houston is one of if not the best users in the AFL of the footy, but 1 player can be covered especially a HBF. But knowing Ken there can be no missing pieces of the puzzle.

 

[Kenny_Powers]

I think the thing that gets under most peoples skin with this, is simply if this was a star player from Vic, it would be a different sanction.

It's not tin foil hat stuff.

If you go back over the last few years and lay down the different cases, there is genuine discrepancies.

Webster getting 7 for full feet off the ground, shoulder direct to the head of someone, and Houston getting 2 less for a legal, feet planted, in play, chest on chest bump, albeit the "high" contact from Rankines head hitting the ground, is pretty disappointing, but the AFL is a circus and unanswerable to anyone so.....


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

The guilty plea also got us absolutely nothing anyway. The AFL asked for 5 weeks and by pleasing guilty he got 5 weeks.

 

[Brian McGee]

This was a bit of a watershed case in that a bump that didn’t hit the player in the head, as agreed by the tribunal caused concussion and resulted in 5 weeks. This is now the new standard going forward. Any contact that results in someone’s head hitting the turf should result in matches. Even though we already had one this week against one of our players that was no case to answer.

 

[Brian McGee]

Also never plead guilty to anything ever again. Make them argue and prove it. Like stated above there is no Le I envy or discount so why bother?

 

[gbear]

What a laughing stock the afl is

Try absolute corrupt organisation that is Victorian centric.

 

[davesnothere]

Surely he can just Don the number 41 for the rest of the season and no one will be none the wiser.

They will. It might take a minute but not much more than a minute.

Seriously once apon a time you could get away with a good old fashioned ring in.

Those were good days.

 

[bringbackbucky]

I still can’t get over the fact we plead guilty… may as well have wheeled Dan in in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit…

 

[240volt]

What a laughing stock the afl is

Only equaled by our legal representation.

 

[Flash of power]

An appeal can only be be successful on the decision / ruling being wrong on a point of law. It wasn't and he pleaded guilty. Had he not pleaded guilty of the original 'crime' then he would have had a much stronger chance of challenging the decision on the basis that there was no wrongdoing in the beginning. But that went out the window when he pleaded guilty. Its the same scenario as paying a speeding fine and then trying to challenge it on a point of law or the fact the fine was too high, you can't its a done deal.

 

[Nemisis]

There was no deliberation... It took 20 minutes to type that bullshite.

 

[jabba5114]

As soon as they started talking about paint candles and Vegemite lids I knew it wasn't going to change. I mean wtf?

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk

 

[backtozero]

This was a bit of a watershed case in that a bump that didn’t hit the player in the head, as agreed by the tribunal caused concussion and resulted in 5 weeks. This is now the new standard going forward. Any contact that results in someone’s head hitting the turf should result in matches. Even though we already had one this week against one of our players that was no case to answer.

^ Insinuating that the AFL upholds standards and are at all consistent in anything they do.