MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[chachi11]

Lol bringing up Webster getting 7 weeks to justify giving Houston 5....wtf

 

[El_Scorcho]

5 weeks for a bump which wasn't high and ball in play and from a player with a clean record is dohshit considering what others have got.

Yep. We've got the usual chorus of ****wits saying "oh yeah but you can't make another bad decision because of previous bad decisions" and in like 2 weeks a Carlton player will do exactly the same thing and get off completely and everyone will say it's unfair but nothing will change.

It's just us that gets examples made of us. SPP was the first decision after the Maynard debacle so we got an inflated penalty, and now suddenly because it's little old Port the loser club, they can finally show that they'll hold firm and make sure to suspend an All Australian for a potential Grand Final. They aren't swayed by the chances of someone playing in a GF anymore.

Until next time when it's a big Vic club and suddenly they're bending over backwards to let a guy off.

 

[backtozero]

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.

How would this work in any other situation in the real world?

Ok I broke the law
Guilty!
But wait, I didn't actually break the law though
No, no, no you said you did, therefore you're guilty. You shouldn't have said it.

 

[Capital Power]

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.

It's the new standard going forward until such time as it isn't. Let's wait and see what happens when the next Victorian player fronts up.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

Lawyers tell clients to plead guilty and throw themselves at the mercy of the courts, to get a lower penalty. It doesn't always work.

That's what Assange did a couple of months ago.

That's what one of my brother inlaws' brother inlaw did recently.

A work colleague made a vexatious claim against him to get workers compo. He pleaded guilty to a minor charge, on advice of his lawyers, despite not really wanting to do it, so that it would be processed quicker than if he said he wasn't guilty. The judge said even though he pleaded guilty, it was minor action, the judge also said the claimant was being frivolous and vexatious and dismissed it. The employer of both of them then proceeded to dismiss the claimant on the basis of this matter and a couple of other things he had done. It was a good reason to get rid of a troublesome employee.

The problem is that the AFL system isn't a court or legal administrative tribunal. It sets itself up as one, but it doesn't always follow the way a court would act and our lawyers probably paid the Tribunal too much respect.

 

[El_Scorcho]

He got infringement loading BECAUSE we potentially could play finals, and they stated as much. It was a total **** you right the way through.

Yep, they've now "proven" that they aren't too soft to suspend a big name player from a potential Grand Final.

Great

Except we all know if Daicos had done the same thing theyd have let him off.

 

[philreich]

MRP = Must Ruin Port.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Dan’s statement after his verdict from the appeals board.

 

[MrChow]

Can we appeal again at another level? Like Supreme Court - Perhaps we could shine some light on all the dirty Vic Bias and Media influence at the same time

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

MRP = Must Ruin Port.

HAHA.

For clarification, its
MRO - Michael Christian
Tribunal Panel - 1 chairman usually a KC/SC who is now on the panel making the decision as well as instructing + 2 ex players
Appeals Board - 1 chairman a KC /SC + 2 other lawyers.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Do you have a copy of these guidelines?

You can google them, they’re freely available online. Clearly state that “contact” also includes the contact force against the ground. It’s not only based on the physical body on body contact.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Can we appeal again at another level? Like Supreme Court - Perhaps we could shine some light on all the dirty Vic Bias and Media influence at the same time

Nothing stopping us trying, however;

The AFL are vindictive shits and would have payback in mind either this year and/or the following year(s);

Koch is too soft, and he is trying to get on the Commission, so he isn't going to rock the boat.

 

[ibd77]

Just keep appealing for the next couple of weeks. Use the Wookie defence or something.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

HAHA.

For clarification, its
MRO - Michael Christian
Tribunal Panel - 1 chairman usually a KC/SC who is now on the panel making the decision as well as instructing + 2 ex players
Appeals Board - 1 chairman a KC /SC + 2 other lawyers.

Port’s Lawyers - 0 KC/SC. Just Dennis Denuto and Lionel Hutz. We were doomed from the get go.

 

[JayPea14]

Imbeciles fell over at the first hurdle playing guilty for a bump that doesn't even warrant a free kick by the rules of the game... Manifestly inept

 

[tribey]

You can google them, they’re freely available online. Clearly state that “contact” also includes the contact force against the ground. It’s not only based on the physical body on body contact.

Not according to the 2024 guidelines. There’s an inference to ‘any other impact’ but there’s no direct reference to ‘the ground’, as that would open up a significant can of worms.

It’s all inference.

 

[backtozero]

You can google them, they’re freely available online. Clearly state that “contact” also includes the contact force against the ground. It’s not only based on the physical body on body contact.

The part you're referring to relates to tackles, not to bumps.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Port’s Lawyers - 0 KC/SC. Just Dennis Denuto and Lionel Hutz. We were doomed from the get go.

Haha, I did say to someone at the club that if the AFL counsel say that Excessive Force was used, then Dan or our lawyer should ask how many Newton units of excessive force were applied.

Then say - you know Mr AFL legal counsel, force can be calculated, its mass x acceleration and its measured in Newton units. How many Newton units of excessive Force were applied by me/Dan?? Oh you haven't done the calculation. You don't know how to do it? So you are just going on the vibe of the bump, that it was excessive?

The phrase Excessive Force was never used according to David Zita's reporting.

 

[Chrizzt]

The problem is that the AFL system isn't a court or legal administrative tribunal. It sets itself up as one, but it doesn't always follow the way a court would act and our lawyers probably paid the Tribunal too much respect.

Never will be a legal body either. If it were they would need to take into account things like precedent which would absolute kill the AFLs inherent need to doctor outcomes on commercial grounds, such as handing heavier penalties to less commercially important clubs (Port, Saints) while alleviating penalties for clubs needing assistance (Brissy, a la Cameron) or crowd pulling cases like Maynard at Sydney.

Port were never getting off light as they need the aggregate penalty for KOs to look big in the eventual legal cases to show they are doing something, and need buffer room to let the Maynard’s off to appease commercial outcomes.

 

[tribey]

View attachment 2087902
The part you're referring to relates to tackles, not to bumps.

Technically you could hang a player for bumping a player into a passing seagull.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

View attachment 2087902
The part you're referring to relates to tackles, not to bumps.

That is not specified. Just because tackles are mentioned later on, it does not specify that it only applies to that. New paragraph, new point.

Same principle applies to if you shove a player into a fence causing a concussion. That’s not a tackle but can bet you’d be suspended.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Port were never getting off light as they need the aggregate penalty for KOs to look big in the eventual legal cases to show they are doing something, and need buffer room to let the Maynard’s off to appease commercial outcomes.

When the farken hell will these legal cases actually happen?

Peter Jess and co. have been threatening to do them for years. But so far he is like Trump and fraudulent voting. Lots of talk about it, but no proof to satisfy a court.

 

[Flash of power]

How would this work in any other situation in the real world?

Ok I broke the law
Guilty!
But wait, I didn't actually break the law though
No, no, no you said you did, therefore you're guilty. You shouldn't have said it.

that is exactly how it works in the real world, you plead guilty, that is what you are - Guilty, in a court you just proceed to sentencing for your crime. There is no "sorry I didn't mean it" it's done, circumstances may influence the severity of the penalty though. Just as in my scenario, you get a speeding fine, you pay it, that is an admission of guilt, there is no other option available to you, you are convicted of that offence and the fine /loss of points / licence etc stands.

 

[240volt]

Lawyers tell clients to plead guilty and throw themselves at the mercy of the courts, to get a lower penalty. It doesn't always work.

That's what Assange did a couple of months ago.

That's what one of my brother inlaws' brother inlaw did recently.

A work colleague made a vexatious claim against him to get workers compo. He pleaded guilty to a minor charge, on advice of his lawyers, despite not really wanting to do it, so that it would be processed quicker than if he said he wasn't guilty. The judge said even though he pleaded guilty, it was minor action, the judge also said the claimant was being frivolous and vexatious and dismissed it. The employer of both of them then proceeded to dismiss the claimant on the basis of this matter and a couple of other things he had done. It was a good reason to get rid of a troublesome employee.

The problem is that the AFL system isn't a court or legal administrative tribunal. It sets itself up as one, but it doesn't always follow the way a court would act and our lawyers probably paid the Tribunal too much respect.

Yeah if your dead in the water and been caught red handed pleading guilty is sometimes a good option.
I don’t believe this was the correct option for us from the beginning.
Imagine if Maynard pleaded guilty last year?
Like in any negotiation you start as low as you can realistically go.
We basically accepted the Death penalty and that’s what we got.

 

[backtozero]

That is not specified. Just because tackles are mentioned later on, it does not specify that it only applies to that. New paragraph, new point.

Same principle applies to if you shove a player into a fence causing a concussion. That’s not a tackle but can bet you’d be suspended.

Tackles and hits aren't bumps. When the AFL makes a rule that a bump can be too forceful or to the body but high, it needs to be in the guidelines.
The fact that it isn't specified is what we should have been arguing from the beginning.