MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Schulzenfest]

Only just catching up with this thread, has SPP been sentenced to the electric chair yet?

Didn't we use a long time Port supporter and solicitor who was fairly old and had a poor track record of getting our blokes off of AFL suspensions when they appealed?

Yeah, Mark Griffin. Died a few months ago.

 

[Capital Power]

28 minutes for a closing argument!

Isn't the jury made up of ex-footballers? Not sure that's the best approach

 

[sobrave]

Burgoyne's first tackle is useless to use as a precedent, because the AFL itself declared that the guidelines were wrong based on that one. And change it. If you want to be highlighting a tackle then it should be Burgoyne's second one, which was done under the current guidelines.
Or Tim Kelly's tackle. Which occured the next day and was adjudged to be a fine.

A dangerous tackle should be a spear tackle, sling or German suplex. Not a clumsy big buffoon types who gets sat on his arse then rolls and bops his noggin

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Burgoyne's first tackle is useless to use as a precedent, because the AFL itself declared that the guidelines were wrong based on that one. And change it. If you want to be highlighting a tackle then it should be Burgoyne's second one, which was done under the current guidelines.
Or Tim Kelly's tackle. Which occured the next day and was adjudged to be a fine.

If they are going to have rules about duty of care and protecting the head and in 2020 they didnt know that this was wrong then they are ****ing ******ed and there is absolute zero chance that if that tackle was done by Mayes or Pep the AFL wouldnt have suspended them.

 

[chachi11]

28 minutes for a closing argument!

Must be getting paid per minute

 

[Schulzenfest]

I'm extremely worried by the fact that it's taking this lawyer 28 minutes to explain why this wasn't a dangerous tackle. Should've taken 28 seconds. Less is more sometimes.

 

[TeeKray]

The AFL Tribubal is such a farce. It's treated like this legitimate court with evidence and submissions and QCs and all sorts of bullshit but it's actually nothing more than a flimsy kangaroo court ruling on loosely defined rules and guidelines relating to mostly non serious incidents in a game of football. Biggest egotistical wank off ever.

 

[rumoursofwinter]

How the hell did "big chrisso" get the job in the first place the incompetent dunce? They may as well have picked big nose basil

He's part of BoysTown. Jobs by boys for boys. No money is too much for boys club. We are dumb but so what.

 

[MrMeaner]

One thing I should say is that I know Jeff Gleeson QC. I like Jeff. I have worked with Jeff. He is a good egg. Sometimes as counsel you have to make the best argument possible while not necessarily believing in its merit (not that I know what his position IRL is on this tackle).

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[elsler]

so the club went yep this sounds like a good angle to take i flipping hope not

 

[Capital Power]

The AFL Tribubal is such a farce. It's treated like this legitimate court with evidence and submissions and QCs and all sorts of bullshit but it's actually nothing more than a flimsy kangaroo court ruling on loosely defined rules and guidelines relating to mostly non serious incidents in a game of football. Biggest egotistical wank off ever.

I think for me seeing Gaff back on the park and being talked up by commentators after what he did was enough. That's the kind of thing the system should be designed to eliminate. He should have received 12 months.

 

[chachi11]

David Jones delivering final instructions...Harris Scarfe disappointed...boom tish.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Nobody posted this. This was a big win for Port up front.


The jury (consisting of Jason Johnson, Richard Loveridge and Stewart Loewe) is being shown the vision of Powell-Pepper's tackle on Ben McEvoy.

David Jones has deemed Mr Krupka is allowed to show the vision he is referring to despite protest from Mr Gleeson.

Krupka says he will show vision of what a 'true' sling tackle is, which Powell-Pepper's is not according to his argument.

The change to the dangerous tackle guidelines introduced mid-year render incidents before that as inadmissible, Gleeson contends.

Tribunal chairman David Jones is asking Krupka how the vision he wants to show relates to the Powell-Pepper case.

 

[MrMeaner]

I think for me seeing Gaff back on the park and being talked up by commentators after what he did was enough. That's the kind of thing the system should be designed to eliminate. He should have received 12 months.

I completely agree with that.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

One thing I should say is that I know Jeff Gleeson QC. I like Jeff. I have worked with Jeff. He is a good egg. Sometimes as counsel you have to make the best argument possible while not necessarily believing in its merit (not that I know what his position IRL is on this tackle).

Gleeson has had some real doosies of arguments about what players should have done in some situuations including claiming that some one should've piroueted out the way to avoid contact with an opponent when both players were competing for the ball.

 

[Capital Power]

Chairman David Jones: "The player in my view gave his evidence in a very frank and honest manner."

But??

 

[MrMeaner]

Gleeson has had some real doosies of arguments about what players should have done in some situuations including claiming that some one should've piroueted out the way to avoid contact with an opponent when both players were competing for the ball.

He's got a job to do, which is to present the best possible case for the charge once it is laid. Sometimes, that involves making submissions that may seem untenable. It is the system, not the man. The MRO, on the other hand...

 

[chachi11]

 

[Duckimus Prime]

He's got a job to do, which is to present the best possible case for the charge. Sometimes, that involves making submissions that may seem untenable. It is the system, not the man.

Wasn't taking a shot at him, just commenting on some of the things that he's had to put forward because of the approach that the AFL has taken.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Gleeson has had some real doosies of arguments about what players should have done in some situuations including claiming that some one should've piroueted out the way to avoid contact with an opponent when both players were competing for the ball.

If you are talking the Robbie Gray comment don't go for the ball in trial game in WA, that wasn't Gleeson.

 

[MrMeaner]

Wasn't taking a shot at him, just commenting on some of the things that he's had to put forward because of the approach that the AFL has taken.

No worries. I wasn't sure of the tone given that some others on here have gone the ad hom. I agree with your point, btw. But all barristers know what it's like to have to make submissions where they think the other side has the better case.

 

[sobrave]

I think for me seeing Gaff back on the park and being talked up by commentators after what he did was enough. That's the kind of thing the system should be designed to eliminate. He should have received 12 months.

Aw jeez you really feel for gaffy he's suffered so much

 

[chachi11]

I certainly didn't think it would take this long

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Aw jeez you really feel for gaffy he's suffered so much

Sometimes even the best men can make mistakes