MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[raptalia]

Jacob van Rooyen cleared to play, as he should be, but we all know if it had been a Port player he would have got extra games for wasting the tribunal's time with a frivolous appeal.

It took two hours for these guys to finally succumb to the bleeding obvious.

Young Demon van Rooyen free to play after successful appeal

Following a marathon hearing at the AFL appeals board, Jacob van Rooyen's two-match suspension is overturned, allowing the 20-year-old to play for the Demons against the Hawks this weekend.

www.abc.net.au

 

[melanChronic]

Some of these tribunal overrulings have a WWE vibe to them. Drag it out over a week, drum up the outrage for clicks and to give the sen jocks something to talk about every morning. And then against all odds, let them off.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The rule is about a player that has made spoiling their sole intention.

Went the coat hanger. It was all about making him earn the mark. Many Port players were masters of it.

 

[Sleezy]

Went the coat hanger. It was all about making him earn the mark. Many Port players were masters of it.

What's the difference between a coat hanger and a clothesline? Maybe it's just a regional thing, different names for the same act?

 

[Grave Danger]

When Van Rooyen was charged with striking, rather than say rough conduct, I thought he had a chance of getting off on a technicality. To my thinking striking is a deliberate act (not sure how the AFL define it) and it always amuses me when players get fined ratherr than suspended for punching their opponents.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

What's the difference between a coat hanger and a clothesline? Maybe it's just a regional thing, different names for the same act?

One's a bent arm, one's a straight arm? They're interchangeable.

 

[240volt]

One's a bent arm, one's a straight arm? They're interchangeable.

And then there’s The Granger, you don’t get up from them.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

And then there’s The Granger, you don’t get up from them.

I saw him definitely clothesline a guy once. Poor bloke nearly did a 360 around his outstretched arm.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Appeals board basically ripped ex AFL advocate and now Tribunal chair and part of 3 man panel that makes decisons, Gleeson KC, a new one saying he has no idea what a reaonable player is. Hope our KC continually reminds him of it when we have players up before the Tribunal.

Demons WIN four-hour AFL appeal marathon as Jacob van Rooyen cleared of striking with spoil

Demons WIN four-hour AFL appeal marathon as young gun cleared of striking after spoil

www.foxsports.com.au

While Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson accepted van Rooyen was attempting to spoil Gold Coast’s Charlie Ballard

10

Charlie Ballard

Age

25

Ht

196cm

Wt

95kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.9

3star

K

8.8

3star

HB

3.1

3star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.2

3star

MG

185.6

3star

D

11.3

3star

K

7.7

3star

HB

3.6

2star

M

4.9

5star

T

1.3

2star

MG

158.9

3star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.4

4star

MG

156.0

3star

when he crashed into the Suns defender last Saturday, he and the jury upheld the ban on Tuesday night.

“A reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head,” Gleeson said.

Gleeson had previously instructed the jury that “if the contact is either inevitable or likely - in a sense that it’s reasonably foreseeable that it would result in a reportable offence - it is not incidental.

“If we find the contact was reasonably foreseeable and results in a reportable offence of striking, it is not permitted contact.”

Goodwin after the decision said ....... “Clearly, the laws state that you can contest the ball, and Jacob’s only thing that he was looking at was contesting the ball. The fabric of the game has been challenged, clearly.”

Will Houghton KC, representing the Demons, made a lengthy early statement to try and permit the club to argue against the directions given by Jeff Gleeson during the initial Tribunal hearing. He even cited a legal case from 1909 as part of his argument the club should be able to bring new evidence into the hearing.

“We submit the Tribunal was wrong in law, because it sought to limit the true operation of the rule (18.5.3, Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark),” Houghton said.

“The rule is there to protect a player whose sole objective is to either contest the mark or spoil the mark. “He went and spoiled the mark, using an outstretched arm and fist to punch the ball away. That should’ve been the end of the matter.

“Van Rooyen was found to be an honest player, who told an honest story about an incident in which he achieved the objective every player should be able to achieve: To spoil a mark.”

Melbourne also attempted to argue there was a “denial of natural justice” from the Tribunal because it didn’t give Melbourne an opportunity to make submissions in relation to penalty.

The AFL, represented by Andrew Woods KC, noted the Dees ultimately accepted the Tribunal’s interpretation on Tuesday night after initial reluctance. He said the game’s rules “explicitly require a duty of care” for lawful actions both on and off the ball.

Should Melbourne’s appeal succeed, Woods said, players would “essentially have a blank cheque” and would have “no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.” [bullshit hyperbole but to be expected from a lawyer more representing himself than the AFL].

After deliberating for more than two hours, the Appeal Board cleared Jacob van Rooyen.

“Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact,” Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam explained.

“These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

“We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

“However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

“It‘s not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

“Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It‘s not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.”

I dont know what the 2nd ground is will try and find it and will put specific wording from both Tribunal and Appeals Board hearing in here. This is a significant ruling IMO as it says the chair of the tribunal doesn't know what a reasonable player is and that he has to stop trying to add extra text/meaning to the rule.

 

[240volt]

I saw him definitely clothesline a guy once. Poor bloke nearly did a 360 around his outstretched arm.

He got on a bus once and sat next to me ,this was when I think he was working as a Gardener in the city.
He looked bigger and nastier up close.
He didn’t look like he was up for a chat so I looked straight ahead and made no eye contact.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

He got on a bus once and sat next to me ,this was when I think he was working as a Gardener in the city.
He looked bigger and nastier up close.
He didn’t look like he was up for a chat so I looked straight ahead and made no eye contact.

 

[malcheski]

The Appeals board basically ripped ex AFL advocate and now Tribunal chair and part of 3 man panel that makes decisons, Gleeson KC, a new one saying he has no idea what a reaonable player is. Hope our KC continually reminds him of it when we have players up before the Tribunal.

Demons WIN four-hour AFL appeal marathon as Jacob van Rooyen cleared of striking with spoil

Demons WIN four-hour AFL appeal marathon as young gun cleared of striking after spoil

www.foxsports.com.au

While Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson accepted van Rooyen was attempting to spoil Gold Coast’s Charlie Ballard when he crashed into the Suns defender last Saturday, he and the jury upheld the ban on Tuesday night.

“A reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head,” Gleeson said.

Gleeson had previously instructed the jury that “if the contact is either inevitable or likely - in a sense that it’s reasonably foreseeable that it would result in a reportable offence - it is not incidental.

“If we find the contact was reasonably foreseeable and results in a reportable offence of striking, it is not permitted contact.”

Goodwin after the decision said ....... “Clearly, the laws state that you can contest the ball, and Jacob’s only thing that he was looking at was contesting the ball. The fabric of the game has been challenged, clearly.”

Will Houghton KC, representing the Demons, made a lengthy early statement to try and permit the club to argue against the directions given by Jeff Gleeson during the initial Tribunal hearing. He even cited a legal case from 1909 as part of his argument the club should be able to bring new evidence into the hearing.

“We submit the Tribunal was wrong in law, because it sought to limit the true operation of the rule (18.5.3, Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark),” Houghton said.

“The rule is there to protect a player whose sole objective is to either contest the mark or spoil the mark. “He went and spoiled the mark, using an outstretched arm and fist to punch the ball away. That should’ve been the end of the matter.

“Van Rooyen was found to be an honest player, who told an honest story about an incident in which he achieved the objective every player should be able to achieve: To spoil a mark.”

Melbourne also attempted to argue there was a “denial of natural justice” from the Tribunal because it didn’t give Melbourne an opportunity to make submissions in relation to penalty.

The AFL, represented by Andrew Woods KC, noted the Dees ultimately accepted the Tribunal’s interpretation on Tuesday night after initial reluctance. He said the game’s rules “explicitly require a duty of care” for lawful actions both on and off the ball.

Should Melbourne’s appeal succeed, Woods said, players would “essentially have a blank cheque” and would have “no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.” [bullshit hyperbole but to be expected from a lawyer more representing himself than the AFL].

After deliberating for more than two hours, the Appeal Board cleared Jacob van Rooyen.

“Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact,” Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam explained.

“These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

“We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

“However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

“It‘s not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

“Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It‘s not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.”

I dont know what the 2nd ground is will try and find it and will put specific wording from both Tribunal and Appeals Board hearing in here. This is a significant ruling IMO as it says the chair of the tribunal doesn't know what a reasonable player is and that he has to stop trying to add extra text/meaning to the rule.

Rule change incoming to cover the AFL's backside paying $1.01

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Should Melbourne’s appeal succeed, Woods said, players would “essentially have a blank cheque” and would have “no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.” [bullshit hyperbole but to be expected from a lawyer more representing himself than the AFL].

I don't think its as bullshit hyperbole as you might be suggesting. I mean, this thread itself has people commenting about "now anything goes in a legitimite spoil".

And we should already understand how much some clubs will try and stretch what contact can be permitted as part of a player whose sole objective is to spoil the ball.

Just as how far the AFL has gone to stretch the definition of a strike to include Van Rooyen's spoil attempt, or Rioli's trailing had being run into by Ridley.

After deliberating for more than two hours, the Appeal Board cleared Jacob van Rooyen.

“Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact,” Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam explained.

“These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

“We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

“However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

“It‘s not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

This would be the second case thats fallen over because of Gleeson seeing the case from an AFL representative point of view instead of the chair. This is Gleeson's attempt at how he believes the AFL wants the law to be interpreted rather than the law itself.

“Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It‘s not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.”

I dont know what the 2nd ground is will try and find it and will put specific wording from both Tribunal and Appeals Board hearing in here. This is a significant ruling IMO as it says the chair of the tribunal doesn't know what a reasonable player is and that he has to stop trying to add extra text/meaning to the rule.

I believe this is grounds two
"Melbourne also attempted to argue there was a “denial of natural justice” from the Tribunal because it didn’t give Melbourne an opportunity to make submissions in relation to penalty."

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I don't think its as bullshit hyperbole as you might be suggesting. I mean, this thread itself has people commenting about "now anything goes in a legitimite spoil".

And we should already understand how much some clubs will try and stretch what contact can be permitted as part of a player whose sole objective is to spoil the ball.

I put a like for your replies to the 2nd and 3rd quotes, but this one I disagree with. This was a classic - the sky will fall in type comment, if X is allowed. It wont.

Players will still be called out for late attempts, failed attempts, and questionable attempts. It wont open up the flood gates to people being hit game in game out by dodgy attempts.

The MRO didn't even call out Fogarty's hit on the Collingwood player and explain why that was allowed and this one wasn't. That's where the weakness in the whole system is. You need John Woods in those super ads comparing the pair and the Meerkats comparing the pair and explaining exactly what the difference is and why, and keep a record of if, and if the MRO has to compare more than the pair, say 10 examples, then so be it.

 

[RossFC]

Port’s Jake Weidemann has been offered a $125 fine and reprimand with an early guilty plea for engaging in rough conduct with South’s Joseph Haines at Alberton Oval on Sunday.
Jake Weidemann (Port) – Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle)
Conduct: Careless
Contact: High
Impact: Low
Base Sanction: 1 match
Early Guilty Plea: $125 fine and reprimand

 

[RossFC]

That's holding the bloody ball, how is that a free against and a 1 match ban downgraded to a fine? Absolute rubbish!!

 

[Brian McGee]

That’s unbelievable. As you said, should have been holding the ball.

 

[bomberclifford]

lol. he swung himself into that motion with the missed kick.

 

[chachi11]

Even when he had him cold Turkey htb the ump signalled play on, then dangerous tackle, he was never going to pay htb...lol.
What a bush league.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

As has already been said, that might be worst umpiring call I have ever seen.

 

[Portwon]

Both arms free when tackled let's him go when tackled so no double action

And like previously said the maggot was going to call play on.

That is an umpire looking for a reason to disadvantage one team.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Contact: High

WTF? He grabbed him around the waist.

 

[MrMeaner]

The AFL, represented by Andrew Woods KC, noted the Dees ultimately accepted the Tribunal’s interpretation on Tuesday night after initial reluctance. He said the game’s rules “explicitly require a duty of care” for lawful actions both on and off the ball.

I need to congratulate Andrew on his taking silk. I think it would be news to him too.

 

[NoddyHolder]

As has already been said, that might be worst umpiring call I have ever seen.

That was the one in the match thread I called the worst umpiring decision I'd ever seen. Away from the heat of the moment, looking at it objectively - it's still the worst I've ever seen.
For the sanfl to double down and fine the player is just corruption

edit - and they describe it as high contact. lol - he has both hands around the waist the whole time. Do the sanfl not realise that video recordings of the game exist and are available for the public to view?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

That was the one in the match thread I called the worst umpiring decision I'd ever seen. Away from the heat of the moment, looking at it objectively - it's still the worst I've ever seen.
For the sanfl to double down and fine the player is just corruption

edit - and they describe it as high contact. lol - he has both hands around the waist the whole time. Do the sanfl not realise that video recordings of the game exist and are available for the public to view?

They do. They also have the advantage of understanding how contact is determined in rough conduct.

If you tackle/bump a player and cause their head to hit the ground, then it is "high contact". And that pretty clearly occured here.