![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/port_adelaide.png)
Lol bringing up Webster getting 7 weeks to justify giving Houston 5....wtf
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
He got infringement loading BECAUSE we potentially could play finals, and they stated as much. It was a total **** you right the way through.
HAHA.MRP = Must Ruin Port.
Do you have a copy of these guidelines?
Nothing stopping us trying, however;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
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.
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.
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.Port’s Lawyers - 0 KC/SC. Just Dennis Denuto and Lionel Hutz. We were doomed from the get go.
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.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.
View attachment 2087902
The part you're referring to relates to tackles, not to bumps.
View attachment 2087902
The part you're referring to relates to tackles, not to bumps.
When the farken hell will these legal cases actually happen?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.
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.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.
Yeah if your dead in the water and been caught red handed pleading guilty is sometimes a good option.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.
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.