![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/port_adelaide.png)
Give me REH and Chewy by my side handing me notes (let alone MrMeaner) and I could have argued this 5x better than our lawyers
On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app
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.
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.
What happens if the Seagull is concussed?Technically you could hang a player for bumping a player into a passing seagull.
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.
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
No it isn't, it is only up to the court to prove you guilty if you plead not guilty and opt for a trial by judge or jury, you can then be found innocent of the charge or guilty based on facts and the law. Often people may plead guilty without actually being guilty because that may be the best option. BUT once you have pleaded guilty the judge will get you to agree to that plea in the courtroom, pronounce you guilty and proceed to sentencing. Job done, you can't undo it.People plead guilty without being guilty often. False admissions are a thing. It's up to the court to decide if a crime took place.
Is our lawyer a Hinkley? The paint can analogy sounds like an awkward Kenism.
What happens if the Seagull is concussed?
As I wrote in post # of this thread on Tuesday nightOnce again they have stated in their reasoning, as per the afl article that there is ample evidence of contact to the “top of the shoulder”. It is literally impossible for Houston to have contacted the top of rankines shoulder in a front to front bump. That was the lid argument they were going with. How can they justify that?
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.
Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player’s head or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player.
Not really how a 'Chambers' works. They're all individual sole practitioner barristers who happen to operate out of the same building. One being incompetent has no bearing on anyone else who operates out of there.We should immediately cut all ties with Jeffcott Chambers. They’ve proven themselves to be completely inept.
The question here is what can be considered "a reasonable result of the bump"?The fact it isn’t specific exactly what a bump, tackle etc includes isn’t really the point. It’s all resulted in high “contact” which is what they are trying to eliminate.
it’s a complicated game. They simply cannot have a definitive ruling for every action so it has to be generalised into things like “contact” “severe” etc type gradings.
View attachment 2087927
The definition of contact here is generalised however it provides an overarching structure to what is determined to include “contact”. It doesn’t definitively state this only applies to tackles, or to bumps or anything. Unfortunately for us and Houston, that includes the head slamming into the ground as a reasonable result of his bump.
Tackles are legal, however tackle a player where their head hits the ground with the same force as Rankine did with the same result, would you be arguing he should get off? Very unlikely.
Just because it’s a bump doesn’t change the impact they are trying to eliminate. May not agree but that’s the result.
Tackle or bump is kind of irrelevant. It’s the following action and outcome we all know is what’s punished. Like it or not, that’s what it is.
The question here is what can be considered "a reasonable result of the bump"?
It's not difficult to see the "reasonable result" of the action if a player is pushed into the fence or has his head slammed into the ground as part of a tackle, but I don't see Rankine's head hitting the ground as a "reasonable result" of Houston's bump when you consider the starting positions of the two players when the action was initiated. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that there was no proximate cause, that 9 times out of 10 Rankine's head would not hit the ground the way it did from that type of contact.
I get what you're saying and no doubt that's how the tribunal sees it but I just disagree that the so-called "duty of care" principle can or should be applied to a violent contact sport in the context that it's being applied here. As we have seen with the ad hoc application and inconsistent outcomes, it's just another tool for the corrupt AFL to further debase the integrity of the competition.He may not hit his head at that exact point with the exact same outcome 9/10 times however I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s not reasonably foreseeable that he could hit his head.
It’s very forseeble that if you bump a player at force that they will fall backwards and there’s a reasonable chance they will hit their head from there.
Feel the only point we can argue and be disappointed that we are hard done by is that the good bloke clause doesn’t seem to have been applied to someone with a clean as record as they come. Therefor, that discount shouldn’t be applied to anyone in the future if it wasn’t here.
I get what you're saying and no doubt that's how the tribunal sees it but I just disagree that the so-called "duty of care" principle can or should be applied to a violent contact sport in the context that it's being applied here. As we have seen with the ad hoc application and inconsistent outcomes, it's just another tool for the corrupt AFL to further debase the integrity of the competition.
Give me REH and Chewy by my side handing me notes (let alone MrMeaner) and I could have argued this 5x better than our lawyers
On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app