![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/port_adelaide.png)
KrispyKremeMullanikka
Team Captain
We need to stop calling our lawyers Dennis Denuto or Lionel Hutz
Its completely unfair to shame Dennis and Lionel like that
Fine.
We’ll call them Lionel Denuto and Dennis Hutz.
![](http://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji57.png)
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.
We need to stop calling our lawyers Dennis Denuto or Lionel Hutz
Its completely unfair to shame Dennis and Lionel like that
Its just the vibe of it
If he ever moved back to Vic, I’d love to compare his fine % at each clubWell any team with Zak butters the most dirty player in the history of the game ..
fined like a mad man must be full of dirty players..
What the tribunal have established is that the penalty for executing a bump within the rules that results in a concussion is 1 game less than the penalty for being a racist.So from the AFL tribunal notes it has to be established from here on in, one game is one game whether it's preseason, regular season or finals, 1 match = 1 match.
Reasons:
In our view, none of the matters that Houston raised relate to any error of law, the Tribunal was said to have made.
They relate to factual findings led by the Tribunal. Those findings are only appellable if there was no material for the Tribunal upon which it could find them.
Parties had every opportunity to put their respective cases on penalty below, and did so.
It was open to the Tribunal below to find that the breach was serious or significant, there's no requirement to put either party on notice that such a finding might be made.
It did make an observation in its reasons that there was the potential for more serious injury. Again, we do not find it necessary that it was essential for the Tribunal below to put the parties on notice of that finding.
Accordingly, we reject that ground of procedural fairness.
It made those findings about serious or significant harm and the potential for more serious injury on the basis of the video and photographic evidence.
There was material before the Tribunal which it could be found that there was forceful high contact to the neck and that there was forceful contact to the opponent's upper shoulder.
It was open to the Tribunal to find that the offence charge was serious and significant.
Again, we referred to the video evidence, which we've studied and the still photographs, accordingly, we dismiss that ground of appeal.
The next question is whether the penalty of five matches was manifestly excessive.
Again, the argument below seemed to rely very heavily upon comparable cases. Our point in the Appeal Board is whether or not there is argument based upon comparable cases.
It must be shown whether or not the sentence that might be available might be so plainly outside the range of sentences available to the judge, or in this case, the Tribunal, in the circumstances the case the appellate intervention is warranted …
What we look to is whether the sentence of five matches suspension so plainly outside range of sentences available that appellate intervention is warranted.
In argument for Houston, it was put to him that the sentence of five matches was perhaps within that range, keeping in mind the sentence of seven matches accorded to Webster earlier in the season, and keeping in mind the other cases that were relied heavily upon by counsel for Houston, which related to penalties of four matches.
Accordingly, we concluded that the penalty imposed is not mainly outside the range of sentences available, and we dismiss that ground of appeal.
Finally, Houston also submitted that the Tribunal failed to give weight or adequate weight to his exemplary record.
Again, this was the subject of submissions below, and reasons were given by the Tribunal.
In our view it could not be said the Tribunal did not give that matter by consideration.
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
Whether it was the hierarchy of the club, its legal advisers or a combination of the two, who ever it was that decided Houston pleading guilty would in any way help his cause should be whipped, f***** and fired into the outer reaches of the galaxy, and regardless of any part he did or didn't play in the whole sorry saga kokhead should be used as the fuel for that one way trip.
The `smoke and mirrors' club, as we were once described by some AFL f***wit is now the cap in hand, bend over, and take it up the date club!![]()
Just got home to watch Lyon, Brown, Bucks and Speccy Twat going into bat for Pickett.
It's literally only 24 hours ago since the Houston appeal. How are they not even mentioning it in comparison!?
What the **** is going on!?
AFL commentary is what is going on.
So what will Kozzie get?
So what will Kozzie get?
In all seriousness, it should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 week suspension.
Absolutely cant be less than 7.So what will Kozzie get?
So what will Kozzie get?
A $1,500 fine for rough conduct, increased to $2,500 for prior form, and will have to pick up papers at AFL House at lunchtimeSo what will Kozzie get?
There is no way it will be graded as intentional. It will be csreless, high and severe, resulting in 3 games minimum and trip to the tribunal. Tribunal will find that it was at the low end of careless and the low end of severe and leave it at 3 weeks. Nothing surer.
The AFL are very clear in that it doesn't matter what you do to minimise impact, if the results of your actions injure a player then they're going to throw the book at you.
Unless, of course, you launch yourself at speed in an uncontrolled fashion against a player with a history of multiple concussions and end their career while playing for Collingwood in a Qualifying Final less than 12 months ago. Then it's OK.
In all seriousness, it should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 week suspension.