View Full Version : Cornes Charged - Harding Clear
Reported on the news tonight in Melbourne. Chad Cornes has been charged with rough play and the charge against Leigh Harding has been withdrawn.
Hopefully they will be able to argue his case and get him off. Harding should never have been reported, Gav wasn't hurt and 50m was enough of a penalty IMO.
It's not the initial contact but the possibility of Cornes dropping his knees into Sinclair after. And I'd be worried that even though it can be shown that was unavoidable the AFL will stll want to suspend Cornes for it.
Originally posted by mic59
It's not the initial contact but the possibility of Cornes dropping his knees into Sinclair after. And I'd be worried that even though it can be shown that was unavoidable the AFL will stll want to suspend Cornes for it.
Don't remember the last player we had go up that got off.
So he will probably get 1-2.
Harding would have been suspended if he was good enough to actually hit Wanganeen rather than going over the top of him ;)
Macca19
19 May 2003, 20:08
Cornes will most likely go. 2 weeks i reckon. Serves him right to. Absolutely f*ckin stupid thing to do. There was no need to do that at all. Cornes missing is not what we want for two big games in Essendon and Collingwood. That piece of stupidity could well cost us those two games.
If he does get suspended then i hope Mark beats the living crap out of him and makes sure he pays on the training track.
To say im livid that he will probably be suspended for something that was clearly unnecessary is an understatement.
If we're assuming he will be suspended, and I am sure we're all hoping he won't be, who will come in? Weather conditions aren't a question next week at Telstra Dome with the roof but if he gets 2 games and the weather's still bad for the Collingwood game, we may not miss him as much as expected. Players like Kingsley, Guerra and Koulouriotis could come under scrutiny for more time on the field in the next 2 weeks.
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 20:45
I would think we would bring in a tall, Thurstans or Morgan along with Montgomery. One small to miss out and I am guessing Guerra.
Porthos
19 May 2003, 20:48
I notice that Leppitsch's equally unnecessary hip to James Begley's head didn't get pinged.
footballphantom
19 May 2003, 20:51
I have not actually seen it as I missed some of the game, and would you not know it the game is not on the AFL site yet. Normally it is 24 hours, but from what you are all saying he is definitely gone for a couple of weeks.
Can somebody tell me where you find who has been charged on the AFL site?
I cannot cope with the tribunal at all as there was none last week that I could find and with 8 games per week it seems incredible to me that all games were clear.
Stiffy_18
19 May 2003, 21:02
Originally posted by Macca19
Cornes will most likely go. 2 weeks i reckon. Serves him right to. Absolutely f*ckin stupid thing to do. There was no need to do that at all.
It didn't look good. I think he will go for 1-2 weeks. Big loss, but I think you can cover him. Thurstans will probably come in or you might decide to rest a ruckman up forward.
Stiffy_18
19 May 2003, 21:04
Originally posted by Porthos
I notice that Leppitsch's equally unnecessary hip to James Begley's head didn't get pinged.
I tought there was nothing in it. He was running and when he saw that he was going to collide with Begley, he tried to slow down but it was too late. I didn't think there was much in it.
Porthos
19 May 2003, 21:08
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I tought there was nothing in it. He was running and when he saw that he was going to collide with Begley, he tried to slow down but it was too late. I didn't think there was much in it. I didn't think there was much in this. Leppitsch didn't slow down half as much as he could've (and would've - if it'd been a ball bouncing over the head, you'd see him change direction on a five cent piece)....the ball was well away.
I find it frustrating that after 6 seasons of AFL footy, this is the first time there's been a call of rough play in a Port game, and its against Port. I can remember seeing the knees go in countless times to our players (even by the Roos) in no worse a situation than this, and nothing has happened.
I hope the AFL will be just as vigilant about reviewing the video of every single pack & contest in future, but I know that won't happen.
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
It didn't look good. I think he will go for 1-2 weeks. Big loss, but I think you can cover him. Thurstans will probably come in or you might decide to rest a ruckman up forward.
We can cover him but not with another match-winner. If Tredders, Wangas and Stevens all have good games I daresay we will get away without having Cornes. I would say Thurstans will probably be brought in for Cornes. I'm sure he'll do his best but the loss in possessions and marks will reduce what our potency would have been. And I certainly wouldn't like to rest our ruckmen up forward. They've been much better for us, nearly indispensable, in defence in the last few weeks.
Porthos
19 May 2003, 21:14
Originally posted by mic59
And I certainly wouldn't like to rest our ruckmen up forward. They've been much better for us, nearly indispensable, in defence in the last few weeks. Which is probably a black mark on the form our 3 senior tall backmen
Originally posted by Port01
Don't remember the last player we had go up that got off.
Don't think there has been one. There have been a few more cases in recent history of charges that have been withdrawn against our players before the tribunal had a look at them, but once the tribunal is there it's pretty much shut the gate for us. Quite possible the club will do their usual thing of throwing themselves on the tribunals mercy in this, in other words they won't try to back up the players at all.
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 21:34
courtesy of www.afl.com.au
McVeigh, Cornes to face tribunal
Essendon’s Mark McVeigh has been cited on video evidence for striking and will face the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night.
McVeigh has been charged for striking Michael Osborne during the last quarter of Friday night’s 53-point win over Hawthorn at the MCG.
Port Adelaide’s Chad Cornes was also reported after the video review of matches. Cornes faces a charge of engaging in rough play with Kangaroo Jess Sinclair during the third quarter of Port’s match with the Roos at AAMI Stadium last Saturday.
The pair join McVeigh’s Essendon team mate Paul Barnard - who was reported by umpire Scott McLaren for striking the Hawks’ Luke Hodge during the second term on Friday night – at the tribunal.
The league has also withdrawn charges against Hawthorn’s Nick Holland (striking) and Kangaroo Leigh Harding (charging). The umpires who laid the report reviewed the incident on video and decided both players had no case to answer.
The tribunal will sit from 5:30 pm on Tuesday night.
Porthos
19 May 2003, 21:34
I wish the tribunal's one-eyed favour was also subject to the equalization policy.
macca23
19 May 2003, 21:40
Originally posted by Porthos
I didn't think there was much in this. Leppitsch didn't slow down half as much as he could've (and would've - if it'd been a ball bouncing over the head, you'd see him change direction on a five cent piece)....the ball was well away.
I find it frustrating that after 6 seasons of AFL footy, this is the first time there's been a call of rough play in a Port game, and its against Port. I can remember seeing the knees go in countless times to our players (even by the Roos) in no worse a situation than this, and nothing has happened.
I hope the AFL will be just as vigilant about reviewing the video of every single pack & contest in future, but I know that won't happen.
Right on all counts Porthos.
Cornes did it alright and will probably get games (1 to 2) now that he has been cited. However, if this doesn't happen somewhere between 6 and 10 times in the 8 games every week, I'll go he for hidey. Yet Cornes is the first case I can remember being cited or reported for doing this since Moses played half back for Jerusalem. How stiff can Cornes be???
As for the Leppitsch incident, I'm amazed that more hasn't been made of this. He has just kept running and taken out an unprotected player by hitting him in the head with his hip. As Porthos said, if the ball was still in play he would have stopped and turned well before he hit Begley.
The only consistent thing you can count on with reports, citing and the tribunal is the inconsistency.
Cornes is stiff.
Mudholian
19 May 2003, 21:58
Firstly to the collision. We heard it from behind the nothern goals so it sounded like something broke. I was amazed to see him still standing later.
As for the report, absolute nonsense. The player under some pain rolls one way then back into Cornes. Completely unavoidable, no case to answer.
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 21:58
There have been a few incidents over the last year where players have gone up for rough play and got off, however none of them involved dropping the knee.
Its interesting to note that he has been reported rough play and not kneeing.
Akermanis was last year reported on two occassions for kneeing, receiving a 1 match and 2 match suspension. Stafford was reported for kneeing last year and earlier this year, in both cases he escaped suspension. Late last year Wanganeen was reported kneeing also but escaped penalty.
I wonder how these incidents compare to the Cornes report, not that they will be consistent.
Just saw the vision of the incident, not good. :eek:
Paralowiepower
19 May 2003, 21:58
Making Thurstans playing today dosent look that smart after all.
PAfolwr
19 May 2003, 22:01
I can't comment on the Cornes or Leppitsch cases, but Harding should have fronted the tribunal at the very least.
If a player gets hurt or not should not come into it.
He deliberately hit Wanganeen late. He did NOT get his feet off the ground until after Wanganeen had marked the ball.
Should have been 1 week by the tribunal, followed by a two swift ones in the rear by his coach. One for not making a contest, and the second for being stupid and copping a suspension.
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 22:04
Originally posted by Paralowiepower
Making Thurstans playing today dosent look that smart after all.
He was one of Sturts best today and I am sure his young legs will cope. Its not as if he has played a lot this year and he doesn't have any troubesome knees so I don't think he has too much to worry about.
Paralowiepower
19 May 2003, 22:07
Originally posted by PAfolwr
I can't comment on the Cornes or Leppitsch cases, but Harding should have fronted the tribunal at the very least.
If a player gets hurt or not should not come into it.
He deliberately hit Wanganeen late. He did NOT get his feet off the ground until after Wanganeen had marked the ball.
Should have been 1 week by the tribunal, followed by a two swift ones in the rear by his coach. One for not making a contest, and the second for being stupid and copping a suspension.
Disagree, thought Harding jumped more over Gav than in his back, as mentioned earlier in this post. The correct decision has been made
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 22:09
Originally posted by PAfolwr
I can't comment on the Cornes or Leppitsch cases, but Harding should have fronted the tribunal at the very least.
If a player gets hurt or not should not come into it.
He deliberately hit Wanganeen late. He did NOT get his feet off the ground until after Wanganeen had marked the ball.
Should have been 1 week by the tribunal, followed by a two swift ones in the rear by his coach. One for not making a contest, and the second for being stupid and copping a suspension.
Apparently you have to do some serious damage to the opposition player.
The AFL wonders why the clubs get frustrated, consistency is all we ask for.
Porthos
19 May 2003, 22:12
It'll be interesting to hear Sinclair's evidence.
Stiffy_18
19 May 2003, 22:18
Originally posted by macca23
Yet Cornes is the first case I can remember being cited or reported for doing this since Moses played half back for Jerusalem. How stiff can Cornes be??? macca23, didn't Akermanis get reported and suspended last year for similar incident against West Coast. Similar incident to Chad's. Aker was charged for kneeing tho.
Ford Fairlane
19 May 2003, 22:40
You can probably do more damage at Colonial (or whatever) with running players than tall forwards so I wouldn't be surprised to see Monty for Cornes as the only change, with one of our tall defenders pushed to the fence and Monty to half back. Junior at FF and Lade/Brogan swapping in the pocket.
Thought Thurstans was really impressive for Sturt today and matched up well on smalls and talls. But it would be a fair ask even for a young guy to back up after 4 days rest after a full game on a heavy ground.
Anyone see Patfull's hanger in the third? He would've seen how busy the pie cart was from there!
PAfolwr
19 May 2003, 22:53
Originally posted by Paralowiepower
Disagree, thought Harding jumped more over Gav than in his back, as mentioned earlier in this post. The correct decision has been made
I disagree.
I am willing to have a hypothetical bet that had Wanganeen hurt himself, even just sprained his ankle, Harding would have got 1 week.
Injury or lack of should not come into it IMO.
Deliberate late tackles are not part of the game.
PAfolwr
19 May 2003, 22:56
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
macca23, didn't Akermanis get reported and suspended last year for similar incident against West Coast. Similar incident to Chad's. Aker was charged for kneeing tho.
I think you are right. If Cornes did what most people are saying, (I totally missed it on the day), he should go.
Originally posted by PAfolwr
I disagree.
I am willing to have a hypothetical bet that had Wanganeen hurt himself, even just sprained his ankle, Harding would have got 1 week.
Injury or lack of should not come into it IMO.
Deliberate late tackles are not part of the game.
You're right that injury should not come into it. But I am also willing to bet that if Sinclair had not been injured, or had just got up and taken a few deep breaths instead of going off, the umpires would not have even considered citing Cornes.
Should injury come into the decision to report? NO
Does injury come into the decision to report? YES
blackdiamond
19 May 2003, 23:02
Originally posted by PAfolwr
I disagree.
I am willing to have a hypothetical bet that had Wanganeen hurt himself, even just sprained his ankle, Harding would have got 1 week.
Injury or lack of should not come into it IMO.
Deliberate late tackles are not part of the game.
Im with you on this one, one thread on the Kangaroos board shows what I thought of the incident.
Some posters here seem to think it was only worth a 50 metre penalty, nothing worse than a player holding onto a player too long or encroaching over the mark.
If this be the case why don't we get all of our players to jump into the back of others when we want to give away a 50?
Maybe a chance for Williams to bring in Thrust & Monty at the expense of Chad (if he goes) and Bishop. The thinking being both Thrust and Monty are forward options as well as perfectly at home down back, whereas Bishop isn't at all useful up forward and has been a little off for a couple of weeks and perhaps needs a wake up call. Paxman could also be under the pump. Probably wouldn't hurt to drop one of the senior players just to show everyone that their place is under pressure and they must perform each and every week rather than knowing that the Guru will always be the scapegoat.
JuniorBurger
20 May 2003, 04:35
If Chad is suspended (possible) and Monty makes his return from injury (probable) then the resting ruckman would be free to play up forward. Monty tends to play the loose man in defence role that Broges or Ladey have been covering (very well I might add!) recently.
Would be harsh to drop the Guru after just one game back in the side. He has to be one of the unluckiest players on the list expected to show what he can do without really being given the oppurtunities (time on the ground) he probably deserves.
Mudholian
20 May 2003, 08:50
Well it's a bit early to be talking as if we are conceding this.
A guilty verdict means someone judges that Cornes deliberately dropped a knee into a player rolling on the ground in pain, which is nonsense.
This is too much if an injustice to hang any player for. I trust the club puts the case for what actually happened better than some of you are doing.
Finally, if you haven't seen it either don't comment or give our players the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of your support.
Why not just the simple case that, yes the knees dropped in, but it was simply due to loosing his footing after the bump in very wet and slippery conditions ? The AFL can have their weekly showing the mum's how they are cleaning up the game to make it more like netball bit, then clear him so common sense has prevailed. However I used the two words that rarely apply to any part of the AFL and least of all to umpiring and the tribunal - common sense.
Macca19
20 May 2003, 22:12
Originally posted by Port01
Don't remember the last player we had go up that got off.
Exactly. We seem to get the rough end of the stick when it comes to the tribunal.
Brogan gets 2 for charging. Burgoyne gets 2 for charging. Harding gets off. Troy Wilson gets off.
Carr gets 2 or 3 for punching. Montgomery gets 1 for punching last year. Lloyd gets off. Mcveigh gets off. Mcveighs punch was about as forceful as Montgomerys was.
Cornes gets 2 for sticking his knees in (a fair decision), Stafford gets nothing for breaking someones face.
I too, cannot remember the last time one of our players got off at the tribunal.
Macca19
20 May 2003, 22:20
Originally posted by Andre
Why not just the simple case that, yes the knees dropped in, but it was simply due to loosing his footing after the bump in very wet and slippery conditions ?
Absolute garbage. There is no doubt in my mind, seeing the replay that he knew exactly what he was doing. It was intentional. He made it look like he slipped.
Everyone here is defending him for saying it was slippery and all that crap but open your eyes. Did you see Chad Cornes slip at any other time during the game? I didnt. So he just happened to "slip" knees first into Sincalirs ribs, the same Sinclair that had a bit of a go at Cornes only 10 minutes earlier. Just a mere coincidence the one time the slippery conditions affect his footing it just happens to be when Sinclair is under him and he just accidently went knees first into his ribs.
What a load of crap.
Its clear as day that he knew what he was doing. Watch the replay. He had gotten almost fully up before he "slipped". Dunno about anyone else but ive never fallen knees first forward when pretty much standing straight up in slippery conditions and definately not at walking pace like Chad was.
He made it looked like he tripped. He did a crap job at it. He pays the penalty for a totally inappropriate moronic stupid schoolyard thing to do. As a senior player in our side it should be totally unacceptable that he be that stupid to think he can intentionally knee someone in the ribs and get away with it. And as i said earlier, i hope to hell that Choco abuses the sh*t out of him for this.
His stupidity could well cost us the next two games. Cornes isnt the player that we need out against teams like Essendon and Collingwood.
Deadset fu*cking ropable i am. :mad:
dreamkillers
20 May 2003, 22:28
Whilst I agree it did look somewhat deliberate I think whoever set up his defence at the tribunal should be shot..........
Cornes dealt a two-match ban (http://portadelaidefc.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=93396)
Samantha Lane afl.com.au Tue 20 May, 2003
Dynamic Port Adelaide forward Chad Cornes will miss the Power’s next two matches - including a big away clash with Essendon this Friday night - after the AFL Tribunal found him guilty of kneeing Kangaroo Jess Sinclair.
Cornes pleaded not guilty to the misconduct charge, but received the suspension after being reported on video evidence by umpire Dean Margetts following Port Adelaide’s convincing round eight victory.
Sinclair fell to the ground after receiving a heavy, but fair, bump from Cornes during the third quarter of Saturday’s match, but was dealt further contact when Cornes dug his right knee into his stomach and kidney region.
Umpire Margetts gave a damming appraisal of the second incident, describing it as a “deliberate act to hurt another player”, which was out of the spirit of the game.
“It was (delivered) just to kind of finish him (Sinclair) off in a way,” the umpire told the tribunal.
“I don’t think it was accidental at all. I think it was a deliberate act to hurt another player, which isn’t in the spirit of the game, particularly when a player is in an awkward position on the ground.”
Sinclair suffered a badly corked hip, and a 15-centimetre bruise as a result of the first clash. But the tribunal found that the initial contact was fair and unrelated to the subsequent incident, which was the subject of the report.
In the second instance, tribunal chairman Brian Collis, QC, found Cornes had committed an unnecessary act that contravened the players’ rules.
“It is clearly contrary to the rules of Australian football,” Collis said.
Cornes said he had attempted to avoid contact with the immobile Sinclair, who was lying face down, and argued he had slipped over the top of him after losing his balance.
“It was my intention to jump over Jess, but my foot slipped on Jess’s and I made some contact with his stomach area.
“It was very minimal. It definitely wasn’t a knee, it was just a bit of slight contact to his stomach,” Cornes said.
Sinclair also described the impact of the second contact as minimal, but admitted he wasn’t prepared for it.
“I couldn’t see him, so I wasn’t prepared for it.”
“There was no sharp pain or anything like that,” Sinclair said.
It is Cornes’ first suspension after playing 76 matches over six seasons. Port Adelaide face Collingwood at AAMI Stadium in round nine after meeting the Bombers this Friday. Earlier in the evening, Essendon lost the experienced Paul Barnard to a two-match suspension for striking.
Macca19
20 May 2003, 22:31
Originally posted by Mudholian
A guilty verdict means someone judges that Cornes deliberately dropped a knee into a player rolling on the ground in pain, which is nonsense.[b][quote]
Why is it nonsense? It was clear as day what he did.
[b][quote]This is too much if an injustice to hang any player for. I trust the club puts the case for what actually happened better than some of you are doing.
If a Roos player did that to one of our players we'd be calling him a thug and baying for blood. Just because hes a Port player doesnt mean he is above criticism or that we cant say he did something wrong.
And what case should we have put forward? He bumped Sincalir. Sinclair fell on the ground. Cornes fell next to him. Cornes gets up. Takes two steps and then falls over knees first into Sinclairs ribs. People, with sprigs in their shoes do not simply slip over at walking pace, knees first forward, while standing straight up. Had he 'slipped' over and conditions were that poor out there, why didnt he slip over at any other point in the game? He seemed to keep his feet well for 99.999999995% of the match for someone that obviously has trouble keeping his feet. I went out on the ground, in sneakers that were 4 years old, with minimal grip left, yet i could run around and didnt slip over...yet someone with bigarse sprigs in their shoes can slip over at walking pace?
Highly unlikely. If it was Derek Murray then id believe the slipping crap. Its Chad Cornes. He doesnt just slip over.
Finally, if you haven't seen it either don't comment or give our players the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of your support.
How can I support a key leader of our side doing something totally moronic and unnecessary the week before arguably our toughest 2 weeks of the season. I cant, and wont support Cornes in this case.
What Macca said.
The sun does not shine out of Cornesy a.rse.
He deserved what he got. One week would have been nice, Two weeks reasonable.
We have fought the problems served up by bad luck, hopefully we win the battle with this act of stupidity.
On a very very slightly positive note, Cornesy gets a couple of weeks off to rest up. Better now than him doing it in round 22.
Was a silly thing to do by Chad, he'd already knocked him into next week with a great (legal) hit why risk himself (& the team) for the next couple of weeks for doing something that (a) looks bad, (b) didn't add to the chances of Sinclair missing the rest of the match, (c) which was obvious, (d) which was done after a great evening up (fair) bumb and (e) which had no real effect.
In Chad's defense, ok it was a little slippery and yes it did look like he slipped/stepped on Sinclair's foot/boot which could perhaps of caused him to trip/fall. Also Sinclair said the conatct was minimal, which it was (as well as pointless). I'd wished the tribunal had seen it that way and ruled that indeed he had tripped/fell, but in all honesty he probably meant it and did what probably 90% of AFL footballer would have done given the exact same circumstances. Perhaps they might be better actors or do it more slyly but rest assured they'd have done it given the opportunity.
Also it's easy to point to similar incidents which were just as delibrate but were able to avoid punishment due to one reason or another, perhaps we need to look at who represents us at the tribunal and improve in that area.
dreamkillers
20 May 2003, 23:32
Originally posted by Eago77
perhaps we need to look at who represents us at the tribunal and improve in that area.
I think we should have followed Collingwood and Essendon's recent efforts where specialists in body movements etc are brought in to help back up why things occurred.......just having the player's evidence against an umpire will always mean the judgement goes against us..........
Will be interesting to see if the club appeals the decision though.......as well as what father says on the radio about the verdict and penalty.
Originally posted by dreamkillers
I think we should have followed Collingwood and Essendon's recent efforts where specialists in body movements etc are brought in to help back up why things occurred.......just having the player's evidence against an umpire will always mean the judgement goes against us..........
Will be interesting to see if the club appeals the decision though.......as well as what father says on the radio about the verdict and penalty.
I guess the tribunal is the one area where the club hasn't moved into the 21st Century, we still wont dob other players in and we rely on traditional methods of defending our players by just using player statements (from both sides), unfortunately these days things like that have gone out the window and don't count as much as some "experts" opinions on what happened and why it happened.
footballphantom
21 May 2003, 00:19
I guess the tribunal is the one area where the club hasn't moved into the 21st Century, we still wont dob other players in and we rely on traditional methods of defending our players by just using player statements (from both sides), unfortunately these days things like that have gone out the window and don't count as much as some "experts" opinions on what happened and why it happened
By our record in front of the tribunal I think that you are correct, but I also think that the AFL do not give enough time to mount a defence. To be reported on Monday to appear before a tribunal on Tuesday night is not being fair to clubs, players and fans.
The AFL has to realise that they are now a business and an employer and as such be fair to all involved. If a player is to be before a tribunal in WA, Queensland, NSW or SA then the tribunal should travel to that state. There should be no video hookups as they do not give a fair go to anybody.
I have finally got the game from the AFL site only after the tribunal, technical difficulties was the excuse but looking at it again and again I really could not say whether it was deliberate or not. Video is not the way to go and I say again as in another thread if it was that bad according to the umpire then he should have reported it immediately. I am sick of these video reports.
blackdiamond
21 May 2003, 00:23
Originally posted by Macca19
Exactly. We seem to get the rough end of the stick when it comes to the tribunal.
Brogan gets 2 for charging. Burgoyne gets 2 for charging. Harding gets off. Troy Wilson gets off.
Carr gets 2 or 3 for punching. Montgomery gets 1 for punching last year. Lloyd gets off. Mcveigh gets off. Mcveighs punch was about as forceful as Montgomerys was.
Cornes gets 2 for sticking his knees in (a fair decision), Stafford gets nothing for breaking someones face.
I too, cannot remember the last time one of our players got off at the tribunal.
Found this one, there was another one in September of last year against Wanganeen for kneeing but that was withdrawn before it made it to the tribunal.
Francou cleared of striking
7:08:03 PM Tue 2 April, 2002
Samantha Lane
afl.com.au
Star Port Adelaide midfielder Josh Francou was tonight cleared at the AFL tribunal of striking the Kangaroos’ Adam Simpson at Football Park on Saturday night.
A suspension would likely have had implications on this year’s Brownlow medal stakes with Francou placing equal third in last year’s count, just four votes behind Brisbane winner Jason Akermanis. Francou was ineligible to win the medal however, following a suspension for striking Carlton’s Scott Camporeale in round 12 last year.
Francou described the contact - which occurred in the last five minutes of the match - as an open hand push, refuting the evidence of umpire Hayden Kennedy who explained it as a “forceful blow”.
“There wasn’t much contact at all,” said Francou. “There’s no way the contact I made could have pushed him over.”
“I saw him [Simpson] clutching his neck. I knew I didn’t go anywhere near his neck.”
Kennedy said he was aware Francou had not clenched his fist, but believed the motion was more vigorous than a push. “It was delivered with enough force, even though the hand was open, whether it was or wasn’t, it was still a striking motion,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy stated he believed the reaction of Simpson – a partial fall to ground – was “true and authentic.”
However Simpson, who had been ordered to tag Francou by coach Denis Pagan, said he had exaggerated the force of the contact.
“It was a pretty important part of the game. He pushed me in the arm and I don’t think you could have fallen over from that,” Simpson said.
“To be honest it was an act. I don’t normally put on an act, but he’d done it to me earlier. It was *** for tat.”
The video evidence clearly showed open hand connection with Simpson’s arm, leaving the tribunal unsatisfied the contact constituted striking.
While there are few doubters that Port Adelaide will return to the MCG in September, Francou is now at liberty to play the club’s only scheduled home and away match at the ground this Saturday against Melbourne.
koulagirl22
21 May 2003, 00:33
I am SO thinking of going and preparing cases for Port players for a living rather than taking the more illustrious job of a lawyer... I'm sure I could come up with something better than 'he slipped' in just under 24 hours... maybe Sinclair contributed in that he tripped Chad? Did anyone think of that?
Seriously though, as I was saying to someone earlier tonight - the tribunal needs to be seriously adjusted in order to reflect the current judicial system, and the doctrine of precedent needs to be introduced as a valid defense and a guide to sentencing. Of course, since there's only one level, it won't REALLY work since all cases would be persuasive, but it would definitely put some consistency into the tribunal, and hopefully it would flow on to umpiring... but wait, that would make a fairer game?
Maybe I should just run the tribunal. And then change it so that lawyers can be present at hearings, finish my degree, and THEN go and do something remotely exotic, i.e. become CEO of the AFL or something equally as meaningless but gets me into the Grand Final when Port win it...
dreamkillers
21 May 2003, 00:41
Originally posted by footballphantom
but I also think that the AFL do not give enough time to mount a defence. To be reported on Monday to appear before a tribunal on Tuesday night is not being fair to clubs, players and fans.
The AFL has to realise that they are now a business and an employer and as such be fair to all involved. If a player is to be before a tribunal in WA, Queensland, NSW or SA then the tribunal should travel to that state. There should be no video hookups as they do not give a fair go to anybody.
I have finally got the game from the AFL site only after the tribunal, technical difficulties was the excuse but looking at it again and again I really could not say whether it was deliberate or not. Video is not the way to go and I say again as in another thread if it was that bad according to the umpire then he should have reported it immediately. I am sick of these video reports.
Whilst I agree with your comments the club would have realised on Saturday night that something could come of the incident and should have been preparing from then given we are operating in a professional environment.
As for the actual video of the incident it was only shown once during the actual game coverage although the bump preceding the incident was shown many times. At the tribunal they would have also had the benefit of other camera angles, zooming in on the contact as well as slowly going through each frame which would have been even more damning.
I concur with Macca19 that Chad was stupid to do what he did given that he had just laid a perfect bump that caused most of the actual damage to the player at the time - he should have left it at that.
Video reports are here to stay but what is needed is consistency in what is and isn't reported as at the moment it appears to be a lottery at times.........at least the AFL have decided to look at the process to get some more consistent decisions........whether it actually happens is anyone's guess.
PAfolwr
21 May 2003, 00:43
Originally posted by koulagirl22
...Maybe I should just run the tribunal. And then change it so that lawyers can be present at hearings, finish my degree, and THEN go and do something remotely exotic, i.e. become CEO of the AFL or something equally as meaningless but gets me into the Grand Final when Port win it...
Don't forget to get tickets for the rest of us when you get there. :)
dreamkillers
21 May 2003, 00:47
Originally posted by koulagirl22
I am SO thinking of going and preparing cases for Port players for a living rather than taking the more illustrious job of a lawyer... I'm sure I could come up with something better than 'he slipped' in just under 24 hours... maybe Sinclair contributed in that he tripped Chad? Did anyone think of that?
Seriously though, as I was saying to someone earlier tonight - the tribunal needs to be seriously adjusted in order to reflect the current judicial system, and the doctrine of precedent needs to be introduced as a valid defense and a guide to sentencing. Of course, since there's only one level, it won't REALLY work since all cases would be persuasive, but it would definitely put some consistency into the tribunal, and hopefully it would flow on to umpiring... but wait, that would make a fairer game?
Maybe I should just run the tribunal. And then change it so that lawyers can be present at hearings, finish my degree, and THEN go and do something remotely exotic, i.e. become CEO of the AFL or something equally as meaningless but gets me into the Grand Final when Port win it...
I'd actually prefer lawyers to be kept as far away as possible from tribunals but unfortunately it will probably end up that way eventually.
We've had courts rule on tribunal decisions in the past that allowed a player to play in a Grand Final and then subsequently retire so any penalty eventually imposed was meaningless and oneday someone or some club will challenge the draft on the basis of restraint of trade.
Once lawyers and courts become involved even more technicalites will be used to sway judgements..........it's a pity sportsmanship dies when too much money becomes involved in the game.
blackdiamond
21 May 2003, 00:47
Maybe I should just run the tribunal. And then change it so that lawyers can be present at hearings, finish my degree, and THEN go and do something remotely exotic, i.e. become CEO of the AFL or something equally as meaningless but gets me into the Grand Final when Port win it...
Aren't you missing something?
Isn't Koula supposed to come into this somewhere???
:D
Mudholian
21 May 2003, 08:23
The video evidence supports Cornes and the club's defence that he was trying to get over Sinclair but slipped.
As for this thread, I can't tell the POrt supporters for the hangers on but those who have not been supportive of a player now labelled unfairly as a thug ought to have a good hard look at themselves.
Originally posted by Mudholian
The video evidence supports Cornes and the club's defence that he was trying to get over Sinclair but slipped.
I honestly didn't see it that way, I would have loved it to have been the case, but I think it may have been a brain explosion on the part of Chad. Even if he had plead guilty I think he would
have been running the risk of getting two anyways
those who have not been supportive of a player now labelled unfairly as a thug ought to have a good hard look at themselves.
We know Cornesy ain't no thug it just was a stupid thing to do. I only briefly read what the Roos supporters had to say on the matter because to be quite honest there is too much sensationalism and parochialism on these boards to get a reasoned response.
Porthos
21 May 2003, 10:17
Pathetic.
dreamkillers
21 May 2003, 11:18
Originally posted by Mudholian
The video evidence supports Cornes and the club's defence that he was trying to get over Sinclair but slipped.
Although we are not privy to seeing what the tribunal was actually shown as the broadcast/replay only showed the 1 angle.
Originally posted by Mudholian
As for this thread, I can't tell the POrt supporters for the hangers on but those who have not been supportive of a player now labelled unfairly as a thug ought to have a good hard look at themselves.
I'd defend Cornes against anyone who called him a thug as we all know he is not but what I saw (again without the benefit of seeing the extras that the tribunal get) did not look pretty and as has been suggested careless and stupid.
What I am more disappointed/furious about is the way we continue to just rely on video, player and umpire evidence when we go to the tribunal. The club have said he slipped on the other players boot which to me means they should have had some sort of expert to explain the mechanics of what happened and why.
Mind you reading the article in the paper today where the club is saying they are appealing the severity of the suspension seems a bit contradictory as I would have thought they would be appealing the actual decision based on their arguement of why it occured...........
POWER FURY (http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/footy03/story_page/0,8747,6468792%255E25397,00.html)
By MICHELANGELO RUCCI The Advertise 19 May 2003
PORT ADELAIDE is almost certain to lodge an appeal against key forward Chad Cornes' two-match suspension, challenging the severity of the ban.
The Power, stunned by last night's AFL tribunal penalty, will meet this morning to review Cornes' suspension for allegedly kneeing Kangaroos half-back Jess Sinclair in Saturday's match at AAMI Stadium.
"Our initial thought," said Port football operations manager Mick Moylan, "is (to challenge) the severity of the penalty."
If Port's anticipated appeal against the two-match ban is not successful, the Power will be without Cornes for its blockbuster Friday night matches against Essendon at Telstra Dome and the much-awaited grudge game with Collingwood at AAMI Stadium.
The tribunal also shaped Essendon's line-up last night, banning forward Paul Barnard for two matches and clearing midfielder Mark McVeigh after hearing striking charges against both Bombers.
Cornes' hearing - after being reported by field umpire Dean Margetts on video review - boiled down to an argument over whether Cornes accidentally or deliberately dropped his right knee into Sinclair's ribs after the Kangaroo had fallen to the ground midway through the third term.
Margetts told the tribunal Cornes "dropped the knee to finish (Sinclair) off" after the Kangaroo had suffered a corked hip in a fair collision with Cornes on the members' wing.
Cornes said he had fallen into Sinclair after his left boot slipped on the Kangaroo's right foot.
While Port seemed prepared to accept the tribunal's guilty verdict, it was far from satisfied with a two-game penalty.
Considering Sinclair suffered no injury from the reported incident and Cornes' unblemished record, the Power questioned the penalty – and why tribunal chairman Brian Collis brought the image of the game into Cornes' ban.
Collis' findings concluded with the chairman saying: "The objective of the player rules is relevant here. They are there to ensure fair and responsible conduct to protect the players and encourage participation in Australian football at junior levels."
Cornes left the hour-long hearing without comment – but noticably annoyed. He told the tribunal "I would never deliberately knee anyone".
"My objective was to go to the ball," Cornes said. "I wanted to jump over Jess to get to the ball, but I slipped on his foot."
Port offered enhanced video to show Cornes' left foot slide across Sinclair's right boot.
Sinclair described Cornes' fall on his ribs as "very minimal contact" which had left him with no injury. But Margetts' testimony contradicted the players.
"I don't think it was accidental at all," said Margetts by videolink from Perth.
"It was deliberate to hurt another player and was outside the spirit of the game, particularly when your opponent is already in an awkward state and appears to be injured at the time."
Cornes' suspension, if upheld for at least the Essendon match, will force Port to restructure its attack and end the debate as to which player – Brent Guerra was the most likely – would be dropped to allow defender Brett Montgomery to resume from injury.
Barnard was reported for striking Hawthorn rookie Luke Hodge from behind while the Hawk applied a shephered.
Hodge suffered a cut lip from the incident.
_espoir
21 May 2003, 11:32
he didnt deserve TWO matchs... being his first time if the stupid tribunal were reasonable....
and those saying he deserved it.... he didnt, but i wont go into it. You can see he slipped thats that.
if this appeal works then good. Just hope they arent wasting money
Porthos
21 May 2003, 11:53
I'd rather they waste a bit of money to make a point about ****ty tribunal decisions rather than just take it like usual and continually cop dodgy suspensions every time.
Someone should punch that Margetts character, what would he know, he'd never have played any decent footy he wouldn't know what it was like to actually be a player, yet he somehow knows exactly what Cornes was doing/thinking. Perhaps he should worry about the pathetic "display" of umpiring that he put in and stop trying to drop players, who are obviously much superior to the little man that he is, in it at the tribunal. Does he get an extra thrill out of getting his name in the paper, umpires should **** off and let the players say what they did or what they were thinking, also Sinclair backed up Cornes' story is that not enough? Especially coupled with the fact that he may well have slipped/tripped on his boot which was shown by the vidoe.
_espoir
21 May 2003, 12:36
i 100% agree with you Eago!
how stupid is that umpire, the players cant "bag" umpires but hte umpires can bag them, thats just plain wrong. And When Jess says the same thing Chad did... ermm?! stupid people... or is this just another "against" the South Aussie thing? I guess chad isnt one of the protected AFL players.
koulagirl22
21 May 2003, 12:50
Originally posted by dreamkillers
I'd actually prefer lawyers to be kept as far away as possible from tribunals but unfortunately it will probably end up that way eventually.
We've had courts rule on tribunal decisions in the past that allowed a player to play in a Grand Final and then subsequently retire so any penalty eventually imposed was meaningless and oneday someone or some club will challenge the draft on the basis of restraint of trade.
Once lawyers and courts become involved even more technicalites will be used to sway judgements..........it's a pity sportsmanship dies when too much money becomes involved in the game.
I see your point but disagree. I think one of the greatest weaknesses of the tribunal is that it is not run, or at least checked, by lawyers.
koulagirl22
21 May 2003, 12:51
Originally posted by Scott
Aren't you missing something?
Isn't Koula supposed to come into this somewhere???
:D
As far as I'm concerned he can take his little blonde cohorts and go get drunk every Saturday night and ruin his career.
Macca19
21 May 2003, 13:20
Originally posted by Mudholian
The video evidence supports Cornes and the club's defence that he was trying to get over Sinclair but slipped.
Id love to see it your way but i cant. From the eyes in my head, it looked intentional. You dont slip when your standing up at walking pace and fall with your knees forward. Cornes says he wanted to jump over Sinclair. Again...why would you do this? He had the entire oval to run around him but he wanted to jump over him? That just sounds like an overly poor cover up. 'oh...i went to jump over him but i slipped and kneed him in the gut'. pfffttt....thats belivable!
As for this thread, I can't tell the POrt supporters for the hangers on but those who have not been supportive of a player now labelled unfairly as a thug ought to have a good hard look at themselves.
If not being able to defend a Port player that i believe has done something completely wrong, that i view as being intentional, that is totally unacceptable, and as put probable wins in our next two weeks under a bit of jeopardy then so be it. If that makes me love the club less than the rest of you who defend him then no skin off my nose. I coudlnt care less. Im not gonna defend a player simply because hes in a Port jumper when i believe hes done something wrong.
_espoir
21 May 2003, 13:24
Originally posted by Macca19
If that makes me love the club less than the rest of you who defend him then no skin off my nose.
i dont see it that way, stand by your views macca! You're seeing it as a football in general. And i dont believe that makes anyone less of a supporter or anything because they see it against the player.
I think this whole chad things has had enough ranting and raving, everyone is just going in circles... just look forward to next week.
and after the collingwood game we get a week of nothing...
dear god i hope we win the collingwood game... 2 weeks of pie drivel could be too much for my brain...
koulagirl22
21 May 2003, 13:34
There's an appeal... I wonder what grounds it's on?
The club must think it's worth the money, so they'd have to think there's a good chance of a reduction or revocation...
Kid Dynamite!
21 May 2003, 13:37
Originally posted by koulagirl22
There's an appeal... I wonder what grounds it's on?
The club must think it's worth the money, so they'd have to think there's a good chance of a reduction or revocation...
I think they're taking into consideration that Sinclair only recieved a bruise from the incident. Both players said that the contact was minimal.
Surely there has to be more to it than that.
Port1978
21 May 2003, 13:49
Originally posted by koulagirl22
As far as I'm concerned he can take his little blonde cohorts and go get drunk every Saturday night and ruin his career.
:eek:
Isn't there a rule in the Appeal Process that you must have new evidence? If so let's hope they haven't used Sinclair's bruise yet.
It's a shame I'm stuck at work, I wouldn't mind seeing the footage for myself as to whether he slipped or not based on this mornings discussion.
Kid Dynamite!
21 May 2003, 13:53
Originally posted by sog35
Isn't there a rule in the Appeal Process that you must have new evidence? If so let's hope they haven't used Sinclair's bruise yet.
It's a shame I'm stuck at work, I wouldn't mind seeing the footage for myself as to whether he slipped or not based on this mornings discussion.
The sun might not shine out of his arse, but he slipped, quite obviously.
Dont mention the incident when you come down and see KG22 and myself at the Westies game - you wont be able to shut me up. Just giving you an advanced warning! :p
Originally posted by Porthos
I'd rather they waste a bit of money to make a point about ****ty tribunal decisions rather than just take it like usual and continually cop dodgy suspensions every time.
Yep I can accept the tribunal's stupidity in getting it wrong and dont mind if Port blow the ten G's in making their point.
Barnard fronts on his 4th striking charge, (second this year) and pleads guilty for a penalty of two weeks.
Chad makes his debut with a not guilty plea and cops two weeks.
Something doesn't add up there.
Porthos
21 May 2003, 13:58
I've seen the replay a third and fourth time, and it looks pretty deliberate. The head level shifting oddly for a ball follower.
Originally posted by Kid Dynamite!
The sun might not shine out of his arse, but he slipped, quite obviously.
The problem with this case and might I say the problem with many of the kneeing/rough play charges is that it isn't obvious. On first seeing the footage I was thinking "What the hell is he doing!". Like Porthos said if you watch his head move it doesn't look good. But then again maybe he moved his head to look where he was landing after slipping trying to jump over a prone Jess. The case was no where near as clear cut as Barnard giving Hodge a knock around the ears.
The more I think about it the more I think he probably only deserved one week at most. I don't think the not guilty plea or the umpires testimony helped.
Kid Dynamite!
21 May 2003, 14:23
Originally posted by sog35
The problem with this case and might I say the problem with many of the kneeing/rough play charges is that it isn't obvious. On first seeing the footage I was thinking "What the hell is he doing!". Like Porthos said if you watch his head move it doesn't look good. But then again maybe he moved his head to look where he was landing after slipping trying to jump over a prone Jess. The case was no where near as clear cut as Barnard giving Hodge a knock around the ears.
The more I think about it the more I think he probably only deserved one week at most. I don't think the not guilty plea or the umpires testimony helped.
I only noticed his boot slipping on Jess's last night on the news. So obviously what you're saying is right, in a way, you have to look at it very, very closely otherwise you're going to miss it. I dont know HOW many times I watched it on Sunday, but I didnt pick it up. I originally thought it was intentional, but now I dont think so.
dreamkillers
21 May 2003, 14:24
Originally posted by sog35
The problem with this case and might I say the problem with many of the kneeing/rough play charges is that it isn't obvious. On first seeing the footage I was thinking "What the hell is he doing!". Like Porthos said if you watch his head move it doesn't look good. But then again maybe he moved his head to look where he was landing after slipping trying to jump over a prone Jess. The case was no where near as clear cut as Barnard giving Hodge a knock around the ears.
The more I think about it the more I think he probably only deserved one week at most. I don't think the not guilty plea or the umpires testimony helped.
I think the club erred in a big way by not having any experts supporting their case - if he slipped as they are saying they should have had some sort of expert explaining all the movements Chad made to back up the argument.
The umpires evidence was very damning and IMO given what he is being alleged to have done by the umpire 2 games is a pretty good result and appears to have recognised his clean record.
That said I hope the club mounts a more professional appeal with actual evidence to back up their points and gets Chad off.
footballphantom
21 May 2003, 14:55
From the tribunal report there should be plenty of cases every week but there isn't. Take the Showdown the Captain Roo should have been up on rough play charges as well as Bicks in the first 5 minutes. Then the Leppitsch should have been up on rough play charges last Saturday night as he knocked out a Crows player. My real problem is that there is no consistency and it now appears that it depends whether there is video footage or not.
Today I have watched it again and can see both sides. The umpire has to be questioned and dealt with severely by the AFL as he was not doing his job on Saturday. If it was that bad a report should have been made then and there, so you cannot believe the umpire. The umpires have just got lazy on the job. The video should only be used in evidence and not a reporting tool.
Originally posted by koulagirl22
There's an appeal... I wonder what grounds it's on?
The club must think it's worth the money, so they'd have to think there's a good chance of a reduction or revocation...
It will be on the basis the punishment is too harsh. The problem i have is that i believe he probably did mean it and it was avoidable to some degree. However, it's something that happens in various forms (the sly elbow or cheap jab or stomping on a players hand/leg/whatever) and is never punished. Stafford's knee was just as intention yet no suspensions for a player with a more dubious past yet Chad gets two weeks, that's what i see as unfair.
Mudholian
22 May 2003, 10:06
Originally posted by Porthos
I've seen the replay a third and fourth time, and it looks pretty deliberate. The head level shifting oddly for a ball follower.
Well since you have looked at it for a few times can you see Cornes' boot slipping on Sinclairs? That's all I am asking.
If you do see this, does it correspond with Cornes' evidence?
Porthos
22 May 2003, 10:16
Sadly I'm not that observant - I haven't had warning of the replay in advance, so keep seeing the obvious stuff. I do know that I've slipped like that on a slippery surface before, although it should be a lot harder with sprigs.