Cornes verdict

[ozgeek]

I was shocked at the tribunal verdict on Chad Cornes. The whole incident looked like a complete accident. He seemed to trip or slip. There didn't appear anything aggressive in it. I'd be interested to know what you think. I'm not a Power supporter but believe in a fair go for all clubs.

Ozgeek

[Eago77]

Don't think it was "a complete acident" sure he could have tripped/fallen but i think he pretty much meant to knee him. Was up to how well they argued the case, theyobviously didn't do it that well thus the two game rest.

Mind you it was pretty much the same intent as Staffords kneeing incident earlier in the year against the Hawks yet Stafford got off, go figure.

[Kid Dynamite!]

I know I'm going to get absolutely crucified for saying this, but I dont care.

He slipped on Sinclair's boot. I only noticed it last night; having thought that it was indeed intentional. But he did slip, and Chad isnt the sort of person to knee a player intentionally. In fact, I dont think anyone is. All players would be aware of the consequences, so you'd have to be pretty stupid to go and do it anyway.

[Porthos]

I have to say that I also only re-saw the incident on the news after the suspension, and it looked a lot less sinister than it originally might've seemed, which is disappointing. If our players are going to get suspended every time, I'd like it if they at least meant it.

[_espoir]

i dont care if anyone comments to me now... but i think it was an a slip/trip .. . those things happen when its wet ;)

[Macca19]

Looked to me like an intentional knee made to look as accidental as possible. You dont simply slip knees forward from standing upright at walking pace. When most people fall forwards they tend to put their arm out to break the fall. Cornes again, didnt do this. He went knees first.

Sure, he could have slipped/tripped, but the way he fell forward looked like he knew what he was doing.

Once again ill say im extremely dissapointed that one of our key leaders would be so stupid to do something like that. Not acceptable.

[_espoir]

lol you're just as bad as my brother.... reacting it with logic on how to fall and so on and so on...

anyways he got the time... i'll guess he'll learn on how not to fall into someone with a knee next time ;)

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by Macca19
Looked to me like an intentional knee made to look as accidental as possible. You dont simply slip knees forward from standing upright at walking pace. When most people fall forwards they tend to put their arm out to break the fall. Cornes again, didnt do this. He went knees first.

Sure, he could have slipped/tripped, but the way he fell forward looked like he knew what he was doing.

Once again ill say im extremely dissapointed that one of our key leaders would be so stupid to do something like that. Not acceptable.

When I ripped a ligament in my ankle (playing netball last week) and went down I went knees first. It happens, especially when there's something to cause the fall that disrupts balance in such a way that the foot cannot sit flat on the ground after a step is taken... such as tripping on another player's boot...

Have you ever fallen on your butt? Chad's fall was very similar - except he fell forward instead of backward.

[Mudholian]

I usually stay clear of arguments on here because I believe a club has to have unity. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - usually. But I am at a loss to understand the posts of some Port supporters after the Cornes report.

Cornes has an umblemished record of 80 odd matches over 5 seasons. I have seen most of those games and I've seen him develop into a one shot wonder to a hard working player who does all the one precenters as well as making a second and third contest on every occasion. I have never seen an act of thuggery.

In this incident, the video evidence that supports Cornes statement is absolutely clear. It's even more clear when a sports report gives a close up and highlights Cornes foot clearly slipping on Sinclairs.

I find it grossly hypocritical to demand these second efforts when we do not stand behind a player who not only provided a solid body contest but then did his utmost to get back and gain possession.

How about some damn loyalty? I'm not asking for blind support just look at the video and decide what's the more likely thing to have happened - a Port player attempting to get the footy , or a Port player labelled obscenely as someone who , according to the umpire, deliberately goes back and knees a player to "finish him off"?

What if it was Tredrea or Primus or Wilson? Would the name make any difference to your view?

Thank god our Club has stronger principles and will stick up for any player unfairly dealt with.

While the 2 game suspension for a first offence is in itself a disgrace, the guilty finding should never have been brought down.

[_espoir]

.... i still think everyone is gonna have to agree to disagree on points.

If it was Warren, Matty or Wilbur... makes no difference... well i dont think, only because deep down i still think it was an accident. But i'm not gonna tell people to change their minds because they just, i guess see it differently...

While the 2 game suspension for a first offence is in itself a disgrace, the guilty finding should never have been brought down.

I really agree on that, chad's FIRST offence.. If they saw something "dangerous in it" he should have got a week, mostly when other players have gotten off.

[footballphantom]

Originally posted by Mudholian
I usually stay clear of arguments on here because I believe a club has to have unity. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - usually. But I am at a loss to understand the posts of some Port supporters after the Cornes report.

Cornes has an umblemished record of 80 odd matches over 5 seasons. I have seen most of those games and I've seen him develop into a one shot wonder to a hard working player who does all the one precenters as well as making a second and third contest on every occasion. I have never seen an act of thuggery.

In this incident, the video evidence that supports Cornes statement is absolutely clear. It's even more clear when a sports report gives a close up and highlights Cornes foot clearly slipping on Sinclairs.

I find it grossly hypocritical to demand these second efforts when we do not stand behind a player who not only provided a solid body contest but then did his utmost to get back and gain possession.

How about some damn loyalty? I'm not asking for blind support just look at the video and decide what's the more likely thing to have happened - a Port player attempting to get the footy , or a Port player labelled obscenely as someone who , according to the umpire, deliberately goes back and knees a player to "finish him off"?

What if it was Tredrea or Primus or Wilson? Would the name make any difference to your view?

Thank god our Club has stronger principles and will stick up for any player unfairly dealt with.

While the 2 game suspension for a first offence is in itself a disgrace, the guilty finding should never have been brought down.

Agreed My arguments are with the AFL and tribunal.

[sog35]

Originally posted by Mudholian

Cornes has an umblemished record of 80 odd matches over 5 seasons... I have never seen an act of thuggery.

Agreed

In this incident, the video evidence that supports Cornes statement is absolutely clear. It's even more clear when a sports report gives a close up and highlights Cornes foot clearly slipping on Sinclairs.

I didn't watch the sports report showing the slipping foot, however I found it odd that he looked down and paused before the incident

I find it grossly hypocritical to demand these second efforts when we do not stand behind a player who not only provided a solid body contest but then did his utmost to get back and gain possession.

As above, the fact he had time to look down and include a slight pause


a Port player labelled obscenely as someone who , according to the umpire, deliberately goes back and knees a player to "finish him off"?

The evidence that umpires have begun to use in the tribunal is flat out wrong. They have started to hang players. The tribunal needs higher standards than letting someone come in and make comments to that effect. I know it's wrong and so do you, but it doesn't alter the level of respect I have for Chad, he's still a damn fine footballer in my eyes.

Even if Cornes hadn't gone up to the Tribunal certain sections of the Kangaroos supporters would still hold the same view (whether or not it is correct). Just as some of us hold the same view of Bickley.

What if it was Tredrea or Primus or Wilson? Would the name make any difference to your view?

No. In fact it was either of the first two, I would be even more frustrated. We don't need any of our leaders getting in this sort of mess.

Thank god our Club has stronger principles and will stick up for any player unfairly dealt with.

Yet the evidence that the club no doubt helped Chad to provide still wasn't enough to convince the Tribunal that it was not an act of rough play. The way people have been talking about the incident it's as if it is cut and dry. The Tribunal may be inconsistent but I struggle to believe they are down right stupid.

While the 2 game suspension for a first offence is in itself a disgrace, the guilty finding should never have been brought down.

I would suggest the severity is somewhat in line with the Non Guilty Plea. The guilty plea, if everything went the way you proclaim it to have gone, can only be Chad and the Club's fault for not putting up a strong enough case.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Mudholian
I usually stay clear of arguments on here because I believe a club has to have unity. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - usually. But I am at a loss to understand the posts of some Port supporters after the Cornes report.

Im not blinded by faith. I think Cornes deliberately did it. If he DID slip, he could have used his hand on Sinclair to 'break his fall' instead of the knee. Why didnt he use his hand to break his fall? Instead he sticks out his knee right into a players ribs to break his fall. If that makes me disloyal, less passionate, less of a port supporter than you and everyone else that is having a go at me for having a differing opinion on an ugly incident then so be it. I couldnt really care less. You can call me disloyal all you bloody want...it isnt gonna change my view on the incident...and id rather have my own opinion than blindly follow my club and agree with every single thing they do and back them up on every single thing.

Id put all the money and everything i own that if the teams were reversed and someone did that to COrnes then youd all be calling him a thug and saying he should get a few weeks. Id put my life on it.


Cornes has an umblemished record of 80 odd matches over 5 seasons. I have seen most of those games and I've seen him develop into a one shot wonder to a hard working player who does all the one precenters as well as making a second and third contest on every occasion. I have never seen an act of thuggery.

I never said it was thuggery. I said it looked deliberate.

In this incident, the video evidence that supports Cornes statement is absolutely clear. It's even more clear when a sports report gives a close up and highlights Cornes foot clearly slipping on Sinclairs.

From where I sit and from MY point of view, Cornes had no reason to jump over Sinclair. That is MY opinion.

I find it grossly hypocritical to demand these second efforts when we do not stand behind a player who not only provided a solid body contest but then did his utmost to get back and gain possession.

He had just gotten rid of the ball....the ball was on its way forward. For a start he could have ran around him to avoid contact all together instead of "attempting to jump over Sinclair". Funny isnt it how if he reckons he tried to jump over Sinclair why didnt he jump? Sure his foot "slipped" but he still could have jumped over him instead of kneeing him in the guts.

And as ive said before. I am not going to stand behind a player who i believe did something deliberate.

How about some damn loyalty? I'm not asking for blind support just look at the video and decide what's the more likely thing to have happened - a Port player attempting to get the footy , or a Port player labelled obscenely as someone who , according to the umpire, deliberately goes back and knees a player to "finish him off"?

Cornes has a mean streak in him. Sure it was his first report but he is a very grumpy player. Hes just about the only Port player that abuses his own teammates when they stuff up...go to a game and watch him - if a teammate doesnt pinpoint a kick to him on the chest then he blows his gasket at them. He goes off at the umpire quite heatedly as well. He also enjoys ribbing opponents. Sinclair and Cornes were ribbing each other 10 minutes before the bump.

Ive looked at the video. Ive come to my conclusion. And dont you f@cking dare question my loyalty again. :mad:


What if it was Tredrea or Primus or Wilson? Would the name make any difference to your view?

I couldnt give a flying **** who it was. If it was Tredrea, Primus, Gavin, Guerra, Poults, James, Nick or anyone id be saying the same thing. In MY eyes it looked deliberate. In MY eyes it was a stupid thing to do. IM not going to support a player that I think has done something deliberate. Chad is one of my favourite players which makes it more dissapointing. The name means nothing. If i beleive one of our players has done something wrong then ill say it. I couldnt care who it is.

Thank god our Club has stronger principles and will stick up for any player unfairly dealt with.

While the 2 game suspension for a first offence is in itself a disgrace, the guilty finding should never have been brought down.

Well good for you. You think hes innocent. Thats nice. Well done. I dont. I thought what he did was wrong and the 2 week suspension was deserved. My opinion is different. Get over it.


Next time something like this happens ill remember never to have an opinion. :rolleyes: Ive got better things to do with my time than have my loyalty questioned because i have a different opinion and wont blindly follow and beleive in everything my club does.

[kaysee]

I've seen the replay several times since I taped the game and whilst I think he did mean to 'drop the knee' in even if he did slip I don't think he deserves 2 games.

He has a clean recorded for 5 years and I think minimum should have been a reprimand with 1 game being the maximum.

What is with the tribunial these days... it seems no matter how good a player has been for years it all amounts to nothing. When was the last time a reprimand was issued. Lately it seems all or nothing with the tribunial.

I think a 2-3 game reprimand would have been in order for Cornes. Especially since you see the same night Barnard get the same sentence even though he has been found guilty twice this year of striking and has a poor record.

SKC

[Port01]

Originally posted by Macca19
Next time something like this happens ill remember never to have an opinion. :rolleyes: Ive got better things to do with my time than have my loyalty questioned because i have a different opinion and wont blindly follow and beleive in everything my club does.

Not sure your loyalty was questioned that badly ;)

Personally I'm not sure. If you step on something and your knees buckle you aren't always going to be able to break your fall with your hands, unless you specifically fall forward. If you fall directly down your knees will cop it. I have no problem with the biomechanics of it. It is quite possible.

However I'm not convinced it wasn't deliberate. The inconsistency of the reporting process and the tribunal unfortunately does mean that every decision they make will end up being wrong. Either aesthetically or consistently.

The umpires evidence taken without vision makes you think of Chad returning to the field with a bayonet to finish off the wounded Sinclair. Maybe they could argue it was humanitarian and he couldn't be saved.

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Macca19
Next time something like this happens ill remember never to have an opinion. :rolleyes: Ive got better things to do with my time than have my loyalty questioned because i have a different opinion and wont blindly follow and beleive in everything my club does.

I agree with you wholeheartedly............

Leave the foolishness of believing of everything a club says to those supporters and clubs we despise.........

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by Port01
I have no problem with the biomechanics of it. It is quite possible.

I think the club erred in a big way by not having an expert witness on this alone. It works for other clubs and should have been part of the defence given the defence given by the club.

[SpecialBruce]

Originally posted by Macca19
Looked to me like an intentional knee made to look as accidental as possible. You dont simply slip knees forward from standing upright at walking pace. When most people fall forwards they tend to put their arm out to break the fall. Cornes again, didnt do this. He went knees first.

Sure, he could have slipped/tripped, but the way he fell forward looked like he knew what he was doing.

Once again ill say im extremely dissapointed that one of our key leaders would be so stupid to do something like that. Not acceptable.

I agree with Macca on this. It was not acceptable. Looking at the incident over and over again, it was a deliberate act. The 'wet' factor has got nothing to do with it. Cornes' actions are against the spirit of the game and he deserved the two weeks he got. One would have been a bit soft. Doing anything with knees in football is dangerous and kneeing is the more deliberate charge that you can get pulled up for.

An appeal won't get him off. Maybe they might reduce it to 1 week, but he won't get off. He has to live with the consequences and so does the club.

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by Macca19
Next time something like this happens ill remember never to have an opinion. :rolleyes: Ive got better things to do with my time than have my loyalty questioned because i have a different opinion and wont blindly follow and beleive in everything my club does.

Strange how it's okay for other people to be crucified for doing the same thing.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by SpecialBruce
Doing anything with knees in football is dangerous and kneeing is the more deliberate charge that you can get pulled up for. If they had done him with kneeing, biomechanist evidence would come heavily into play.

Suspending a player for acting `against the spirit of the game', well ****, how do you defend against that? Especially when the tribunal refuse to acknowledge precedent.

[snakebite01]

Originally posted by Macca19
Im not blinded by faith. I think Cornes deliberately did it. If he DID slip, he could have used his hand on Sinclair to 'break his fall' instead of the knee. Why didnt he use his hand to break his fall? Instead he sticks out his knee right into a players ribs to break his fall.

Macca is right. If ever you fall over it is a reflex action to stick your hands out to break your fall. No one falls down with their hands beside themselves unless they are unconscious. You fall and as a reflex action put your hands out to stop yourself from any injuries to your face. 2 weeks may have been a bit tough but he has got to live with that for doing something a bit silly.

Don't worry Macca, it's good that you are being a bit objective.:)

[Pred]

Sigh. I haven't even seen the damn incident. This living away thing gives me the shytes sometimes.

[footballphantom]

Well it was not on the AFL site until after the tribunal. The only game not up.

[mic59]

The verdict may have ended up being correct but the penalty sucks. Greg Stafford got nothing at all for something that looked nearly as bad so where is the consistency? And I can bet if Chad had pleaded guilty he would have got away with one. It's almost 1 for the crime and 1 for daring to think the tribunal's decision may be wrong. These blokes must watch "Law and Order" with all it's plea bargains.

But I was angriest with the reporting umpires comments. Stating Chad "came in to finish him off". Opinions are one thing and maybe Chad did go a bit over the top, but to use language that equates him to thugs like David Granger or Jack Dyer is well out of order.

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by mic59
But I was angriest with the reporting umpires comments. Stating Chad "came in to finish him off". Opinions are one thing and maybe Chad did go a bit over the top, but to use language that equates him to thugs like David Granger or Jack Dyer is well out of order.

Agreed - the tribunal are not supposed to accept the opinion of an umpire anyway.

[PAfolwr]

Personally I like hearing differing opinions that people come to, as long as they are honest ones.
That is part of the reason I also like having non Port supporters contributing on here.
Just regurgitating club issued news can be got on many other sites, and quite frankly it's not always useful. Sometimes it's downright crap. They'd be mad to release all the news. Just look at the injury list over the last couple of years and the reporting of it.
If a Port player, coach or manager stuffs up, then this is the venue that we can and should say so. This is part of the reason for having a board like this.
A big thank you to all those that have been honest about their assessment of this incident (both camps), as I missed it on game day, and haven't seen the replay of it.

KG22, the only time I remember is when you pretty much said that you only followed the club because of Koula, and would change your allegiance once he left.

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
KG22, the only time I remember is when you pretty much said that you only followed the club because of Koula, and would change your allegiance once he left.

Whoever said I was referring to that? Let alone a precedent involving the defendant being a Port supporter?

[Port01]

Originally posted by snakebite01
Macca is right. If ever you fall over it is a reflex action to stick your hands out to break your fall. No one falls down with their hands beside themselves unless they are unconscious. You fall and as a reflex action put your hands out to stop yourself from any injuries to your face.

If you are falling forward yes.

If you lose your legs there is no guarantee you are going to fall forward. You can either go straight down or buckle backwards. In both cases there is no reflex to stick your arms out to protect your face.

I don't like what he did, but there is no guarantee it was deliberate, considering it is proven he stepped on Sinclairs foot and was off balance. He may have deliberately used the knee to regain balance, but again, thats pretty natural.

[Mudholian]

I cannot accept some of the comments being posted here.

Calling a player despicable, calling him a liar, agreeing with an umpire who assassinated his character. I just can't believe it.

Cornes says he was trying to get over Sincliar to the ball. He says he slipped. The video shows he slipped. The Club obviously supports Cornes.

Can you consider for a moment how Cornes must be feeling at this point, if you are willing for a moment to accept that what he says might be true?

I suppose we have always had those who back stab. I guess we only have to go back to 2000 and see the ones who were squealing about Williams. Same scenario. When the club needs supporters they are hard to come by.

You might have the opinion that it "does not look good" but to treat one of our players actions and words in this manner is a disgrace.

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by snakebite01
Macca is right. If ever you fall over it is a reflex action to stick your hands out to break your fall. No one falls down with their hands beside themselves unless they are unconscious. You fall and as a reflex action put your hands out to stop yourself from any injuries to your face. 2 weeks may have been a bit tough but he has got to live with that for doing something a bit silly.

Don't worry Macca, it's good that you are being a bit objective.:)

Hang on, Cornes does not fall with his arms "beside himself".

His arms go forward. His hands may even have struck Sinclair as they are clearly stretched out to break his fall.

I am more and more convinced people have not seen this at all.

[sog35]

Originally posted by Mudholian
I cannot accept some of the comments being posted here.

Calling a player despicable, calling him a liar, agreeing with an umpire who assassinated his character. I just can't believe it.

Cornes says he was trying to get over Sincliar to the ball. He says he slipped. The video shows he slipped. The Club obviously supports Cornes.

Can you consider for a moment how Cornes must be feeling at this point, if you are willing for a moment to accept that what he says might be true?

I suppose we have always had those who back stab. I guess we only have to go back to 2000 and see the ones who were squealing about Williams. Same scenario. When the club needs supporters they are hard to come by.

You might have the opinion that it "does not look good" but to treat one of our players actions and words in this manner is a disgrace.

I don't think anyone has agreed with the umpires interpretation of the events, he polished it up nicely for the scriptwriters.

I have no problem with Cornes saying he slipped but the problem I have with the footage is the pause before the drop, it did not look like he was out of control. Also wouldn't slipping in the wet conditions have caused more of a slide than a jabbing motion? Maybe I'm playing the devils advocate.

And you're drawing a long bow with the 2000 Williams comments. We are looking at one bit of singular footage and drawing an interpretation from the vision.

Cornesy has made a mistake in my eyes. Not a career ending, tar him for the rest of his life mistake, but a mistake all the same. We all have moments of blood where what we SHOULD do is clouded by emotions. The pause and the look down just doesn't look right.

And finally I respect the right of Chad to defend himself. To me I haven't treated his actions or words disgracefully, all I have is devolped an opinion on the events. It is one thing to accept everything the club and the player has to say, it is another to understand it and have your own opinion. In my eyes that doesn't make me any less of a supporter

[Ford Fairlane]

FWIW I finally watched the incident last night in slo mo half a dozen times from the tape of the game. Sadly I don't have the telepathic powers of Umpire Maggots but I'd offer the following observations.

Following the impact when Cornes is facing the Port goals, Sinclair is on the ground to his right (Cornes is between Sinclair and the boundary line). Cornes is watching the ball as Burgoyne and Pickett tap it infield away from the boundary line. Cornes follows the movement of the ball, still watching its movement and then comes to Sinclair. At this point several events converge - Cornes looks down, he steps on Sinclair's boot, he makes contact with Sinclair.

To use legal terminology, is there reasonable doubt? For me there is … that sequence of events suggests that Cornes wasn't looking for Sinclair "to finish him off". He was tracking the movement of the ball and fell onto Sinclair. Deliberately? I can't say from that evidence. There's been a fair bit made of him not falling onto his hands. Funny but I've seen plenty of incidents of footballers who fall knees first and body arching back. Wangas is a master of this. The moment he falls with his hands he's out of the contest … falls on his knees and he's in a position to quickly spring back up and continue to compete.

Balance of probabilities? Inconclusive. Cornes may swagger, yell, point, gesticulate, but I have to say I've never seen him maliciously go outside the rules to physically hurt an opponent. There didn't appear to be any prior history between him and Sinclair, so it's difficult to see why he would out of the blue and out of character drop a knee on him … no matter what the telepathic Umpire thinks. The finishing off Cornesy usually indulges involves opposition teams winning chances (see Showdown 13).

As to involving lawyers in the process. As far as I'm aware they already are involved. Players are generally represented by lawyers (or that has been the case in the past). Usually they are very aggressive in their questioning of umps, so umps have been instructed to be forthright and aggressive in their responses, so as not to create a suggestion of doubt. As umps do not have "defence counsel" as it were. The tribunal that sat for Cornes had I understand at least two people from the legal profession on it. And when an umpire starts alleging that a ball player with a previously unblemished record has gone in to deliberately hurt a player, to "finish him off", then I would suggest that umpire might want to start thinking about legal advice himself, cos if I was Chad Cornes I'd be thinking about the state of slander laws in this country. It's a big stretch between what the umpire said and saying you believe contact was avoidable or reckless …

[Mudholian]

A pretty reasonable account FF - except that the comments by some about Cornes not falling on outstretched hands does not correspond with the video.

My view is that the video evidence correponds with Cornes account. That combined with his excellent record should have been enough to clear him.

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by sog35
I don't think anyone has agreed with the umpires interpretation of the events, he polished it up nicely for the scriptwriters.

I have no problem with Cornes saying he slipped but the problem I have with the footage is the pause before the drop,


Cornes slipped and there was no "pause" before the fall. Iam amazed that some people see the laws of gravity to have been suspended at this moment.

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by Macca19
Im not blinded by faith. I think Cornes deliberately did it. If he DID slip, he could have used his hand on Sinclair to 'break his fall' instead of the knee. Why didnt he use his hand to break his fall? Instead he sticks out his knee right into a players ribs to break his fall. If that makes me disloyal, less passionate, less of a port supporter than you and everyone else that is having a go at me for having a differing opinion on an ugly incident then so be it. I couldnt really care less. You can call me disloyal all you bloody want...it isnt gonna change my view on the incident...and id rather have my own opinion than blindly follow my club and agree with every single thing they do and back them up on every single thing.

Id put all the money and everything i own that if the teams were reversed and someone did that to COrnes then youd all be calling him a thug and saying he should get a few weeks. Id put my life on it.


[b]

I never said it was thuggery. I said it looked deliberate.

[b]

From where I sit and from MY point of view, Cornes had no reason to jump over Sinclair. That is MY opinion.

[b]

He had just gotten rid of the ball....the ball was on its way forward. For a start he could have ran around him to avoid contact all together instead of "attempting to jump over Sinclair". Funny isnt it how if he reckons he tried to jump over Sinclair why didnt he jump? Sure his foot "slipped" but he still could have jumped over him instead of kneeing him in the guts.

And as ive said before. I am not going to stand behind a player who i believe did something deliberate.

[b]

Cornes has a mean streak in him. Sure it was his first report but he is a very grumpy player. Hes just about the only Port player that abuses his own teammates when they stuff up...go to a game and watch him - if a teammate doesnt pinpoint a kick to him on the chest then he blows his gasket at them. He goes off at the umpire quite heatedly as well. He also enjoys ribbing opponents. Sinclair and Cornes were ribbing each other 10 minutes before the bump.

Ive looked at the video. Ive come to my conclusion. And dont you f@cking dare question my loyalty again. :mad:


[b]

I couldnt give a flying **** who it was. If it was Tredrea, Primus, Gavin, Guerra, Poults, James, Nick or anyone id be saying the same thing. In MY eyes it looked deliberate. In MY eyes it was a stupid thing to do. IM not going to support a player that I think has done something deliberate. Chad is one of my favourite players which makes it more dissapointing. The name means nothing. If i beleive one of our players has done something wrong then ill say it. I couldnt care who it is.

[b]

Well good for you. You think hes innocent. Thats nice. Well done. I dont. I thought what he did was wrong and the 2 week suspension was deserved. My opinion is different. Get over it.


Next time something like this happens ill remember never to have an opinion. :rolleyes: Ive got better things to do with my time than have my loyalty questioned because i have a different opinion and wont blindly follow and beleive in everything my club does.

Cornes uses his hands to break his fall. Your insistence that he does not is confusing for those who do not have access to the video.

You don't have to agree with everything the Club does or everything that players say. Just make sure that you don't earn the reputation of someone who would eagerly post comments on here that they would not be prepared to say directly to the player involved.

This includes "Chad, that was stupid, and deliberate, you're a liar, and what's more, you havea mean streak and you're always abusing your own players".

It could also apply to those Port supporters who abuse their own players. I don't think that's appropriate but some think it's their right.

As for players running round opponents, well, again, that is your opinion, I suppose if he ran round Sinclair in the first place you would be even happier. My view is Cornes had eyes for the ball and tried to get to it.

The critical thing is you value your own opinion more than that of the player involved. That's your call. Personally while you have an enormous number of contributions here, I reckon Cornes has more credibility than either of us.

Finally, don't get so personal and precious. You have your opinion. Don't spit it just because someone has a different one. My view is the evidence is clearly in Cornes favour and we should be sticking up for him, just as the club is doing.

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
FWIW I finally watched the incident last night in slo mo half a dozen times from the tape of the game. Sadly I don't have the telepathic powers of Umpire Maggots but I'd offer the following observations.

Following the impact when Cornes is facing the Port goals, Sinclair is on the ground to his right (Cornes is between Sinclair and the boundary line). Cornes is watching the ball as Burgoyne and Pickett tap it infield away from the boundary line. Cornes follows the movement of the ball, still watching its movement and then comes to Sinclair. At this point several events converge - Cornes looks down, he steps on Sinclair's boot, he makes contact with Sinclair.

To use legal terminology, is there reasonable doubt? For me there is … that sequence of events suggests that Cornes wasn't looking for Sinclair "to finish him off". He was tracking the movement of the ball and fell onto Sinclair. Deliberately? I can't say from that evidence. There's been a fair bit made of him not falling onto his hands. Funny but I've seen plenty of incidents of footballers who fall knees first and body arching back. Wangas is a master of this. The moment he falls with his hands he's out of the contest … falls on his knees and he's in a position to quickly spring back up and continue to compete.

Balance of probabilities? Inconclusive. Cornes may swagger, yell, point, gesticulate, but I have to say I've never seen him maliciously go outside the rules to physically hurt an opponent. There didn't appear to be any prior history between him and Sinclair, so it's difficult to see why he would out of the blue and out of character drop a knee on him … no matter what the telepathic Umpire thinks. The finishing off Cornesy usually indulges involves opposition teams winning chances (see Showdown 13).

As to involving lawyers in the process. As far as I'm aware they already are involved. Players are generally represented by lawyers (or that has been the case in the past). Usually they are very aggressive in their questioning of umps, so umps have been instructed to be forthright and aggressive in their responses, so as not to create a suggestion of doubt. As umps do not have "defence counsel" as it were. The tribunal that sat for Cornes had I understand at least two people from the legal profession on it. And when an umpire starts alleging that a ball player with a previously unblemished record has gone in to deliberately hurt a player, to "finish him off", then I would suggest that umpire might want to start thinking about legal advice himself, cos if I was Chad Cornes I'd be thinking about the state of slander laws in this country. It's a big stretch between what the umpire said and saying you believe contact was avoidable or reckless …

I could almost love you.

You're right - it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the action was deliberate, however I'm not sure if the mens rea are actually taken that much into account.

It was my belief that players/clubs/whoever had to apply to the tribunal to have their case presented by a qualified lawyer, and that this would be under "special circumstances only" (i.e. where the 'offense' is criminal as well as against the rules of the game). From what I've read of tribunal procedures (sadly the page is no more since the AFL did their revamp of the worst makeover on earth) lawyers are not allowed anywhere near the tribunal. I'm sorry I can't back this up but I'm honest in that the page has done a Macavity.

It's also my belief that Chad would have a hard time getting a defamation case into court on that one comment... the common law regarding defamation requires that his reputation be damaged to a greater extent than what Chad's has been, if it has been damaged at all.

[sog35]

Originally posted by koulagirl22
It's also my belief that Chad would have a hard time getting a defamation case into court on that one comment... the common law regarding defamation requires that his reputation be damaged to a greater extent than what Chad's has been, if it has been damaged at all.

Surely his reputation on BigFooty has been tarnished enough for him to at least try and get some money out of it?

Then after that we can get the lawyers working on Maccas "Treason against the Republic of Port Adelaide". Director of Prosecution Mudholian QC. :D

[Kid Dynamite!]

Originally posted by sog35
Surely his reputation on BigFooty has been tarnished enough for him to at least try and get some money out of it?


If he had $1 for every person who hated him, he'd be rolling in it!

[X_box_X]

I hope Cornes gets off tonight. I don't like his chances, though. With or without Cornes, I reckon Port should beat Essendon - From memory I think Port has beaten Essendon the last two times. Last year at the Dome was one of those two. No reason why Port cannot repeat last year's performance.

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by sog35
Surely his reputation on BigFooty has been tarnished enough for him to at least try and get some money out of it?

Then after that we can get the lawyers working on Maccas "Treason against the Republic of Port Adelaide". Director of Prosecution Mudholian QC. :D

The thing is I don't think he reads BigFooty, and even if he did, I'm not sure the case would go ahead due to a lack of assets on behalf of those who are dissing him. Plus there's the policy issue of then EVERY PLAYER who gets dissed on an internet messageboard would be bringing claims, and when there's maybe 10 players a week, that adds up to at least 200 extra defamation claims per year... it's called floodgates, and it's outrageous. ;)

Macca, if you want me to defend you just kick some sense into Koula... or ask nicely... :)

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by koulagirl22
I could almost love you.

You're right - it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the action was deliberate, however I'm not sure if the mens rea are actually taken that much into account.

It was my belief that players/clubs/whoever had to apply to the tribunal to have their case presented by a qualified lawyer, and that this would be under "special circumstances only" (i.e. where the 'offense' is criminal as well as against the rules of the game). From what I've read of tribunal procedures (sadly the page is no more since the AFL did their revamp of the worst makeover on earth) lawyers are not allowed anywhere near the tribunal. I'm sorry I can't back this up but I'm honest in that the page has done a Macavity.

It's also my belief that Chad would have a hard time getting a defamation case into court on that one comment... the common law regarding defamation requires that his reputation be damaged to a greater extent than what Chad's has been, if it has been damaged at all.

No the tribunal can get away with terms like reckless and unnecessary ... makes the burden of proof a little more convenient for them.

I think you're probably right about player advocates/representatives. I looked thru a few previous cases and can't see any reference to them. The Chair of the tribunal (a QC in Cornes's case) probably questions the player(s) and umpire(s) and draws inferences from the responses. That's probably in response to the grilling a few umpires have had over the years from advocates/reps.

It's a pity if Cornesy can't do something about the umpire's comments. I thought they were unnecessary and extremely prejudicial. At the very least the tribunal Chair could have directed him to stick to actual observations and not his colour commentary and interpretation.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Mudholian
This includes "Chad, that was stupid, and deliberate, you're a liar, and what's more, you havea mean streak and you're always abusing your own players".

Id say that to him. I thought it was stupid. I thought it looked deliberate. I dont think hes a liar. He has a mean streak. And he does abuse his own players....a lot.

As for players running round opponents, well, again, that is your opinion, I suppose if he ran round Sinclair in the first place you would be even happier. My view is Cornes had eyes for the ball and tried to get to it.

Jumping over Sinclair would have helped his chances a whopping zero %. Its not like the ball was just on the other side of Sinclairs body. It was a fair way away. He had no need to try and jump over Sinclair when the ball was not near him.

The critical thing is you value your own opinion more than that of the player involved. That's your call. Personally while you have an enormous number of contributions here, I reckon Cornes has more credibility than either of us.

Im not saying i value my opinion above Cornes, i dont value my opinion above anyones....but why should i beleive what ANY player at the tribunal has to say when theres a whole secret players code that promotes lying, bending the truth and memorising the two lines 'there was no contact, i was only acting for a free kick' and 'i didnt see what happened'.

[dreamkillers]

Apparently the appeal has been dismissed unfortunately.........

[mic59]

.....and in NT language, "dismissed" means "upheld", right?
:(

[gbear]

Injustice at its best:(
He should have only got one week and even that was on the rough side. It is way oevrdue for the Tribunal to become consistent and accountable for its decisions. I say Bring on Judge Judy, if you get my drift;) :D

[dreamkillers]

Originally posted by mic59
.....and in NT language, "dismissed" means "upheld", right?
:(

unfortunately this site isn't friendly to NT lingo...............


Only upside is that Guerra now comes back into the team.

[footballphantom]

Well at least now Power supporters do not have to participate in the harmony thing in the AFL. All Power supporters can now bag umpires with VERY GOOD REASON.

They actually want us to respect the umpires. Maybe the umpires should have some respect for the players.

I would really like to see somebody take this umpire to court for something but I do not know what.

[koulagirl22]

Giving false evidence? But he doesn't have to swear that he's going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... contempt of court? But it's not a court.

Gee the tribunal have carefully immunised themselves...

[mic59]

We're now paying for the successes of Adelaide, West Coast and Brisbane. Say what you like about the suspension and the appeal but the very fact we were never given a fair hearing really rankles. If Cornes was guilty, Stafford was guilty as hell, but the AFL even allowed an UNANNOUNCED witness to speak for him and got him off on the flimsiest of premises. And Cornes, and P.Burgoyne earlier got twice the penalty usually reserved for their deeds and in Cornes' case was subject to a character assassination.
Why are we in the AFL? Because we wanted to compete with the best in the land.
Why were we allowed to join the AFL? Because the Vics wanted our money to prop up their poverty-stricken clubs.

[pazza]

This is all a bit rich.

Coming from a club which has had more than it's fair share of tribunal cases in recent years (and one that is currently molested by the umpires on a weekly basis), we've gotten used to what the tribunal and the umpiring fraternity can be like.

The safety of Jess Sinclair in this case is quite important to note here. Chad Cornes says he slipped...that has to be one of the flimiest defences I have ever heard of.

Needless to say, the appeal was rightly quashed.

[PAfolwr]

Now that I have finally seen the incident, I cannot believe some of the crap that has been said on this board.
That was an incredibly stupid undisciplined act, and I hope Mark Williams gives it to him on the training track.
It has nothing to do with Sinclair, but with being without one of our key players for two weeks.
With all the cameras around, he was always going to be suspended for that, and if the tribunal had a bee in it's bonnet, it could have been three weeks.
I do not agree with the way the umpire behaved, nor do I think that the tribunal is consistent, but that lack of discipline from our players we do not need, nor do we want.

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Now that I have finally seen the incident, I cannot believe some of the crap that has been said on this board.
That was an incredibly stupid undisciplined act, and I hope Mark Williams gives it to him on the training track.
It has nothing to do with Sinclair, but with


Perhaps you can tell what you see. I see a player slipping as he is attmpting to get to the ball and making very minimal contact.

As for the "crap", I reserve that for those of you who would be more at home with the Port trolls on the main board than standing in front of Cornes at the club and calling him a liar.

[PAfolwr]

Originally posted by Mudholian
Perhaps you can tell what you see. I see a player slipping as he is attmpting to get to the ball and making very minimal contact.

As for the "crap", I reserve that for those of you who would be more at home with the Port trolls on the main board than standing in front of Cornes at the club and calling him a liar.
I did not see a player trying to deliberately maim another, nor have I said so. People that have said that are wrong, and would not say it if it was one of their players.
I did see a player trying to impose his authority over another, and so he should. He is one of our bigger players, and that should be part of his job, same as Tredrea.
What I also see is that the manner in which it was done, given the age of TV cameras everywhere, is childish. In particular given that it occurred straight after a "perfect" effort at doing just that.
He was always going to be suspended, and the only ones that will suffer because of it are his teammates and the PA fans.
I was trying very very hard to see if it was purely an accident, but failed to do so.
The arguments that have occurred on here questioning peoples commitment to the cause, I find hard to understand, and totally disagree with.

We appealed the severity of the sentence, and not the verdict itself if I recall correctly.
I am also of the belief that the manner in which the umpire presented his side of the story should be unacceptable, and that the sentence is disproportionate to others that have, or have not, been dished out.

wrt Harding, he too should have got a week. He was late. His feet did not leave the ground until after Wanganeen had marked the ball, and as such it was deliberate. Injury or not is irrelevant.

[sog35]

Well said PAfolwr.

Luckily the minority have called into the question the commitment of the supporters on here.

Even Graham on radio last night on hearing the appeal verdict was reflective, saying along the lines of "you live and you learn, he made a mistake". It didn't sound like he harboured any resentment to the findings, unlike Chad's crowd incident and resultant fine.

And furthermore on radio this morning, Choco stated his disappointment at Chad getting himself in the situation to be suspended. Which is effectively 3/5ths of what Macca and myself were trying to put across. Does this make Mark disloyal as well?

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by koulagirl22
It was my belief that players/clubs/whoever had to apply to the tribunal to have their case presented by a qualified lawyer, and that this would be under "special circumstances only" (i.e. where the 'offense' is criminal as well as against the rules of the game). From what I've read of tribunal procedures (sadly the page is no more since the AFL did their revamp of the worst makeover on earth) lawyers are not allowed anywhere near the tribunal. I'm sorry I can't back this up but I'm honest in that the page has done a Macavity.


Just as an aside to this whole Cornes debate, after I agreed with this statement, lo and behold I see in today's report on the appeal that Iain Findlay (who might be a QC) represented Cornes and Rick Lewis was the umpire's advocate.

I give up ... :confused: