Appeal!

[Port01]

Damn if we are appealing he must not be guilty.

Normally Bucky tells people to bugger off and leave his 5 grand alone.

[Porthos]

Its good to see the club practice what they preach and make a second effort.

[sog35]

I think there is an AFL stating you must bring new evidence to the table to get a suspension overturned. However from what the club has been said I think we are going into Suspension minimisation.

The 2 possible grounds I can think of are:

1) First time offender

2) Outrageous testimony by reporting official.

[Stiffy_18]

Good luck with the appeal but I just cannot see it being overturned. I might be wrong but this thing hardly ever works.

[Mudholian]

Hooray!

I like the comment about second efforts. That is what started this and with any justice it will be what "finishes it off".

[mic59]

The only chance to get the suspension reduced is by having the appeal heard before Eddie McGuire gets there.
;)

[The Floodbuster]

When are they going to start televising tribunal hearings.
It musn't be too far away.

What Cornes done was stupid, he deserved his two weeks, the only thing that disappoints me is the incosistency, e.g Staffords kneeing gets thrown out, the Carlton game a few weeks ago where the kneeing goes uncited.
So many times players do a similar indescretion, one gets two weeks another gets no weeks.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by The Floodbuster
So many times players do a similar indescretion, one gets two weeks another gets no weeks. Except our guy virtually always gets the two week version.

[The Floodbuster]

Originally posted by Porthos
Except our guy virtually always gets the two week version.

The tribunal system is a joke.
Forget racism and sexism, this is playerism and clubism.

Cornes was probably the fairest verdict out the lot, the worst was the St Kilda game last year with Nick and Mick Stevens getting outed for two only after a fortnight when Crawford belted Powell to the ground with an elbow and got nothing.
We seen it again this year with Burgoyne going yet players getting off in the next few weeks. Then Stafford and Wait from Carlton using there knees yet one gets thrown out and the other not cited.
The tribunal comes up with crap excuses such as player evidence etc, e.g Burton squealing about Monty last year when there wasn't enough evidence and also stewie Loewe having a cry. But this year when Hardwick is used for evidence and says he faked it and nothing was in it the tribunal says that player evidence isn't valid. The other excuse I hate is when these ****ers say that the sentence is harsher as the player had a record of visiting tribunals etc, but Stafford who has been cited many times before gets thrown out but C Cornes who has a clean record besides a one off finger gesture to the crowd gets two.
I wonder if the Harding charging incident was reversed and it was Wangas charging Harding, Wangas would probably be getting a holiday to.
I don't so much mind the players getting reported etc but only if it's fair, why can't they show a little bit of consistency. The incosistency is so obvious I can't believe that the AFL has ignored one of the biggest flaws in it's game.

[footballphantom]

Originally posted by The Floodbuster
The tribunal system is a joke.
Forget racism and sexism, this is playerism and clubism.

Cornes was probably the fairest verdict out the lot, the worst was the St Kilda game last year with Nick and Mick Stevens getting outed for two only after a fortnight when Crawford belted Powell to the ground with an elbow and got nothing.
We seen it again this year with Burgoyne going yet players getting off in the next few weeks. Then Stafford and Wait from Carlton using there knees yet one gets thrown out and the other not cited.
The tribunal comes up with crap excuses such as player evidence etc, e.g Burton squealing about Monty last year when there wasn't enough evidence and also stewie Loewe having a cry. But this year when Hardwick is used for evidence and says he faked it and nothing was in it the tribunal says that player evidence isn't valid. The other excuse I hate is when these ****ers say that the sentence is harsher as the player had a record of visiting tribunals etc, but Stafford who has been cited many times before gets thrown out but C Cornes who has a clean record besides a one off finger gesture to the crowd gets two.
I wonder if the Harding charging incident was reversed and it was Wangas charging Harding, Wangas would probably be getting a holiday to.
I don't so much mind the players getting reported etc but only if it's fair, why can't they show a little bit of consistency. The incosistency is so obvious I can't believe that the AFL has ignored one of the biggest flaws in it's game.

Agreed and I think that this is what a lot of posters on the main board cannot understand. Port have always been tough at the footy but fair and we are now in a system that has so many flaws Port supporters do not like the injustice. This is what is making me angry at the moment. This "rough play" charge can mean anything and all footballers should be out every week.

The AFL have to look at the whole tribunal system.

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by The Floodbuster
When are they going to start televising tribunal hearings.
It musn't be too far away.

What Cornes done was stupid, he deserved his two weeks

A few questions. Were you there? Have you any idea what the conditions were like? It was very wet.

Next, have you seen the replay? If so, can you see Cornes slipping on Sinclair's boot?

Finally, if you put these two together, is there any chance that Cornes might be telling the truth?

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by footballphantom
Agreed and I think that this is what a lot of posters on the main board cannot understand. Port have always been tough at the footy but fair and we are now in a system that has so many flaws Port supporters do not like the injustice. This is what is making me angry at the moment. This "rough play" charge can mean anything and all footballers should be out every week.

The AFL have to look at the whole tribunal system.

The umpire reports off video. Wrong. His job is to officiate and report on the day. One other team - just one for consistency - does the video review.

Next, once a player is reported from video, there is no need for umpire "evidence". The tribunal looks at the video, asks the players involved what happened, and makes a decision.

In this case, the umpire provides an imaginative commentary on the incident. "He went back to finish him off".

If we are stuck with umpire evidence I would say to Margett is - talk us through this video step by step and tell us what you see - not what you think.

You must remember these umpires are under the pump on this game - they reported one player that should not have been reported and did not report one that they now say was blatant. That is why Margett is determined to bury Cornes.

Theres a collision, Cornes tries to recover the ball, he slips, there is a very slight contact to Sinclair. Football.

[Sandola]

Originally posted by Porthos
Except our guy virtually always gets the two week version.

That's about right. According to the Age this morning, since the beginning of the 1999 season, Port has 17 suspensions for 30 weeks out. Second only to Essendon, with 27 suspensions for 50 weeks over the same period.

[Mudholian]

The Advertiser
THU 22 MAY 2003
MERCY DASH
By ANDREW CAPEL

Port Adelaide is understood to be outraged at evidence provided by field umpire Dean Margetts which led to key forward Chad Cornes' two-match suspension, prompting it to appeal both the verdict and the severity of the sentence.

Cornes, who had never been found guilty of an offence, was suspended after being found guilty of a misconduct charge for kneeing Kangaroo Jess Sinclair in the round eight encounter at AAMI Stadium last Saturday.

But Port believes the guilty verdict and length of the sentence were too severe.

Under AFL rules, the club is gagged from commenting on the verdict and would not be drawn into the debate yesterday.
However, the club is understood to be furious at Margetts' evidence, particularly the claim that Cornes ``dropped the knee to finish (Sinclair) off.''

Margetts' damning evidence has raised eyebrows across the AFL and left Cornes, who claimed he would ``never deliberately knee anyone'', with little chance of beating the charge. The WA-based umpire described Cornes' actions as ``deliberate to hurt another player'' and being ``outside the spirit of the game''.

``We'll try it (the case) again and hopefully get a different outcome,'' Power coach Mark Williams said, expressing no concern that Cornes could be handed a stiffer penalty.
``Chad's been a great player for us and if he's missing it will be difficult,'' Williams said.
``He's a very competitive player who not only marks the ball but keeps the ball in the forward line.'' Williams said the Power would go to Plan B should Cornes' appeal not be successful.

Well maybe the PAFC should just "get over it". Then again, maybe we really are outraged about something.

[The Floodbuster]

Originally posted by Mudholian
A few questions. Were you there? Have you any idea what the conditions were like? It was very wet.

Next, have you seen the replay? If so, can you see Cornes slipping on Sinclair's boot?

Finally, if you put these two together, is there any chance that Cornes might be telling the truth?

Yes I was there and I know the conditions were bad.
Sorry for having a differing opinion. :rolleyes:

It was clumsy. Intentional or not he still kneed the player when there was no need to. A player of AFL ability should be able to avoid such a circumstance, he could of dived forward and straighten his legs or used his arms to break the impact. If it was a 5 year old kid I'd understand but an AFL player it is quite simple.
Thanks for just quoting some of my post, I said in comparison to other decisions it was a harsh sentence but the decision on it's own was fair, I'd just like consistency. It was not necessary and he has let his teammates and supporters down.