MRP / Trib. Fyfe in trouble?

[apuchar]

That's rubbish though. I posted this a few pages ago, but if that was how it's interpreted then Wells would have been done for more weeks for his high bump. Clearly, his bump was intentional. But he didn't intend to bump him in the head, which is why it was graded negligent (2 levels below intentional).

Does it change if it is off the ball. I don't know what happened in the Wells incident.

 

[beetz]

Club as asked for an extension until 4pm today to decide whether to further appeal

They need to just let it go. Accept it and move on.

The ramifications of another failure will linger forever.

 

[PapaJ]

Matters of law are not left to juries. Matters of fact are.

Yeah, exactly, so the chairman understood that Tweedie's defence was built not on the facts as such (Fyfe's actions) but on the interpretation of reckless/intentional as stipulated in the rules.

I posted it earlier; Tweedie was arguing for a particular understanding of reckless based on the initial action. The rules indicate (all bit it with a bit of wiggle room as it's not absolutely clear on this AFAICT) that an act can only be considered reckless rather than intentional if it is part of an action that would be considered part of normal (legal) play or that the action could be reasonably performed in a manner that would not lead to a reportable offence - it's a paraphrase to say the least, but that's basically it.

Howie dismissed Tweedie's argument because he was attempting to employ the understanding of 'reckless' in a manner that doesn't fit that description of the law, hence it was a point of law not fact, hence the he didn't need to (or 'let' if you like) the jury have their say.

However, if Tweedie had have got it past Howie (as a point of law) then I suspect that his argument may have been pretty convincing to the jury (who would consider the facts) - that is really what I'm saying in the previous post.

 

[apuchar]

Well explained PapaJ

 

[Reginald Perrin]

I think they do it for free.

We're getting overcharged.

 

[apuchar]

We're getting overcharged.

I think it was the legal version of 'creative accounting'

 

[Admiral Byng]

I can't recall exactly when it was changed, but when the AFL first introduced the points system there was an additional category for in-play or off-the-play. They scrapped that category and decided that all off-the-ball incidents be graded as intentional - as a number of others have also pointed out.

For the rest of the grading it's the result that counts, not the intent. So a player who intends to strike an opponent to the body but misses and either gets him high or misses and gets him low in the other protected area, gets charged as to where the strike landed. It's just bad luck and it's the risk you take in deciding to strike.

As logical and sensible as our argument sounded, that had already been anticipated and decided that was not how it was going to be interpreted.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Never our fault is it Reg - there's always someone else to blame?
We chose to contest - We need to learn from that mistake.

The fact that I'm saying that we have engaged idiots for our defence tends to imply that it's our fault. We don't seem to be able to learn anything, because this case is almost exactly the same as the failed appeal against Fyfe's suspension for kicking. We appear to specialise in arguing the unwinnable.

 

[StingBitten]

I think we may appeal but it just appears that it may be fruitless. Maybe after a good lunch they'll realise they need to accept it and move on. Fyfe's got two weeks to prepared for one of the biggest games of his career.

The rest of the Coaching Panel can now focus on replacing our two best midfielders and fielding the best team that will see us through these two last rounds into the Top 4. We haven't faced adversity as well as we have last year, and now's a good chance to ready ourselves for any unfortunate situation that may arise in September.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Does it change if it is off the ball. I don't know what happened in the Wells incident.

Yeah it automatically becomes intentional unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Righteo]

And this is your first post? I call troll.

EAD

username of "stirrer" not obvious enough?

 

[Frank J Moose]

But they argued it was in play, as an arm bar to put fyfe in front of Lewis to contest the ball. That it ended up being a strike was reckless behavior. Howie said no to that without referring it to the jury.

As for the denigration of the SC you put a better argument forward. Remember most of these cases and grading have never gone in front of a tribunal before.

Also carryover points are a big chance to go for next season. It will only cost us if Fyfe does something silly in three games.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

Yeah, exactly, so the chairman understood that Tweedie's defence was built not on the facts as such (Fyfe's actions) but on the interpretation of reckless/intentional as stipulated in the rules.

I posted it earlier; Tweedie was arguing for a particular understanding of reckless based on the initial action. The rules indicate (all bit it with a bit of wiggle room as it's not absolutely clear on this AFAICT) that an act can only be considered reckless rather than intentional if it is part of an action that would be considered part of normal (legal) play or that the action could be reasonably performed in a manner that would not lead to a reportable offence - it's a paraphrase to say the least, but that's basically it.

Howie dismissed Tweedie's argument because he was attempting to employ the understanding of 'reckless' in a manner that doesn't fit that description of the law, hence it was a point of law not fact, hence the he didn't need to (or 'let' if you like) the jury have their say.

However, if Tweedie had have got it past Howie (as a point of law) then I suspect that his argument may have been pretty convincing to the jury (who would consider the facts) - that is really what I'm saying in the previous post.

I'm a bit late to this thread and haven't read the rest of it, I apologise. And I haven't read the Schmook tweets from last night. From what I have gleaned from the debate raging earlier on The Roar is that Fyfey had argued he employed an "arm bar" - whatever the hell that is - in an effort to stop Lewis' run and give him a chance to get goal side. As I understand it, the chairman said you admit you "intended" to hit him, it was off the ball so the intentional grading stands alone (i.e. bizarrely if you hit him anywhere and it results, directly or otherwise, in a knock to the head it is a high hit).

I can't be arsed looking at the rules of the game so this is a bit speculative but I would assume there is there a factual issue there - whether an arm block was attempted and whether this is an admittedly recklessly executed act in play or if the whole incident was off the ball. Then there is of course the whole interpretation of "intentional" which would appear a matter of interpretation of the rules and thus a matter of law.

EDIT: Snap! What the Moose guy said

 

[apuchar]

Yeah it automatically becomes intentional unless it can be clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Thanks for that.

 

[apuchar]

But they argued it was in play, as an arm bar to put fyfe in front of Lewis to contest the ball. That it ended up being a strike was reckless behavior. Howie said no to that without referring it to the jury.

As for the denigration of the SC you put a better argument forward. Remember most of these cases and grading have never gone in front of a tribunal before.

Also carryover points are a big chance to go for next season. It will only cost us if Fyfe does something silly in three games.

Bit of a stretch I would have thought.

 

[Taylor]

Remember when Headland and Selwood got reprimands for punching on because Selwood insulted Headland's tattoo and the reasonable justification stuff came in?

 

[Square Peg]

They need to just let it go. Accept it and move on.

The ramifications of another failure will linger forever.

Forever might be a stretch, I'll have forgotten it by finals time

 

[balthazarthedonk]

Bit of a stretch I would have thought.

But Frank is still right as to how it should have been addressed.
Step 1: was it in play or not?
Step 2: if yes, was it reckless, intentional or whatever other gradings are out there (I don''t presume to know them) If no and therefore off the ball, was it intentional or not?

The appeal would be based on whether the Chairman erred in seemingly going straight to step 2.

 

[apuchar]

Remember when Headland and Selwood got reprimands for punching on because Selwood insulted Headland's tattoo and the reasonable justification stuff came in?

What was Fyfe's justification. That Lewis said he was a rubbish kick and cost his team a grandfinal

 

[Admiral Byng]

But they argued it was in play, as an arm bar to put fyfe in front of Lewis to contest the ball. That it ended up being a strike was reckless behavior. Howie said no to that without referring it to the jury.

As for the denigration of the SC you put a better argument forward. Remember most of these cases and grading have never gone in front of a tribunal before.

Also carryover points are a big chance to go for next season. It will only cost us if Fyfe does something silly in three games.

If that's the case it seems like we didn't push that angle hard enough. I didn't listen to any of the proceedings yesterday, but I thought our main argument was something different.

If he was trying to block Lewis's run or get ahead of him to the contest that would be a different matter. He was trying to do something legal but was reckless in how he carried it out and ended up getting Lewis high. If that was our argument then yes, the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the action was striking or was a legit attempt to get ahead of Lewis in running toward the contest.

 

[Taylor]

What was Fyfe's justification. That Lewis said he was a rubbish kick and cost his team a grandfinal

The targeting of the shoulder. I think Johnson got off with hitting Baker after Baker spent a half punching his broken hand.

 

[Borry]

If Fyfe did that in Northbridge he would be in the back of a police van. A suspension is the very least they could do, you have to admit

And if you tackle or sheperd someone within AFL laws in Northbridge you'd get in trouble with the law too. What a silly, absurd argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[apuchar]

But Frank is still right as to how it should have been addressed.
Step 1: was it in play or not?
Step 2: if yes, was it reckless, intentional or whatever other gradings are out there (I don''t presume to know them) If no and therefore off the ball, was it intentional or not?

The appeal would be based on whether the Chairman erred in seemingly going straight to step 2.

1) No. It was 3 kilometer's away
2) off the ball is immediately graded as intentional

 

[apuchar]

The targeting of the shoulder. I think Johnson got off with hitting Baker after Baker spent a half punching his broken hand.

When did that happen. I saw them give him the odd little bump and if he was out there and tackling and playing in the clearances his shoulder must have been up to that.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

1) No. It was 3 kilometer's away
2) off the ball is immediately graded as intentional

Yes I get 2), that's where the Chairman gets really pumped up and says "ah ha. it's off the ball it is always intentional. That's my ruling on that question of law". (I'm just giving him leeway to come to another random interpretation altogether. Why not? Courts do it all the time)