Do we need Better representation at MRP Appeals?

[WhiteLionFeva]

Regardless, it was not Howie's decision to make.

Hard to know what Chairman was thinking. Complete brain fade. Clear error that would be overturned by the Appeals Board but may still get the same outcome. Personally wouldn't have argued intentional contact, would have gone with reckless. The argument "I meant to hit him but lower" is flawed imo.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Regardless, it was not Howie's decision to make.

Pretty much this. When the chairman decides to make up a new set of rules there's not much the lawyers can do.

 

[Ripper]

Pretty much this. When the chairman decides to make up a new set of rules there's not much the lawyers can do.

Yep, Fyfie was supposed to be judged by his peers that have actually played the game.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Regardless, it was not Howie's decision to make.

Once again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure. Seems to me we were raising an argument that was not a legitimate defence. If no legitimate defence was argued then the jury don't need to consider the matter.

At the risk of sounding completely stupid, let me resort to analogy. Say Joe Bloggs riding his bicycle gets pulled over by the cops for not wearing a helmet. He points to a bicycle helmet strapped around his elbow and says yes I am wearing one. Contesting his fine in court he argues that he was wearing a helmet because he had one strapped to some part of his body. The judge says, no, wearing a helmet means wearing it on your head, and the people who wrote the law have already foreseen that and ruled out strapping it elsewhere on your body. So if that's the only argument our Mr Bloggs presents, it can be ruled out as a legitimate defence as a point of law, and therefore no need for a jury to consider. The jury only consider the evidence.

 

[Spoken4]

You could fund a hepatitis B positive Galapagos tortoise to slowly walk over and crap on the MRP Tribunal Chairman's chair .....it would have the same impact as a team of silks.

Can tortoises get Hep B? I learn something new everyday!!!

 

[strobe00]

Nah. Our representation was fine. As was the argument.

The tribunal chairman screwed the result by ruling on his lonesome according to a blanket rule that hadn't previously been tested in this way.

Was a fair argument. And had legit logic. Pity howie didn't appreciate the approach and just dropped the kibosh on it before the other tribunal members could debate it.

 

[PapaJ]

Regardless, it was not Howie's decision to make.

It can be, I posted it in the original Fyfe thread (you can read the long version here if you want). But the short version is that the Chairman can make a ruling on a "point of law" - and by that I mean that he can rule that our defence was incorrectly challenging the decision based on interpretation/meaning of the rules rather than any action that Fyfe may have done (which is a "point of fact" in this case) - which I can see as a possibility frankly

The problem is that we don't really know if that is what he's done, there are no proper transcripts and/or it hasn't been stated and this wasn't mentioned in the original feed provided by the AFL.

 

[sportsmaniac89]

Well what have we learned from all this?

The head is now part of the torso
Howie is a ******* dickhead who needs to be put out to pasture

Freo should appeal because proper process wasn't followed by the Chairman (nice one Howie you ******* reject....hope you end up in hell)

 

[FrancisX]

The argument was a lot more solid than "I didn't even realise I kicked the guy" (I actually think in that incident, it looked worse on camera then the reality but the defense was lame).

But the defense this time was still wishful hope - its a coin toss whether the Tribunal will rule in favour or not. The fact the incident happened behind play meant it was always an uphill battle to downgrade the charge, especially since there was some concession of an intentional contact which was wasn't described as a strike or meant to be on the head region.

If I were to judge by precedence - then the typical penalty for this act would be 1 week suspension. But the MRP seem to go more random than precedence.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Based on the bolded statement we need better representative. Surely they should know the tribunal laws.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tra-points-20140819-105zab.html#ixzz3Au29Qfv6

While Tweedie repeatedly argued Fyfe deserved a downgrade tribunal chairman Ross Howie blocked that argument being considered by the jury, because it contravened tribunal law. This ensured Fyfe was saddled with 69 more points than he could have accrued had Fremantle accepted the charge - not just before the hearing but even soon after it began, after it was informed its argument was invalid.

The suspension should quell the persistent criticism levelled at the AFL for the decision of its independent match review panel to give Fyfe a two-match rough conduct ban in round two, after an unintended head clash that injured Gold Coast's Michael Rischitelli that occurred as part of a bump laid by Fyfe. That criticism intensified throughout the season as Fyfe's hot form, combined with the season-ending injury to the Suns' Gary Ablett, fed expectation the Docker could finish with the most Brownlow Medal votes this years but be ineligible to win it because of that ban.

 

[Mogumber]

Its Bond's decision to challenge. We should never have challenged the Fyfe on Jackson one last year, that's set the boy back hugely.

 

[Kenny_01]

It's not rocket science, all we had to do was prove the "armbar" was legal had he not hit him high. If we could have found footage of this occuring throughout the season where a player hit his opponent on the chest and it was not punished, surely that would have sufficed.

Imagine if we had a 5 min collaboration of showing the armbar as a legal tactic employed by all teams; it would be hard for them not to accept he was reckless by getting him high.

We could have also called in a coach or whatever to say they emplore the team to use the armbar. It would have confused the Tribunal.

 

[Purple Suit]

Its Bond's decision to challenge. We should never have challenged the Fyfe on Jackson one last year, that's set the boy back hugely.

I disagree. We should have challenged that one, just done a better job.

The big one was the head clash. I always wanted to argue that one as I didn't think he had a legitimate option to impact the contest without bumping as he was wrong footed and late. If you tackle late you give away a kick but bumping is ok if you don't hit the head. It would be better for the game if "choosing to bump" was excepted as the best option in some cases, not just as an excuse to suspend people.

 

[Arcassius]

Is it me or have we lost most of our challenges lately? Didn't we change who our legal eagles are at about the same time this changed? A few years ago we had a run of winning most of our challenges.

Or it could just be revisionism and a poor memory

 

[beetz]

Is any one on here an actual lawyer or have we all been watching a bit too much "Suits"

 

[Randomizor]

Is it me or have we lost most of our challenges lately? Didn't we change who our legal eagles are at about the same time this changed? A few years ago we had a run of winning most of our challenges.

Or it could just be revisionism and a poor memory

Correlation does not imply causation.

It's completely possible that the MRP have just gotten stricter since then, not that our legal team has gotten worse.

 

[Allikat]

Is any one on here an actual lawyer or have we all been watching a bit too much "Suits"

<--- admittedly I've only been to court 3 times and not doing it anymore, but i have a 100% win record

 

[valkorum]

Is it me or have we lost most of our challenges lately? Didn't we change who our legal eagles are at about the same time this changed? A few years ago we had a run of winning most of our challenges.

Or it could just be revisionism and a poor memory

We won the Ballantyne case

 

[Allikat]

It's not rocket science, all we had to do was prove the "armbar" was legal had he not hit him high. If we could have found footage of this occuring throughout the season where a player hit his opponent on the chest and it was not punished, surely that would have sufficed.

Imagine if we had a 5 min collaboration of showing the armbar as a legal tactic employed by all teams; it would be hard for them not to accept he was reckless by getting him high.

We could have also called in a coach or whatever to say they emplore the team to use the armbar. It would have confused the Tribunal.

This is actually not stuff we can do. The tribunal laws outlaw any use of precedence to make a decision. I.e. the it's legal because everyone else does it argument. I don't understand how the AFLPA let that rule get in honestly.

 

[StingBitten]

I haven't read whether we are appealing yet or not, or has this already been discussed.

 

[Quokka]

Is any one on here an actual lawyer or have we all been watching a bit too much "Suits"

As much as I enjoy the show we'd probably get better legal knowledge from the judging segments of Master chef as we would from Suits

 

[StingBitten]

So appeal is on. They've had all day to look at it - if it's fluffed again then the answer to OP's question is Yes, sack the lot of them.

 

[beetz]

Get Ross in there as Freo's legal counsel.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

So appeal is on. They've had all day to look at it - if it's fluffed again then the answer to OP's question is Yes, sack the lot of them.

Oh come on. Think of litigation as being like a Cats game. You can have the best team out there, you can have a fantastic game plan and play it brilliantly but nobody can account for sudden - or prolonged - acts of madness by the umps. It's why lawyers always discourage their friends and loved ones from ever going near a courtroom.

 

[yoong]

Oh come on. Think of litigation as being like a Cats game. You can have the best team out there, you can have a fantastic game plan and play it brilliantly but nobody can account for sudden - or prolonged - acts of madness by the umps. It's why lawyers always discourage their friends and loved ones from ever going near a courtroom.

That's a good analogy
Except it's more like that the umpire ripped the ball off Mundy's hand and declare the match is over before he can take the last kick.