MRP / Trib. Fyfe in trouble?

[JamFrank]

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.

From having read the live feed, they definitely did not push this argument enough. Fyfe said it under cross-examination, but it didn't seem like Gleeson or Howie really bought it. Gleeson argued that Fyfe "intentionally struck Lewis" and Fyfe said "no I didn't strike him, I used an arm bar" and Gleeson said "but you intended to do it, and you did it in an aggressive manor?" and Fyfe said "yes" (obviously paraphrasing). From that Gleeson says "he intentionally struck Lewis".

It almost seemed like Tweedie was waiting for this to spring his trap "Well if he intentionally struck him, it must be body contact. Otherwise reckless high, it can't be both". But that just didn't float for the reasons we're now fully aware of, and also because it seems to have been assumed that it was off the ball and not a reasonable act part of legal play. They definitely should have pushed the fact that it was intended to be a legal manoeuvre part of play more. But watching the vision, I don't think the jury/chairman would have really bought this one either.

 

[apuchar]

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)

Yes they do. I think the guy just wanted to go home for dinner. Not set-up new case law.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

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

lewis told fyfe that he liked his hair and asked which hairdresser did he go to

 

[Rob]

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

That I don't know - I haven't read the exact rules that the tribunal has to work with. I would have thought it would have been mentioned as a factor in the media reports if it was.

 

[Taylor]

It's a bit rich to claim Lewis was shepherding and Fyfe was putting on contact to get some distance between them heading for the contest.

 

[Purple Suit]

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

What happens if she agree's to go home with you after the tackle? Pretty sure your in the clear then.

 

[Rob]

The appeal is ON

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm not getting hopes up.

 

[Rob]

Yeah I wouldn't either. But nothing to lose except a bit of cash I suppose.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

The appeal is ON

sauce?

 

[Rob]

sauce?

 

[Simmofreo]

Interesting. They just have a good case now.

I feel we may get ridiculed for it though. But to get Fyfe back for port would be worth it

 

[Borry]

Nothing to lose I guess, not getting hopes up. Start preparing for the next two without him.

Hopefully he can curb that temper in the future as he can't be hitting people like that behind play when riled up.

 

[Kenny_01]

Good. Hopefully we get some better lawyers this time around.

Surely we can get the best lawyers in WA involved.

 

[Bulldocker]

Would it be too simple to argue that it was a set play and Lewis's head was not meant to be there? Perhaps Fyfey could give Hodge a call and see how exactly that sort of long-bow defense can get him off altogether!

 

[simpsonwillo]

I'm getting my hopes up. They wouldn't appeal unless they were really confident they had something.

 

[yoong]

Just to put things in perspective. Viney's case was the 2nd win out of 12 appeals, so don't get the hopes up.

 

[Allikat]

I'm glad they're appealing given the ridiculousness of last night's "hearing"

Also, Freo, I'll be waiting for the thanks for doing half your work for you last night

 

[Allikat]

Just to put things in perspective. Viney's case was the 2nd win out of 12 appeals, so don't get the hopes up.

I don't even care if we lost the appeal to be honest. I'm just happy Freo have decided to have this case fairly heard & decided upon.

 

[freo_baby]

Yep, appealing.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2014-08-20/fremantle-to-challenge-afl-tribunal-ruling-on-fyfe-ban

 

[DOCKERZ]

Glad we are appealing, if the Tribunal jury had come back with the same decision I reckon we would accept it, but not just going to give up simply on Howie's decision.

 

[yoong]

I don't even care if we lost the appeal to be honest. I'm just happy Freo have decided to have this case fairly heard & decided upon.

Hey Alikat, since you are in and have read the law/rules

I posted before that In Viney's appeal, it was no longer talking on the actual charge but whether Viney received a fair hearing at the tribunal.

Any idea if Fyfe's will be the same? The chances seem better if the contest is on the fair tribunal part.

 

[Allikat]

Just so everyone is aware how the appeal should go:

Fremantle will have to argue their reasons for appeal. The reasons we can go for are:

• There was an error of law
• The decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that conclusion based on the evidence before it
• The sanction was manifestly excessive

I'd say we'd be going with the first option, an error of law, because we were never given a legal decision (i.e. the tribunal never voted on it). We could also go with number 2, saying the decision was unreasonable because if the Tribunal had it's chance to vote, they wouldn't have upheld the original ban.

Once it's established that it's a legitimate basis for appeal, the appeal Tribunal will be able to make a fresh decision based on evidence given in the original tribunal. No new evidence is permitted unless it was not reasonably possible for us to have the evidence before yesterday's case, or it's like absolute bombshell evidence.

 

[Allikat]

Hey Alikat, since you are in and have read the law/rules

I posted before that In Viney's appeal, it was no longer talking on the actual charge but whether Viney received a fair hearing at the tribunal.

Any idea if Fyfe's will be the same? The chances seem better if the contest is on the fair tribunal part.

I haven't looked into the Viney one properly. I'm about to make dinner so give me 1/2 hour or so & I'll see what I can get.

 

[Zacy boy]

im trying not to get my hopes up, but im quietly confident....... what happened yesterday was a complete farce and went completely against the guidelines set out by the AFL tribunal. Not sure who that peanut Howie thinks he is, but the prosecution cannot override the jury.... let alone openly direct them. The argument Freo is putting forward is extremely logical, and is even further supported by the fact that Lewis even claimed that the initial strike hit his arm.