MRP / Trib. Fyfe in trouble?

[PapaJ]

Exactly this. The chairperson can't actually make rulings, he can only make guidelines for the tribunal.

You keep saying that Allikat, I'm pretty sure I've read in the tribunal/rules guidelines (and it has been noted elsewhere about the place) that the chairperson can in fact make a ruling if it is done so on a question of law. It's based on the same powers a judge would have in a court of law, and it seems like that is what he's done here. So he can make rulings if he thinks that the way the defendant is arguing is based on the interpretation of the rule in and of itself rather than any action that Fyfe may or may not have done (i.e. the facts, which is what the jury consider) in regards to those rules. Simply saying the chairperson can't actually make a ruling is incorrect because they can in certain cases/lines of argument, I suspect we're challenging whether he's done so in the right manner according to the rules/laws of the tribunal process etc.

I think there are grounds for the appeal, I like the idea we're doing it, but TBH, it's a long shot - from my understanding of the rules, I think the chairperson did have grounds to reject the argument that Tweedie made - but there's enough grey area there to have a go at it, so good luck to them.

Of course, this is all based on second hand information, it's so hard to tell without the proper transcripts as to how exactly it went down, but given that we're challenging it, then they must see something there too and I assume that an application for appeal needs to have some merit to even be heard?

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm not sure about the raised forearm or elbow part either. I think that applies to a strike where the elbow is lifted to hit the players head, like Solomon did to Ling. I don't think it applies here. The round arm action did not raise the elbow or forearm.

The next paragraph below the one you referenced gives more detail as to what the concern is with a raised forearm or elbow.

Edit: here it is:
Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, any reckless
or intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will not be classified as “low impact” under the Rules even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved.

I don't think that part is relevant here. I think that bit is about don't lead into a contest or a bump with your elbow/forearm raised.

I think the relevant part is any strike off the ball should be classified as intentional unless some unusual circumstance applies. We'd have to establish why Fyfe's situation was unusual.

 

[Clems Knee]

This is where I'm at a disadvantage because I didn't follow the proceedings last night word for word. My understanding of our case was that this wasn't our main argument, it was only mentioned in passing. If we didn't raise it as a defence the tribunal would need to consider it.

I think we are all at a disadvantage with this case.
I was watching the updates from Schmook. It was quite poor reporting, as he didn't mention the discussion before proceedings where Fremantle were apparently told that they couldn't argue for Reckless. Even though from his later reporting, it must have been very important. I would love to read a transcript of the proceedings.

 

[PapaJ]

This came up earlier. Did it ever get written into the rules? It certainly hasn't been applied until now.
Every commentator I have heard thought initially that Fyfe's action should be classed as Reckless rather than Deliberate. none of them knew of this ruling either?

NO, many of them don't - and that compounds everybody's frustrations with the system (which is flawed no doubt) because they don't fully understand it themselves and they lead us all down a merry path of ignorance and half truths.

 

[Clems Knee]

I don't think that part is relevant here. I think that bit is about don't lead into a contest or a bump with your elbow/forearm raised.

I think the relevant part is any strike off the ball should be classified as intentional unless some unusual circumstance applies. We'd have to establish why Fyfe's situation was unusual.

I know why Fyfe's situation was unusual. He has been charged! This stuff happens all the time. Harvey does it a dozen times a game. So does Murphy. Any strike off the ball is intentional? Every ball player in the league should be suspended indefinitely.
Obviously I don't mean that. But it is a contact sport for crying out loud. Contact happens. Contact does not make it a strike. And from Schmook's updates, Fyfe did not admit to trying to strike him, high or not.

 

[PapaJ]

I don't think that part is relevant here. I think that bit is about don't lead into a contest or a bump with your elbow/forearm raised.

I think the relevant part is any strike off the ball should be classified as intentional unless some unusual circumstance applies. We'd have to establish why Fyfe's situation was unusual.

Without making it too long winded - I suspect that the 'unusualness' of it was that the impact was essentially to the arm/body, and that it incidentally caused head contact as a secondary action not entirely within Fyfe's control (Lewis raised his arm etc.) - as such one could argue, according an understanding of the rules, an intentional strike to the body, but to be deemed a strike to the head would be taking the incidental notion and making it purposeful (intentional if you will) to the act - hence as Tweedie stated in the hearing, you can call it intentional body contact or reckless head contact but not both.

Something like that, it's a stretch, but the best I can come up with.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

Without making it too long winded - I suspect that the 'unusualness' of it was that the impact was essentially to the arm/body, and that it incidentally caused head contact as a secondary action not entirely within Fyfe's control (Lewis raised his arm etc.) - as such one could argue, according an understanding of the rules, an intentional strike to the body, but to be deemed a strike to the head would be taking the incidental notion and making it purposeful (intentional if you will) to the act - hence as Tweedie stated in the hearing, you can call it intentional body contact or reckless head contact but not both.

Something like that, it's a stretch, but the best I can come up with.

Yep, that's exactly the direction we tried to argue. As you say; the slight grey area given the circumstance where both the strike off the ball = intentional rule and the rule that if you hit someone high, as a result of hitting them somewhere else, it is automatically deemed as being high contact, create an apparent contradiction between the intention to strike in general (yes) and the intention to strike high (no).

 

[balthazarthedonk]

Without making it too long winded - I suspect that the 'unusualness' of it was that the impact was essentially to the arm/body, and that it incidentally caused head contact as a secondary action not entirely within Fyfe's control (Lewis raised his arm etc.) - as such one could argue, according an understanding of the rules, an intentional strike to the body, but to be deemed a strike to the head would be taking the incidental notion and making it purposeful (intentional if you will) to the act - hence as Tweedie stated in the hearing, you can call it intentional body contact or reckless head contact but not both.

Something like that, it's a stretch, but the best I can come up with.

In a legal context, it's not a stretch all. Here's my analogy: If you take an extreme example - one punch deaths - perpetrators generally argue an "accident" defence to manslaughter charges i.e. that the jury has to be satisfied beyond reaonable doubt that the event (the resulting death) was reasonably foreseeable by the ordinary person. [By analogy, to be intentional head contact means that the event (Lewis being smacked in the mush) had to be reasonably forseeable by the ordinary person otherwise it was accidental and in context reckless]

The successful manslaughter defence has led to strong public criticism of the sentences recently meted out so various jurisdicitons in Australia have changed the law. The change in the written law has made it crystal clear that this defence isn't available anymore.

Proceedings like the AFL Tribunal are quasi-criminal in nature. What seems to me relevant is how watertight the rules are re definition of "intentional" i.e. whether the written "law" allows this defence. If this is their angle, then they are not challenging the Chairman's right to give a ruling but merely saying he is wrong in his interpretation of "intentional".

The other argument they may be running has been discussed before - whether the act was in play/off the ball and that this issue needed to be addressed by the jury. As has been pointed out here before, it looked a fair way behind the ball so good luck with that.

 

[Danny Cullen]

I'd be arguing that Lewis wasn't letting Nat go about the course of his employment (shepherding, harrassing more than 5 metres from the ball).

 

[elsleevador]

Can anyone tell me what time we will know the result of this challenge?

 

[beetz]

Can anyone tell me what time we will know the result of this challenge?

I can tell you when the appeal commences - 4pm WST. When it finishes is any ones guess.

 

[malpaso]

Can anyone tell me what time we will know the result of this challenge?

It starts at a particular time (6pm AEST I believe) and could be 1 minute or 2 hours...

 

[Nickos66]

Can anyone tell me what time we will know the result of this challenge?

You'll be able to tell when it's finished by when you try to login to bigfooty and the server is down.

 

[elsleevador]

Thanks chaps. Is judge judy going to be there?

 

[elsleevador]

We have to name a team in that time so do we name nathan?

 

[beetz]

Thanks chaps. Is judge judy going to be there?

We'll be fine

 

[Taylor]

We have to name a team in that time so do we name nathan?

We name him.

 

[apuchar]

We name him.

Against Port.

 

[Randomizor]

We'll be fine

Recently learned that the guy that voiced Hutz was killed by his wife. Crazy.

 

[Nickos66]

Recently learned that the guy that voiced Hutz was killed by his wife. Crazy.

Phil Hartman was awesome.

 

[Nothing]

Phil Hartman was awesome.

The demise of Phil Hartman was the demise of The Simpsons.

 

[Eski3]

We have to name a team in that time so do we name nathan?

He still gets a week even if we are successful

 

[Randomizor]

The demise of Phil Hartman was the demise of The Simpsons.

Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such self-help videos as "Smoke Yourself Thin", and "Get Confident, Stupid.".

 

[noise36]

http://m.fremantlefc.com.au/video/2014-08-20/fyfe-not-a-dirty-player-lewis

Shock, instant recovery & no ongoing effects. Straight from lewis himself.

 

[Ripper]

Link to tribunal

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-21/live-nat-fyfes-appeal

The event is now live.
Waiting for the writer to provide content...