2nds 2016 Adelaide Crows SANFL season

[GreyCrow]

Surprised but happy for AO

 

[Mattrox]

Could his team argue that the SANFL already have set the precedent with a very soft penalty considering the serious nature of the original charge?

We need to know what the Tribunal Report says. But I imagine that line of questioning would backfire.

They can't in good conscience give 3 or more weeks given Sumner's penalty. But I would expect contact with an umpire during a scuffle to normally attract no less than 4 weeks, perhaps 5 or 6 even.

 

[Bernie L]

Two weeks. After Moore last year, he was always getting at least a couple!!

 

[Cap]

It won't help. Umpire contact ALWAYS gets weeks. They will not set a precedent. Umpire contact is pretty much strict liability.

I call this the penberthy fallacy.

That is you refer to something similar enough that combined with your assumption that everyone else is stupid your argument stacks up.
(Not a crack at you mattrox)

 

[GreyCrow]

To find out what you really think , take the bias out , what if it was a Norwood or Sturt player what would you think an appropriate penalty should be for what AO did?

I still say 4-6 weeks and he should be thankful the Tribunal looked at it in the light of the concussion

 

[hey shorty]

Very lucky but I can see why they went lightly given the circumstances.

 

[Mattrox]

I call this the penberthy fallacy.

That is you refer to something similar enough that combined with your assumption that everyone else is stupid your argument stacks up.
(Not a crack at you mattrox)

I don't think everyone else is stupid.

The SANFL protect their Umpires. They do not want any Umpire to feel threatened on any ground in SA. They take a hard line on contact with an Umpire. And rightly so. The will not give anyone an excuse in their defence against such a charge. I don't think any of these points could be refuted. To me it seems the 2 weeks already includes the consideration of concussion.

Are you suggesting we appeal the guilty verdict or the penalty?

 

[MRB37]

The guy was removed from the field for failing a concussion test.

The SANFL must be the last bastion of people who don't take this stuff seriously.

I'd appeal and get the best concussion experts in and make the SANFL explain it's position.

That's the only reason he didn't get more.

Either way, it'll give the chance for guys like Keath and Doedee to play a bigger role down back against South and North Adelaide.

 

[Kickin Goals]

Wow, Otten only got 2 weeks, very lucky.

 

[Cap]

I don't think everyone else is stupid.

The SANFL protect their Umpires. They do not want any Umpire to feel threatened on any ground in SA. They take a hard line on contact with an Umpire. And rightly so. The will not give anyone an excuse in their defence against such a charge. I don't think any of these points could be refuted. To me it seems the 2 weeks already includes the consideration of concussion.

Are you suggesting we appeal the guilty verdict or the penalty?

Sorry my post wasn't a crack at you at all.

It got me thinking of David Penberthy on 5aa who appears incapable of accepting South Australians can see grey.

You just happened to have the post that got be thinking. And nothing good comes of me thinking.

So again sorry. Wasn't intending to have a crack at you.

 

[Mattrox]

Sorry my post wasn't a crack at you at all.

It got me thinking of David Penberthy on 5aa who appears incapable of accepting South Australians can see grey.

You just happened to have the post that got be thinking. And nothing good comes of me thinking.

So again sorry. Wasn't intending to have a crack at you.

No offence taken.

I just can't see that with a guilty verdict there will be a reduced penalty.

And I can't see how he can argue successfully that he didn't intend to make contact. If he intended to get at Sumner, and the Umpire is between him and Sumner and he contacts the umpire it really can only be intentional.

I know he may not have been thinking straight due to concussion, but I don't think "temporary insanity" is a legit defence in the SANFL.

 

[Cap]

No offence taken.

I just can't see that with a guilty verdict there will be a reduced penalty.

And I can't see how he can argue successfully that he didn't intend to make contact. If he intended to get at Sumner, and the Umpire is between him and Sumner and he contacts the umpire it really can only be intentional.

I know he may not have been thinking straight due to concussion, but I don't think "temporary insanity" is a legit defence in the SANFL.

I think they should be trying to argue that the concussion would have had an impact on his thinking.

It's then up to the SANFL to argue concussion isn't a factor (which they can't). If they use concussion as an excuse to lower the suspension then surely it has to be kicked out all together.

 

[Mattrox]

I think they should be trying to argue that the concussion would have had an impact on his thinking.

It's then up to the SANFL to argue concussion isn't a factor (which they can't). If they use concussion as an excuse to lower the suspension then surely it has to be kicked out all together.

The SANFL side would not argue anything about the concussion. All they have to argue that the contact was intentional. They are only interested in getting a guilty verdict. The AFC argue that concussion was a mitigating factor and that Otten did not intend to touch the Umpire. The tribunal then make judgement.

 

[GreyCrow]

I think they should be trying to argue that the concussion would have had an impact on his thinking.

It's then up to the SANFL to argue concussion isn't a factor (which they can't). If they use concussion as an excuse to lower the suspension then surely it has to be kicked out all together.

No

In a court of law ( and I recognize it is not) a guilty plea can come with mitigating circumstances. The circumstances should not be the driver of a not guilty plea.

e.g if he pleads guilty your honour to assault but I was concussed and retaliating his guilt is established. Its only in sentencing his concussion is taken into account.

In this case he agrees he made contact with the umpire. This attracts a sentence. The mitigation is the concussion. The SANFL did use the concussion to lower the sentence but did not void the guilt

 

[Cap]

No

In a court of law ( and I recognize it is not) a guilty plea can come with mitigating circumstances. The circumstances should not be the driver of a not guilty plea.

e.g if he pleads guilty your honour to assault but I was concussed and retaliating his guilt is established. Its only in sentencing his concussion is taken into account.

In this case he agrees he made contact with the umpire. This attracts a sentence. The mitigation is the concussion. The SANFL did use the concussion to lower the sentence but did not void the guilt

A court of law you'd be going for not mentally fit given the concussion (or what ever people do these days when they blame other things )

 

[Mattrox]

No

In a court of law ( and I recognize it is not) a guilty plea can come with mitigating circumstances. The circumstances should not be the driver of a not guilty plea.

e.g if he pleads guilty your honour to assault but I was concussed and retaliating his guilt is established. Its only in sentencing his concussion is taken into account.

In this case he agrees he made contact with the umpire. This attracts a sentence. The mitigation is the concussion. The SANFL did use the concussion to lower the sentence but did not void the guilt

Otten did plead not guilty.

 

[GreyCrow]

A court of law you'd be going for not mentally fit given the concussion (or what ever people do these days when they blame other things )

But you would still be found guilty. The only sentencing change is where or how you will serve the sentence

 

[GreyCrow]

Otten did plead not guilty.

Ok Thanks.

 

[Cap]

But you would still be found guilty. The only sentencing change is where or how you will serve the sentence

Eh? If you claim not guilty for mental incompetence and the court agrees you are not guilty.

They don't say you are guilty but mentally incompetent so here have 1 year instead of 3.

But anyway, we are way of course.

 

[Brentmeister]

No

In a court of law ( and I recognize it is not) a guilty plea can come with mitigating circumstances. The circumstances should not be the driver of a not guilty plea.

e.g if he pleads guilty your honour to assault but I was concussed and retaliating his guilt is established. Its only in sentencing his concussion is taken into account.

In this case he agrees he made contact with the umpire. This attracts a sentence. The mitigation is the concussion. The SANFL did use the concussion to lower the sentence but did not void the guilt

Negative.

If we're using criminal law as an apology, there are two components, actus reus and mens rea. The guilty act and the guilty mind. Pleading insanity is essentially saying you don't or didn't have the mental capacity to possess the mens rea.

So if the analogy fits, otten pled not guilty as he presumably argued his concussion impacted his judgment (I can't be sure as I didn't read the pleadings or judgment).

 

[radiojake]

Cap

seriously he's lucky he only got two weeks

you're sounding ridiculously one-eyed

 

[Elder van Berlo]

(I can't be sure as I didn't read the pleadings or judgment).

Pleadings? Judgment? At the SANFL Tribunal? Cute

 

[GreyCrow]

Menzel still suffering from his knock. Might be a 2-3 weeker

 

[Cap]

Cap

seriously he's lucky he only got two weeks

you're sounding ridiculously one-eyed

No I'd be of the same opinion if it was any player.

until I see how and why they came to the conclusion then I'm happy to assume they have made it up.

 

[Sam_Malone]

No

In a court of law ( and I recognize it is not) a guilty plea can come with mitigating circumstances. The circumstances should not be the driver of a not guilty plea.

e.g if he pleads guilty your honour to assault but I was concussed and retaliating his guilt is established. Its only in sentencing his concussion is taken into account.

In this case he agrees he made contact with the umpire. This attracts a sentence. The mitigation is the concussion. The SANFL did use the concussion to lower the sentence but did not void the guilt

But that isn't a court of law. It's a tribunal.

In a tribunal, the accused (Andy Otten) has to prove his innocence, the umpire in this case doesn't have to prove his guilt.

To get him off, he had to prove he didn't make any contact with the umpire. 2 weeks is an ok result.