MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[shintemaster]

Best possible result is for the tribunal to uphold their decision. That should force the AFL to overhaul the system (again). A few things worth considering:

- Intentional and dangerous acts not "in the play" or part of the game (tackles, bumps, marks etc) such as hits behind play are not able to obtain a discount for an early plea. A minor discount for a substantial good record yes. I also think a good record should include some allowance for citations rather than just suspensions. Players that are good at getting away with borderline acts shouldn't be able to hide behind that when they finally go a step too far.
- No MRP bullshit grading by numbers.

I want players protected, particularly from concussion, but I don't want to see players suspended constantly for nothing incidents in the play or when using controlled aggression to intimidate. That is part of the game and always should be.

 

[Samsquanch]

AFL has determined it will appeal Bachar Houli Tribunal case, on grounds sanction was manifestly inadequate.
Appeal heard Thursday evening.

"The AFL announced on Wednesday that it would appeal the decision with a hearing to be held on Thursday night where it will have to establish no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision having regard to the evidence. They are pushing for a four-match ban".

Funny that they can come out with such a statement after this decision, when there was a certain stench that arose from a much more "unusual" decision made by a tribunal in recent times*

 

[shintemaster]

"The AFL announced on Wednesday that it would appeal the decision with a hearing to be held on Thursday night where it will have to establish no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision having regard to the evidence. They are pushing for a four-match ban".

Funny that they can come out with such a statement after this decision, when there was a certain stench that arose from a much more "unusual" decision made by a tribunal in recent times*

They are basically all about covering their arses from a legal point of view down the track. In a sense I don't have an issue with this, one for the obvious reason of player safety but two it makes sense not to open up the league to legal action down the track. Money that is taken off the league will be taken from the supporters pockets. I guess it all comes down to what we think is reasonable care for employees safety. There isn't technically even agreement nationally on OH&S although we are moving closer together. Personally I don't think a player tackling in a sport that involves tackling is unreasonable simply because of a poor result. I think by the AFL taking the position (that they don't condone because they punish injury) they are still exposed. They still condone tackling while arguing they are protecting by punishing ones that go wrong however I'd argue that a tackle inherently has the ability to go wrong. I'm not sure why they feel that concussion is a legal minefield but, say an ACL due to a tackle couldn't also be used against them in a civil case. Both have the potential to cause significant and lasting injury to an individual by an action the employer is allowing within the rules. Legally I think they would be better placed to argue that no player can be brought to ground in a tackle... at least it would be black and white. Obviously, that's not possible, so here we are...

 

[Tas]

For the right price, I could have got Cunnington a character reference from Mother Teresa and Joan of Arc, might have got his conviction down to a reprimand for being a good bloke, apparently he is a shit bloke because he doesn't know any knobs.

 

[Tas]

"The AFL announced on Wednesday that it would appeal the decision with a hearing to be held on Thursday night where it will have to establish no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision having regard to the evidence. They are pushing for a four-match ban".

Funny that they can come out with such a statement after this decision, when there was a certain stench that arose from a much more "unusual" decision made by a tribunal in recent times*

They should then proceed to expel the Tribunal for failing to act reasonably.

 

[Samsquanch]

For the right price, I could have got Cunnington a character reference from Mother Teresa

Penn and Teller like this

 

[Samsquanch]

so here we are.

Yes. AFL says carry on. Nothing to see here. We got this. All good. Rompingly good show. Tally Ho!

 

[discomute]

Well the AFL takes head impacts very seriously.*


* But still just 30 seconds to take your free after getting a knee in the head

 

[giantroo]

If you are on the North supporter group on FB, this video shows the split between Ziebell's and Viney's incidents.

 

[giantroo]

No 'manifestly inadequate' in here unless they are going for option b? Any resident lawyers care to explain?

Could Bachar get off if this appeal fails?

 

[discomute]

No 'manifestly inadequate' in here unless they are going for option b? Any resident lawyers care to explain?

Could Bachar get off if this appeal fails?

View attachment 386857
View attachment 386855

I'm not a lawyer, I'm a student. But my reading is that you're correct. 20.2 is weird - there is only the option for the players to appeal based on 'manifest excessive' but no counterpoint to the penality being too lenient. Therefore they would be doing it on 20.2b) is my guess.

Note that under common law 'unreasonableness' is an extremely high bar, like it has to be borderline criminal to be considered. However this 20.2.b has been written differently and easier, they simply have to show that no 'reasonable tribunal' could have come to that decision.

In my non-expert-and-probably-wrong opinion is the.interesting part is whether the 'decision' really counts for the sentence. There is a good claim that this appeal has nothing to do with be decision. Then again, the tribunal basically works it so that the decision is the sentence based on points, so intentional v reckless is probably enough to count as a decision.

Long story short - I think 20.2.b is what they will do it under and is broad enough that is basically allows for a retrial.

Unless the actual tribunal rules are written so that reckless v intentional is only considered in the sentence, and the decision is defined as a 'guilty v not guilty' only. In which case AFL will get auto dismissed

 

[shintemaster]

The AFL has a huge issue when the MRP (who are basically AFL run) have a completely different version of the world to an independent tribunal (albeit AFL setup). This case and a few others in recent times have shown that the "discount" for taking the MRP plea and inability to appeal based on anything other than a technicality in the MRP decision is resulting in a broken system. Because Houli was sent straight to the tribunal he was in effect given more ability to argue down his sentence. Waite for example was not given this option as he could only argue an incorrect assessment by the MRP. There's a fair argument to say that if he could have gone to the tribunal he may not have missed any games...

System be f'd people.

 

[JD-Roo]

The AFL has a huge issue when the MRP (who are basically AFL run) have a completely different version of the world to an independent tribunal (albeit AFL setup). This case and a few others in recent times have shown that the "discount" for taking the MRP plea and inability to appeal based on anything other than a technicality in the MRP decision is resulting in a broken system. Because Houli was sent straight to the tribunal he was in effect given more ability to argue down his sentence. Waite for example was not given this option as he could only argue an incorrect assessment by the MRP. There's a fair argument to say that if he could have gone to the tribunal he may not have missed any games...

System be f'd people.

Thank you, Sir Humphry Applebey

 

[giantroo]

So option b it is.

 

[astrovic]

Yeah it's option b.

Methinks the Afl doesn't really care about the length of the suspension, it is more concerned about the off field character references and the precedent that that sets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grimface_87]

Clarifying Houli's act
"What he's convicted of is not an intentional strike to the head, but an intentional strike, resulting in contact to the head" - Houli representative Michael Tovey:

lol

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Houli's no different to how id feel every other time when i think 'what would one of ours have copped '.
You don't even have to go beyond 2017 to see that houli's 2 weeks is a joke, let alone compared to ziebs in the past.

If it came down to 'good bloke' then nothing sickens me more when hodge and the like get off light, no different here.

What's ralphette been sayin?

 

[astrovic]

Appeal upheld. 4 weeks. The right outcome.

No disrespect to Houli or his legal team for throwing the kitchen sink at trying to get him the best outcome, but good to see the appeals tribunal shut the door in off field character references before that had a chance to become a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[discomute]

So option b it is.
View attachment 386985

That still really does seem like they primarily have used c whereas it doesn't seem like they should have been able to.

Can you post 19.7? That might clear it up

 

[shintemaster]

That still really does seem like they primarily have used c whereas it doesn't seem like they should have been able to.

Can you post 19.7? That might clear it up

Ha yep agree. But let's be honest, it's the AFL, I'd be pretty confident they used the mostly unknown clause Zeta - basically they tapped the appeal tribunal on the shoulder before the hearing and said don't **** this up you muppets.

 

[dus]

Having a MRP and tribunal is ridiculous.

**** one of them off and just have one, universal, consistent system, based on precedent.

You know, like the courts.

 

[giantroo]

That still really does seem like they primarily have used c whereas it doesn't seem like they should have been able to.

Can you post 19.7? That might clear it up

 

[giantroo]

The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued three points:

• The original penalty was manifestly inadequate
• There was an error of law when the Tribunal made its judgement
• The decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision

 

[discomute]

Cheers. And bizarre. I might what's app a mate who does this and see what he thinks

Edit - I'm starting to wonder if you can read 20.3 so that the opposite of 20.2 c&d applies.

 

[Le Grille]

The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued three points:

• The original penalty was manifestly inadequate
• There was an error of law when the Tribunal made its judgement
• The decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision

Jeebus, that's quite a serve and hypocritical.