Review Round 18, 2019 - Brisbane Lions vs. North Melbourne

[martinson]

Seriously do you think they told Harris to use that phrase?? It’s highly unlikely they did.

Read the link and educate yourself, plenty of people are involved with footy clubs because they love the game or the club.

I’m guessing you think our club doc is Dr Nick Riviera because why would a decent doctor would have more important things to do.

Well now you're going off on tangents.

But yes maybe the guy is doing it in an honorary capacity so we do appreciate the work he does for us. And many lawyers do love being involved with footy clubs.

That's enough. He's copped a week, no grounds for any appeal on the feed I read . It does seem unjust that a guy like Harris who's never raised his hand to anyone his whole career should have this on his record so let's hope he has no more unfortunate accidents this year

 

[Lace Out]

Not sure I give a stuff actually there's definitely no conspiracy I know that much.A great opportunity to show the versatility of our list.

 

[Jivlain]

Let me be a numpty on this and you can keep backing "experience" of that lawyer. We just have to agree to disagree. My view is we could have done a lot more than how it was presented here.. may be the lawyer thought it's easy work and we got our pants pulled down by clatter evidence.

‘You don’t offer evidence like that’

Brisbane defender Harris Andrews has failed in his bid to overturn his one-match ban for striking North Melbourne youngster Nick Larkey.

www.news.com.au

More media people share the same view, Harris gave an evidence that brought him undone. May be the experienced lawyer slipped up for once? Slim possibility this could be possible too ? No chance at all ?

I think, in general, trial lawyers wake up in the night screaming after nightmares of their clients blurting out those sorts of things on the stand.

 

[SRH17]

I'm not angry about Harris being suspended, probably more so at whoever was representing him because they did a pretty poor job given what has gotten off.

Just on your point, you said Ablett was trying to block someone’s run, wasn't Harris doing the same, albeit blocking Larkey's run into him?

Would be the guy who used to sit in front of us in S67. Has lately been defending the operators of Dreamworld.

 

[CarterS]

Pretty amazing that he is being criticised in the media for not lying to the tribunal.

 

[Lionheart182]

You just haven’t watch the replay then.

Mate I saw it live and on the replay. Don't be condescending.

 

[Lionheart182]

Whole thing just feels really bizarre. "A strike is a strike" didn't apply when Ablett ran into a bloke with a raised forearm and drew blood (I think?). "It doesn't matter how it ended up high" didn't apply when Cunnington attempted to hit a bloke in the guts and it accidentally slipped up and got him in the head. Nor did it matter when Zorko was kicked in the head, quite possibly intentionally.

Why did the tribunal allow these arguments? Not saying he definitely should have got off but to not even be allowed to use precedent or a statement from the victim just feels really strange. Has that ever happened before?

 

[Brett C]

Mate I saw it live and on the replay. Don't be condescending.

Well in that case you have no idea then. It’s about as obvious as a deliberate act as you can get.

 

[Lionheart182]

Well in that case you have no idea then. It’s about as obvious as a deliberate act as you can get.

Which is why the club who you obviously trust decided to use club time and resources to appeal it? And Andrews himself maintains it was not deliberate and went out of his way to check on Larkey straight after the incident? But yeah you know better, makes sense. Your debating style needs work by the way.

 

[Lionheart182]

Apparently the AFL is now helping us win games through biased umpiring to get a return on investment for their money going into AFL in QLD. They sure have played the long game with that one:

• Have us win a few flags
• Wilderness for 15 years with only one finals series
• Introduce another club up the road who takes best 22 players from them for nothing
• Rig board elections to end up with incompetent people running the show for multiple years
• Have them train in sub-par facilities for a number of years
• Interfere with due process to have them install not one but two club legends as coach, leading to an inevitable souring of relationships with these players

All this so the public don't catch on to how much they are favouring us. Then, have North come up in round 18 of a season where we are flying and pay some dodgy free kicks so we can win a game which we by all rights probably were going to win anyway. Oh and then suspend their best player for a farcical 'incident' off the ball where no injury occurred.

Gotta hand it to the AFL. Playing chess not checkers in the minds of North fans.

 

[abcde12345]

Depends what part you guys are arguing is intentional I guess.

I think it's pretty clear he went to intentionally make contact. There is no doubt he wanted to block Larkey running at him with his arm - Harris regularly does it.

I think it is also pretty clear there was 0 intention for Harris to get him high. From my first watch, it appeared that Harris's arm bounced off Larkey's chest before hitting him high. In the trial they stated it was actually Larkey's arm that caused Harris's arm to deflect and hit him high. In my eyes, from both the vision and the testimony, it is clear that there was 0 intention to hit him high, but obvious intention to make body contact.

The fact that "teeth clattering" is the defining characteristic of the case is really weird. If you rest your jaw, look at how little upward pressure you need to put on in order to clatter your teeth.

I do hope they uphold the precedent of "a strike is a strike" and "it doesn't matter how it ended up high". Those are my two main issues with the outcome, as there have been numerous examples this year alone of both of those situations not warranting any suspension.

But it's in the past. Harris gets a rest to get himself ready for finals. We have a capable depth player to take his role (who will most likely be keen as to show his strength to increase his next contract value to other clubs/the lions) in Walker.

Let's not dwell on the outcome and make ourselves look as childish as the North board has. As a finals team, we have more important things to worry about than having a sook all week about something that didn't go our way.

 

[M Malice]

Depends what part you guys are arguing is intentional I guess.

I think it's pretty clear he went to intentionally make contact. There is no doubt he wanted to block Larkey running at him with his arm - Harris regularly does it.

I think it is also pretty clear there was 0 intention for Harris to get him high. From my first watch, it appeared that Harris's arm bounced off Larkey's chest before hitting him high. In the trial they stated it was actually Larkey's arm that caused Harris's arm to deflect and hit him high. In my eyes, from both the vision and the testimony, it is clear that there was 0 intention to hit him high, but obvious intention to make body contact.

The fact that "teeth clattering" is the defining characteristic of the case is really weird. If you rest your jaw, look at how little upward pressure you need to put on in order to clatter your teeth.

I do hope they uphold the precedent of "a strike is a strike" and "it doesn't matter how it ended up high". Those are my two main issues with the outcome, as there have been numerous examples this year alone of both of those situations not warranting any suspension.

But it's in the past. Harris gets a rest to get himself ready for finals. We have a capable depth player to take his role (who will most likely be keen as to show his strength to increase his next contract value to other clubs/the lions) in Walker.

Let's not dwell on the outcome and make ourselves look as childish as the North board has. As a finals team, we have more important things to worry about than having a sook all week about something that didn't go our way.

Yep, time to move on, nobody is changing anybodies mind at this stage, not worth the energy.

GO LIONS!

 

[jackess]

I've gained some peace about this being worth a week but I can't past all the other similar incidents or ones involving more risk to injury not being worth a week.

 

[Kevvo]

I've gained some peace about this being worth a week but I can't past all the other similar incidents or ones involving more risk to injury not being worth a week.

Yeah, this is exactly where I’ve got to.

It’s a unfortunate outcome but I could live with a week if I had any degree of confidence that the approach in his hearing will be consistently applied. Based on those past incidents, I don’t.

 

[Gadzorks]

Let me be a numpty on this and you can keep backing "experience" of that lawyer. We just have to agree to disagree. My view is we could have done a lot more than how it was presented here.. may be the lawyer thought it's easy work and we got our pants pulled down by clatter evidence.

‘You don’t offer evidence like that’

Brisbane defender Harris Andrews has failed in his bid to overturn his one-match ban for striking North Melbourne youngster Nick Larkey.

www.news.com.au

More media people share the same view, Harris gave an evidence that brought him undone. May be the experienced lawyer slipped up for once? Slim possibility this could be possible too ? No chance at all ?

Or maybe Harris thought he deserved the ban because he knows exactly what he did and what was going through his head. I am positive the club will have talked through how they wanted it to run, and maybe he went rouge in his grandfatherly way.

 

[dlanod]

Or maybe Harris thought he deserved the ban because he knows exactly what he did and what was going through his head. I am positive the club will have talked through how they wanted it to run, and maybe he went rouge in his grandfatherly way.

I don't think that makes sense because he could simply have declined to appeal. The club would not have appealed without Harris's buy-in.

 

[Gadzorks]

I don't think that makes sense because he could simply have declined to appeal. The club would not have appealed without Harris's buy-in.

It's just so odd isn't it?

 

[martinson]

It's just so odd isn't it?

It's obvious we weren't prepared . Seems incredible that we didn't bring up what happened to Harris last year,what he went through, that he's never been reported his whole career , that the guy came at him,no injury ,no treatment,the disallowed statement , it's not a Court of Law so you can brief Harris on what not to say and run through his evidence , I could go on and on.

Just really disappointing.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

The concerning thing for me is the reported comments from the Tribunal chairman such as "a strike is a strike" and "it doesn't matter where it first connected", both of which mistate the correct psosition. The fact that players are routinely given fines for strikes to the body counters both proposition. And indeed there have been numerous examples of people avoiding suspension or receiving lesser penalties for blows to the head that ricocheted off the shoulder etc.
The areas of weakness in the system highlighted by this (apart from Harris' own evidence) is the wildly inconsistent classification of strikes as either "intentional" or "careless" and the significance given (or not) to a player's clean record, both of which should have worked in Harris' favour but didn't. The gut punch comparison is the one that really urks. Repeated intentional blows to the stomach from a serial offender which get no report let alone sanction vs one errant forearm from one of the gentlemen of the game.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Or maybe Harris thought he deserved the ban because he knows exactly what he did and what was going through his head. I am positive the club will have talked through how they wanted it to run, and maybe he went rouge in his grandfatherly way.

Experience tells us that even the best rehearsed witnesses say things you'd prefer they didn't in the spotlight of the witness box. Nothing exceptional here.

 

[Kevvo]

Just on raising the incident from last year, I don’t love that as a strategy.

If the Tribunal has decided that this was a strike with intent and sufficient force (as they did), I don’t love the principle that a past incident should lessen the consequences. It would create an unworkable framework pretty quickly. Harris’ injury was particularly serious but which player hasn’t been hit hard or late before?

We decided to argue on the merits of the event. I agree with that approach. It just didn’t work out.

 

[Brett C]

It's obvious we weren't prepared . Seems incredible that we didn't bring up what happened to Harris last year,what he went through, that he's never been reported his whole career , that the guy came at him,no injury ,no treatment,the disallowed statement , it's not a Court of Law so you can brief Harris on what not to say and run through his evidence , I could go on and on.

Just really disappointing.

It’s really not obvious other than to you. You could go on and on but you’d be wrong again and again.

 

[martinson]

It’s really not obvious other than to you. You could go on and on but you’d be wrong again and again.

I don't see where I'm wrong.

If you can illustrate how we were well prepared ,go ahead. We didn't bring up issues that other camps have brought up and got players off on or penalties reduced for similar ,more forceful and even injury causing incidents.

But perfectly happy for you to think it was an open and shut case.

We're all entitled to a viewpoint ,misguided or otherwise.

 

[mpal6]

Just on raising the incident from last year, I don’t love that as a strategy.

If the Tribunal has decided that this was a strike with intent and sufficient force (as they did), I don’t love the principle that a past incident should lessen the consequences. It would create an unworkable framework pretty quickly. Harris’ injury was particularly serious but which player hasn’t been hit hard or late before?

We decided to argue on the merits of the event. I agree with that approach. It just didn’t work out.

Ablett - good bloke - never reported - got him off twice or thrice this season. Considering that as past history, bringing up Harris Andrews experience wouldve given some balance to the view in my opinion.

 

[dlanod]

Ablett - good bloke - never reported - got him off twice or thrice this season. Considering that as past history, bringing up Harris Andrews experience wouldve given some balance to the view in my opinion.

Was that actually raised at the tribunal?