MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

We need to stop calling our lawyers Dennis Denuto or Lionel Hutz

Its completely unfair to shame Dennis and Lionel like that

Fine.

We’ll call them Lionel Denuto and Dennis Hutz.

[emoji57]

 

[ClintEastwood]

Its just the vibe of it

It totally is.

It's just .. the vibe, it's Mabo, it's the consitution .. it's ... yeah that's it .. it's just the vibe

 

[FishingRick04]

Well any team with Zak butters the most dirty player in the history of the game ..

fined like a mad man must be full of dirty players ..

If he ever moved back to Vic, I’d love to compare his fine % at each club

 

[Duck Farmer]

So from the AFL tribunal notes it has to be established from here on in, one game is one game whether it's preseason, regular season or finals, 1 match = 1 match.

What the tribunal have established is that the penalty for executing a bump within the rules that results in a concussion is 1 game less than the penalty for being a racist.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Reasons:

In our view, none of the matters that Houston raised relate to any error of law, the Tribunal was said to have made.

They relate to factual findings led by the Tribunal. Those findings are only appellable if there was no material for the Tribunal upon which it could find them.

Parties had every opportunity to put their respective cases on penalty below, and did so.

It was open to the Tribunal below to find that the breach was serious or significant, there's no requirement to put either party on notice that such a finding might be made.

It did make an observation in its reasons that there was the potential for more serious injury. Again, we do not find it necessary that it was essential for the Tribunal below to put the parties on notice of that finding.

Accordingly, we reject that ground of procedural fairness.

It made those findings about serious or significant harm and the potential for more serious injury on the basis of the video and photographic evidence.

There was material before the Tribunal which it could be found that there was forceful high contact to the neck and that there was forceful contact to the opponent's upper shoulder.

It was open to the Tribunal to find that the offence charge was serious and significant.

Again, we referred to the video evidence, which we've studied and the still photographs, accordingly, we dismiss that ground of appeal.

The next question is whether the penalty of five matches was manifestly excessive.

Again, the argument below seemed to rely very heavily upon comparable cases. Our point in the Appeal Board is whether or not there is argument based upon comparable cases.

It must be shown whether or not the sentence that might be available might be so plainly outside the range of sentences available to the judge, or in this case, the Tribunal, in the circumstances the case the appellate intervention is warranted …

What we look to is whether the sentence of five matches suspension so plainly outside range of sentences available that appellate intervention is warranted.

In argument for Houston, it was put to him that the sentence of five matches was perhaps within that range, keeping in mind the sentence of seven matches accorded to Webster earlier in the season, and keeping in mind the other cases that were relied heavily upon by counsel for Houston, which related to penalties of four matches.

Accordingly, we concluded that the penalty imposed is not mainly outside the range of sentences available, and we dismiss that ground of appeal.

Finally, Houston also submitted that the Tribunal failed to give weight or adequate weight to his exemplary record.

Again, this was the subject of submissions below, and reasons were given by the Tribunal.

In our view it could not be said the Tribunal did not give that matter by consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

So they dismissed consideration that the tackle could not be construed as high.

They dismissed that the penalty was manifestly excessive.

They say that Houston's exemplary record was given consideration.

And of course the tribunal had already ruled that they did not give consideration to weighting missing finals/grand final.

What else could we have argued? Even allowing for the wackiness of the tin lid/Vegemite jar comparison, they were going to give this penalty every time.

It's clear what their thinking was when they compared this penalty range to that given to Jimmy Webster. These two weren't even on the same planet, let alone ball park.

 

[chiwigi]

Whether it was the hierarchy of the club, its legal advisers or a combination of the two, who ever it was that decided Houston pleading guilty would in any way help his cause should be whipped, f***** and fired into the outer reaches of the galaxy, and regardless of any part he did or didn't play in the whole sorry saga kokhead should be used as the fuel for that one way trip.

The `smoke and mirrors' club, as we were once described by some AFL f***wit is now the cap in hand, bend over, and take it up the date club!

Rules of legal life:
1. Don’t talk to the police
2. Don’t represent yourself.
3. Don’t plead guilty until you’ve seen what they’ve got.

 

[bomberclifford]

Just got home to watch Lyon, Brown, Bucks and Speccy Twat going into bat for Pickett.

It's literally only 24 hours ago since the Houston appeal. How are they not even mentioning it in comparison!?

What the **** is going on!?

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Just got home to watch Lyon, Brown, Bucks and Speccy Twat going into bat for Pickett.

It's literally only 24 hours ago since the Houston appeal. How are they not even mentioning it in comparison!?

What the **** is going on!?

AFL commentary is what is going on.

 

[bomberclifford]

AFL commentary is what is going on.

Literally all the arguments they're using to defend Pickett would apply to Houston.

 

[theouthouse]

It's ironic that this is exactly why the laws were changed in regards to bumping when someone is in a situation where they will have their head over the ball.

AFL really needs to take up a form of class action against those that try and OK this sort of garbage on a football field.

 

[OneGreatClub]

So what will Kozzie get?

 

[DaTBird187]

So what will Kozzie get?

Dan Houston's life force.

 

[Waspy79]

So what will Kozzie get?

In all seriousness, it should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 week suspension.

 

[Waspy79]

In all seriousness, it should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 week suspension.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[yepits2020]

Pickett should be suspended. Contact is clearly high. Careless v intentional, would lead to intentional. Given Moore was concussed, and given the potential of the bump, it should be classified as severe. High impact is 3 matches. If graded severe, then 4 or more matches and off to the tribunal. If graded as careless, then 2 matches or three or more (tribunal) respectively.

we shall sit snd judge the MRO.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

So what will Kozzie get?

Absolutely cant be less than 7.

 

[theouthouse]

So what will Kozzie get?

A cushy media role.

 

[Brian McGee]

There is no way it will be graded as intentional. It will be csreless, high and severe, resulting in 3 games minimum and trip to the tribunal. Tribunal will find that it was at the low end of careless and the low end of severe and leave it at 3 weeks. Nothing surer.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Pickett will get off - request a trade to Port - then cop a retrospective 5 week ban…

 

[MrMeaner]

I didn't expect to wander into this thread having to dodge strays.

 

[Capital Power]

So what will Kozzie get?

A $1,500 fine for rough conduct, increased to $2,500 for prior form, and will have to pick up papers at AFL House at lunchtime

 

[Ford Fairlane]

There is no way it will be graded as intentional. It will be csreless, high and severe, resulting in 3 games minimum and trip to the tribunal. Tribunal will find that it was at the low end of careless and the low end of severe and leave it at 3 weeks. Nothing surer.

I think you're right on how they will assess, but Pickett looked to me like he went past the ball to bump. It was another one of his 'sneaky' hits and should be at the high end of careless. He wasn't 'unlucky' because Moore was always dropping to try and collect the ball.

But seeing as the media mitigation machine has swung into action straight away with forensic examination as tribey noted, the path to a lesser suspension has been paved.

 

[PAFC66]

If Melbourne played finals next week he'd get off.

 

[philreich]

The AFL are very clear in that it doesn't matter what you do to minimise impact, if the results of your actions injure a player then they're going to throw the book at you.

Unless, of course, you launch yourself at speed in an uncontrolled fashion against a player with a history of multiple concussions and end their career while playing for Collingwood in a Qualifying Final less than 12 months ago. Then it's OK.

So it doesn't matter if you end a bloke's career, as long as you look after yourself. Sounds legit.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

In all seriousness, it should be graded careless, severe and high. This brings the tribunal into play. The same tribunal that hung Houston for an action that was against a player with ball in hand and that was not high contact. Pickett attacked a possessionless Moore and got him in the head. The penalty on this basis, when factored in with Pickett’s recent suspension history, would in normal world situation see him cop a 7-8 week suspension.

Except you can't say Houston's contact was not high when both the tribunal and Appeals Board agreed there was high contact.