- Apr 6, 2009
- 1,116
- 670
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I heard that same rumour 2 posts earlier!
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
1/3 mark
- Thread starter jmac12
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The Finger
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #377
Launch an investigation surely someone has to be suspended if he is injured.
footysnumberone
Senior List
Have to agree with this one, from what i'm being told there's more to the story! Mick has let it drop so not sure why you can't? Its pretty embarassing all the comments from warby players and supporters sooking and calling the league CEO names on a public forum. Maybe if you put as much effort into winning games as you put into sooking on forums you would be in finals.
Mitch collins will be a huuuuuge out! Sh&t!!!
- Banned
- #379
Your being told wrong. As for Mick what choice does he have he was dealt an unfair hand. As I said the League should appeal this as it's a huge mistake.
Dave Collins has the crook hand and didn't play Saturday.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
That's not what happened and you know it.
Oxy_tourche
Draftee
- Aug 22, 2013
- 17
- 2
- AFL Club
- Richmond
That maybe be the case but he defiantly left the ground early Saturday and didnt return, did not shake anyone's hand.. Guess the bulldogs will have to wait and see.. Belgrave seem to have the wood over them anyway and I recon they will give them another big test.. The big ground at Yea just might suit the run and carry of the dogs!! Should be a cracker - to bad it's so far away the league may have attracted a good crowd..
Why? on the strength of flingers forum winges, heresay and no witnesses? sookaburras would have to have new evidence or a good case for appeal. if no-one saw it they cant do any more. move on boys.
my mail is that 3 for recklessness and 6 for interfearing with the injured player who was being treated by a trainer. not just a gentle push but a full on charge. comes from the trainer.
wacker got life membership for playing 300 games, not for being a great bloke.
Collins left the ground with a suspected busted mit. not good from all reports.
- Banned
- #383
Please get your facts right. No one from the prosecution saw it. The closest thing they could find to a person to say it was a deliberate act was a bloke who said he missed it because the point post was in his way. As for the bump in the trainers care probably the biggest beat up youll hear. In fact a ridiculous allegation as they knew they had nothing.
they had enough to get 9 weeks.
If you've got facts take them to appeal. better still why didn't you take them to the tribunal. otherwise stop sooking. the only beatup comes from the sookaburras.
like, when do flinger and humpa have a lot of credibility after all there crap on here?
- Banned
- #385
Great post the tables will turn lets hope we dont hear from you when an injustice is performed towards your team mate ir club.
got nothing else?
answer the questions or stfu
- Banned
- #387
What's your question? This is a serious issue and all you've done is take the piss out of it. Like I posted this has to be rectified.
Minnesota Wisdom
Team Captain
M Collins has been cleared of any break in his hand. Not sure if it means he'll line up this week, but all clear from the x-ray.
RIP Tony S
Debutant
- Jun 20, 2013
- 51
- 12
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I have not seen the incident involving the Warburton player so I cannot comment as to how big of an injustice it may be. However Adam H, I think your issue is with the cost of the options that are available to you as a club and that's fair enough the sums are un reasonable.
It is never going to happen that the league launches an investigation into a tribunal hearing unless some pretty damming evidence of corruption comes to light.
It is up to the clubs to address with the admin of their league issues that concern the league as a whole including tribunal hearings.
Over the last 5 months I know of 3 incidents that clubs seem to be unhappy with. If the dialogue on this forum is reflective of the clubs attitudes perhaps its time the clubs demand a tribunal review.
It is never going to happen that the league launches an investigation into a tribunal hearing unless some pretty damming evidence of corruption comes to light.
It is up to the clubs to address with the admin of their league issues that concern the league as a whole including tribunal hearings.
Over the last 5 months I know of 3 incidents that clubs seem to be unhappy with. If the dialogue on this forum is reflective of the clubs attitudes perhaps its time the clubs demand a tribunal review.
RIP Tony S
Debutant
- Jun 20, 2013
- 51
- 12
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
huge news re Mitch Collins if true think Belgrave may cover him though. Will be a big day for both clubs and should draw a great crowd
The appeal is to AFL Vic Country, and they are the ones who want the money. I have no problem with a reasonable size bond to protect against frivolous appeals, but the base (2,500) is just far to high, and it just does not allow the average club to appeal even when they feel the result is totally wrong. The sheer size of the money required effectively removes the checks and balances the Appeal process adds to our tribunal system. I know our league and all the clubs agree with the fact that the base should be much lower, I understand representations are being made, maybe something like $500 to appeal, with a bond of $3,000 to be forfeited if the appeal is deemed frivolous would be more equitable.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #395
It is a large sum for a local club find. That is why in the Mick Walker case the League should appeal it on his behalf. A player and person of his ilk deserve's far better treatment than what he received given that he has given so much.
- Apr 6, 2009
- 1,116
- 670
- AFL Club
- Richmond
2 points to add into the discussion for consideration:
1. In any case (not talking about the Walker case), the tribunal looks at facts relating to the incident only and determines probable guilt. Only at that point do they then choose a sentence (if found guilty) and this is where a players past comes into it - whether he is an ornament to the game or a serial offender. Many of the current posts seem to believe that a players past is considered in deciding guilt or not - and that's not how it happens. If it went to AFL Vic Country on appeal, they wouldn't give 2 hoots whether a player had played 4 games or 400.
2. You would expect that an appeal would be raised only if some new evidence came to light which might lead to an different verdict. My understanding with this case is that the hearing actually took some considerable time after the incident which makes you think all evidence that was available would have been used at the hearing. In other words an appeal in this instance is more than likely to just provide the same evidence and fingers crossed for a different outcome which places any bond at higher risk.
1. In any case (not talking about the Walker case), the tribunal looks at facts relating to the incident only and determines probable guilt. Only at that point do they then choose a sentence (if found guilty) and this is where a players past comes into it - whether he is an ornament to the game or a serial offender. Many of the current posts seem to believe that a players past is considered in deciding guilt or not - and that's not how it happens. If it went to AFL Vic Country on appeal, they wouldn't give 2 hoots whether a player had played 4 games or 400.
2. You would expect that an appeal would be raised only if some new evidence came to light which might lead to an different verdict. My understanding with this case is that the hearing actually took some considerable time after the incident which makes you think all evidence that was available would have been used at the hearing. In other words an appeal in this instance is more than likely to just provide the same evidence and fingers crossed for a different outcome which places any bond at higher risk.
I think the Appeal can also be on the grounds that the Tribunal just got it wrong, or that the penalty was manifestly to heavy based on the facts. I understand that all the evidence is reheard, and the appeal board then make a decision. I think the clubs have a pretty good record at getting penalties reduced, and that the vast majority get their bond back.
- Banned
- #398
If the evidence was reheard the appeal would win based on the fact that everyone who saw it expressed that it was accidental. The only evidence that claimed malice was a bloke who missed the contact as he said the point post obscured his view. At the moment this has to be appealed by the League to clear the air.
- Apr 6, 2009
- 1,116
- 670
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I suspect Sportguru is on the right track - in which case an appeal would probably have to state that they wanted the guilty finding to be overturned - or to accept the guilty finding but plead that the 3+6 weeks was too much and should be reduced.
The league are not going to do it, it would bring into strong doubt their support of the Independence of the Tribunal, if it is going to happen it would have had to come from the club. I know it is a Catch 22. I am also not sure of the time-frame for the appeal to be lodged, probably well past time