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.
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)
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
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)
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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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