MRP / Trib. 2018 MRP - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[GoBlues!]

No way the afl will lose today. The AFL appealing its own tribunal is a bit of an absurdity and essentially means "No - you got it wrong- try again. Find a way to make the outcome we want happen."

There's overwhelming pressure on whoever sits on that appeals board to find a way to fall in line - if they want an afl post in the future, anyways.

Yeah I know - its" independent". Bollocks.

Unfortunately a forgone conclusion from here imo. Rigged. Farce.

A compromised outcome would be to differentiate between Ed and Charlie.

Ed gets a week, and Charlie’s fine gets increased to $1,500. Not saying it’s right but it would probably appease the majority, and leave the extremists baying for blood partially satisfied.

 

[IronMan29]

Just quietly Dangerfield needs a quiet reminder that he is the AFLPA president when he comments and not Tom Hawkins mate.

He can take Buckley's hand a * off together

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Metalcrusher]

A compromised outcome would be to differentiate between Ed and Charlie.

Ed gets a week, and Charlie’s fine gets increased to $1,500. Not saying it’s right but it would probably appease the majority, and leave the extremists baying for blood partially satisfied.

Nothing like "half" ******* something ...... Heaven forbid they get clarity and consistency!

 

[Brezsa]

Really ... where did he say this? Very interesting.

SEN this morning

Then he said that the AFL need to make its position on umpire contact very clear before the next game is played

 

[Captain Cripps]

Sarcasm font must be broken. I was only joking around.

I know Henderson my smiley face

 

[billybloggs]

Bullying alive and well in society. Bullying is very selective.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I know Henderson my smiley face

My sarcasm meter must be broken
But leave Hendo out of this.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

A compromised outcome would be to differentiate between Ed and Charlie.

Ed gets a week, and Charlie’s fine gets increased to $1,500. Not saying it’s right but it would probably appease the majority, and leave the extremists baying for blood partially satisfied.

Or just upgrade both their fines, then they're not as 'manifestly inadequate' as before. Aren't they only appealing because the penalty was manifestly inadequate? Not because the finding was wrong? So they pleaded guilty to reckless contact and were found guilty on that charge. Can that change? Or just the penalty?
I don't know if $1000 and $1500 are the only two levels of fine available. Hell, double it for all I care.

 

[The Flying Doormat]

I think the "Sellers" tune up changed his mind!!!

Sellers for Carlton President

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Bullying alive and well in society. Bullying is very selective.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Or just upgrade both their fines, then they're not as 'manifestly inadequate' as before. Aren't they only appealing because the penalty was manifestly inadequate? Not because the finding was wrong? So they pleaded guilty to reckless contact and were found guilty on that charge. Can that change? Or just the penalty?
I don't know if $1000 and $1500 are the only two levels of fine available. Hell, double it for all I care.

Minson had his 4 week suspension for touching an umpire overturned on appeal and replacing with a $7500 fine so it's an option.

 

[GoBlues!]

Or just upgrade both their fines, then they're not as 'manifestly inadequate' as before. Aren't they only appealing because the penalty was manifestly inadequate? Not because the finding was wrong? So they pleaded guilty to reckless contact and were found guilty on that charge. Can that change? Or just the penalty?
I don't know if $1000 and $1500 are the only two levels of fine available. Hell, double it for all I care.

AFL are appealing on the basis that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to the decision it made with the facts before them.

I guess the onus is on the AFL to show/establish that the Tribunal has not acted reasonably in making the decision.

Tribunal followed process, determined the players are guilty of unintentional contact and we’re fined accordingly. If it can be shown that the Tribunal has in fact acted reasonably then the appeal would fail.

 

[jj1978]

AFL are appealing on the basis that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to the decision it made with the facts before them.

I guess the onus is on the AFL to show/establish that the Tribunal has not acted reasonably in making the decision.

Tribunal followed process, determined the players are guilty of unintentional contact and we’re fined accordingly. If it can be shown that the Tribunal has in fact acted reasonably then the appeal would fail.

In argument defence can say the AFL has not acted reasonably to the defence in making the decision to appeal as it has been fuelled by media and not common sense.

 

[thylacine60]

Sellers for Carlton President

he's too smart for that

 

[footyfan1978]

Sellers for Carlton President

No way. Board meetings would be at Naughton's

 

[footyfan1978]

Expect anything from AFL when it comes to the Blues. A 12 month suspension and putting the game into disrepute and banned from this years draft is what I am expecting.

Glad your imagination does not run wild in times like these.

 

[bigm386]

I really just hope that our president steps up and calls the AFL a corrupt piece of s**t organisation.

Sick of the favouritism of GCS and GWS

 

[Cripps17]

AFL are appealing on the basis that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to the decision it made with the facts before them.

I guess the onus is on the AFL to show/establish that the Tribunal has not acted reasonably in making the decision.

Tribunal followed process, determined the players are guilty of unintentional contact and we’re fined accordingly. If it can be shown that the Tribunal has in fact acted reasonably then the appeal would fail.

The last (only?) AFL appeal was successful because they correctly argued that an unreasonable consideration had been given to character assessment in applying a penalty.

Has there been a time when they AFL has ever appealed on the basis that the tribunal simply made a wrong decision? There has been plenty of opportunity to do so.

Yet here we are, first club, and not one but two separate instances. And people are crying foul for Hawkins? I hope to see a reaction from the club, should either appeal be successful.

 

[Gethelred]

I really just hope that our president steps up and calls the AFL a corrupt piece of s**t organisation.

Sick of the favouritism of GCS and GWS

I'm curious as to how you think that would work.

Front page of Herald Sun, the Age tomorrow morning : 'Carlton President: "The AFL is a corrupt, piece of **** organisation' read inside for fallout, pg.3

Caroline Wilson: 'The Wheels of power turn on Carlton'.

Mark Robinson: 'The (AFL) house always wins'.

Jaken Nial: 'First a rebuild, then a collapse: how the wheels fell off at Carlton'.

I really do wonder sometimes...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

AFL are appealing on the basis that no Tribunal acting reasonably could come to the decision it made with the facts before them.

I guess the onus is on the AFL to show/establish that the Tribunal has not acted reasonably in making the decision.

Tribunal followed process, determined the players are guilty of unintentional contact and we’re fined accordingly. If it can be shown that the Tribunal has in fact acted reasonably then the appeal would fail.

I just noticed your use of the wording unintentional contact, and I think this is where it could get interesting. I'm pretty sure the proper wording by the AFL is careless contact. The AFL gets hung up on the way it words things and if they try to argue that the contact was most certainly intentional, there's nothing in the wording of careless contact that says that it can't be intentional, but careless. I don't know if the official rules clarify the meaning of careless contact, but I'm not sure that one has to exclude the other. There's aggressively intentional and intentionally careless. They are completely different.

 

[bigm386]

I'm curious as to how you think that would work.

Front page of Herald Sun, the Age tomorrow morning : 'Carlton President: "The AFL is a corrupt, piece of **** organisation' read inside for fallout, pg.3

Caroline Wilson: 'The Wheels of power turn on Carlton'.

Mark Robinson: 'The (AFL) house always wins'.

Jaken Nial: 'First a rebuild, then a collapse: how the wheels fell off at Carlton'.

I really do wonder sometimes...

I honestly am at the point with the media where their opinion is irrelevant. When a potato like Kane Cornes gets a say you know it's a low standard.

My favourite one this year was Harry Mckay pick 10 can't get a game. Oh and Silvagni pick 50 odd in the news for weeks.

But Weiderman who was pick 9 and a bust never gets a mention. The media will bend Carlton over regardless.

I'd at least like the club to come out and call it out for being s**t.

 

[The Bighouse]

Chris Scott backing in the Curnows’ as good Geelong people...

 

[footyfan1978]

What time is the Steven May AFL appeal heard ?

 

[Aphrodite]

What time is the Steven May AFL appeal heard ?

Being heard in China.

 

[footyfan1978]

Being heard in China.

Video hook up ?