MRP 2019 MRP Lotto - Christian loves Cunnington

(Log in to remove this ad.)

astrovic

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Posts
3,429
Likes
11,647
Location
Here
AFL Club
North Melbourne
And thats all well and good. But the AFL should not take that into consideration because its irrelevant under the grading system. Previous appeals **** dudes over because they try reduce gradings. Now all they need to do is say that they are good dudes and hey presto, off ya go son.
This is very, very wrong, Not what you are saying, what the tribunal has done. An absolute disaster.

Michael Tovey QC (a very very good criminal law barrister) has argued fo Houli: "Character can be used in two ways: evidence of good character can go to the credibility of Houli, and it goes directly to the understanding of whether Houli is the sort of person likely to make that sort of contact. It can also affect penalty."

This is crap. It applies very remotely in a criminal court of law (and is generally irrelevant), but not in an AFL tribunal. We have extensive video evidence. We know that football is played at a high pace and that players make split second decisions, some of them stupid and regrettable. It means that we need to be extremely careful about pre-judging incidents based on character - while a player prone to a rush of blood to the head (think Barry Hall) might be more likely to do something stupid than a player who is usually as fair as the day is long (think Barry Cable), that doesn't mean that one could accidentally clock someone while the other set out to knock someone's lights out. By looking at the character of the person to try and figure that out, we mislead ourselves from what is actually before our very eyes on the video tape.

We have more than enough evidence in the form of video from all angles, umpires as eye witnesses and the like to figure out what a player most likely intended in the heat of the moment without having to revert to who the player would like to believe they are as a person, or - even less relevantly - what people who have interacted with them off the football field might think of them.

It would be incorrect enough if the tribunal was to take into account a player's past history as a fair ball player in trying to figure out what he intended in the heat of the moment - hell if the tribunal went down that path then it would have either acquitted Judd or lessened his penalty for his chicken wing on Patch - but even worse if the tribunal takes into account what people think of a player off the field. On that logic, in the 90s Arch - a bloke who walked a bloody fine line every time he went out on the field and sometimes crossed that line - would have walked out of the tribunal every time smelling like roses due to the fact that he is unanimously regarding as an absolutely ripping bloke. As much as we'd all have loved that to happen, we'd also know that there were times Arch crossed the line and deserved a week or two. Why should he be able to get a leave pass because a couple of people in high places tell a sob story about good a bloke he is? Should North have been getting Pagan to give character evidence about how far he has come since his youth?

What about Lindsay? Next time he is before the tribunal should be parading a wall of people who can attest to his character development and all the good work he has been doing in the indigenous community? Should that mean he gets a week or two less than everyone else for clocking someone?

On the other side of the ledger, does the prosecution start wheeling out character evidence? Why shouldn't the AFL prosecution effectively re-run the Daw rape case or the Dumont burglary case the next time those two appear before the tribunal, to show they are bad people capable of doing bad things on a football field or worthy of a greater suspension? Or Martin's known association with shady characters (ie his dad)? Doesn't the character issue go both ways?

Ross Howie is a retired County Court judge. When he sits on the AFL tribunal, he should have a better feel for the difference between a court of law and a sporting tribunal. There are similarities, but there are significant differences. He should be more attuned to those differences than he has shown here. He should have ruled the Turnbull and Aly evidence irrelevant from the outset. It creates a precedent that is going to haunt the tribunal. When the next player rolls out a bunch of character references (probably not being able to call upon the prime minister though) and the tribunal knocks them back (which I bet they will), imagine the cries of hypocrisy. Already I bet there will be noises about "social engineering" and "political correctness" and "the Left" and all sorts of garbage that really just could have been avoided with a little more care and thought.

As a side note: I don't in any way blame Houli or his legal counsel for running an argument based around his character, or calling on character references from people in high places (putting aside the curious inference that the opinion of the prime minister about the character of a person carries any more weight than the opinion of you or me. Since when did a peron's station in life make them any better a judge of character?) - their goal is to get Houli the best outcome in any way possible. I blame the tribunal, Howie in particular as its chairperson, for not seeing the danger in going down that path and allowing that precedent to be created.
 

SonofSamsquanch

Member of Bushwood Golf Club
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Posts
3,728
Likes
7,045
Location
Deep South
AFL Club
North Melbourne
References should be pointless using the system. Penalty should be more than the maximum penalty given out for all non-tribunal verdicts as those players don't get the opportunity to bring personal references to bear.

The action was intentional. The impact was high to severe. The contact was high. The max penalty pre tribunal is 5 weeks.

I don't think Houli meant to knock him out but he did. So he should be punished accordingly. 2 weeks for that is utter bullshit
100 percent agree

The tribunal is about establishing guilt as charged, and applying a prescribed penalty. Being a good bloke doesn't undo the action and should not influence the penalty.

Or if it does, maybe LT, W8 and Ben10 would be advised to start some extra community service to rack up some good bloke credits of their own.
 
Last edited:

Dirty_11

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Posts
7,096
Likes
14,061
Location
Beneath the Blue & White
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Shinboners
You can argue race and religion are not the same thing but you can't argue that the card wasn't played.

“It’s something I’ve never, ever done in my life and I’ll never intend to do that in my life,” he said.

It’s part of my practice in my religion — I’m a peaceful person. And I’ll continue to conduct myself in that manner.”
I am not potting Houli's religion but in these circumstances that should mean about as much as Cunners going in there and saying "I like to fish by myself, I am a peaceful person." Race, religion, gender etc have no bearing whatsoever in whether he is guilty of knocking a player out with an intentional hit to the head.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Posts
2,352
Likes
9,569
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
GRM, Williams
Cunners gets yet another week for another stupid short jab. How many times is that now? About 3-4? OK yeah, this suspension is meh because our season is friggen cactus, but what if we had a critical game next week? How many times dude?
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Posts
37,696
Likes
54,519
Location
Tender Touch
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
MVFC, Storm, Everton, Socceroos
Moderator #1,835
Campbell Brown brought up both Ben Cunnington and Waite incidents to unfairness in comparison to the Houli decision......on SEN before. Says is a total disgrace.
2 weeks!!

Jz seen sputtering out his Milo down Puckle St tonight.
I heard Campbell Brown on the wireless with Finey, where the quotes were taken from in that article, and they left out another example he gave............"Remember Ziebell got a month for accidental high contact when contesting and winning the ball in the air. This bloke knocked an opponent out with the ball nowhere in sight and cops 2 weeks!" Followed by chortling.
 

Jindrrk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Posts
7,759
Likes
17,647
Location
Macau
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
*, St Dwarves, Lolmond
I heard Campbell Brown on the wireless with Finey, where the quotes were taken from in that article, and they left out another example he gave............"Remember Ziebell got a month for accidental high contact when contesting and winning the ball in the air. This bloke knocked an opponent out with the ball nowhere in sight and cops 2 weeks!" Followed by chortling.
Yeh i got a phone call while listening to the first half so only listened to it when i was at the gym a little while ago.

He was pretty strong and disgusted earlier in the year about waite and Cunnington getting suspended
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

koshari

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Posts
9,285
Likes
10,633
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I am not potting Houli's religion but in these circumstances that should mean about as much as Cunners going in there and saying "I like to fish by myself, I am a peaceful person." Race, religion, gender etc have no bearing whatsoever in whether he is guilty of knocking a player out with an intentional hit to the head.
jesus and cunners were fisherman, they both got harsh penalties,
 

Jindrrk

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 20, 2016
Posts
7,759
Likes
17,647
Location
Macau
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
*, St Dwarves, Lolmond
Cunners gets yet another week for another stupid short jab. How many times is that now? About 3-4? OK yeah, this suspension is meh because our season is friggen cactus, but what if we had a critical game next week? How many times dude?
Well the AFL had to make sure Gary's 300th is a great week for Gary. So if we were playing Brisbane this week; he would of prob got off.
 
Top Bottom