Past #26: Tarryn Thomas [Part III] - [C.Twomey] AFL rules TT is eligible to play in all competitions as of 14 October

[DuckYeah]

Blokes need to stand up for good women and fight against shit women. #methree

 

[Mcarcherey]

This is true, however the case does not involve criminal conduct, but adherence to an AFL policy, which the players sign up to as a contractual requirement. So yes, the AFL can determine whether a player breaches that policy - provided procedural fairness has been applied - and impose a disciplinary penalty (as they have in many other cases)

It's a criminal matter and anything short of a criminal court means the evidence is not properly tried.

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DuckYeah]

It's a criminal matter and anything short of a criminal court means the evidence is not properly tried.

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Tarryn has a ****ing defamation case looming. If I was Tarryn i’d be questioning that with his lawyers.

 

[Mcarcherey]

The mental gymnastics in this thread are pretty funny, you absolutely don't need to commit a crime for your employer to have grounds to suspend or fire you. Just admit your North biases and be done with it.

The mental gymnastics of due process?

I'd love to see the day dipsh*ts like this are falsely accused of a crime. They have no clue.

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dan]

 

[DuckYeah]

She hangs out at Revs and has kids. Thats enough for me. She’s hangin Tarryn out to dry

 

[South of the Yarra]

So Aboriginal good, aborigine bad.

It's a subtle but significant difference that many would not understand. It's worth noting Gustaaff, that in all the acronyms (eg. NAIDOC) , the "A" is for Aboriginal, not aborigine.

Yes Aboriginal is the desired term by many Aboriginals and Aborigines can cause significant offence. It is a slight difference but the two words carry significantly different impacts.

 

[DuckYeah]

Yes Aboriginal is the desired term by many Aboriginals and Aborigines can cause significant offence. It is a slight difference but the two words carry significantly different impacts.

Is it okay to just call every person on the planet a campaigner no matter who they are where they’re from? Because thats how I roll

 

[Liam Boy]

Is it okay to just call every person on the planet a campaigner no matter who they are where they’re from? Because thats how I roll

I'm so offended by this my monocle popped out and landed in my latte. You sir are a brave truth teller.

 

[Disco Dew]

Let's hug!

I do enjoy a hug

 

[DuckYeah]

I do enjoy a hug

**** a hug. Whats the point? Feel the same 5 seconds later.

 

[disco_cowboy]

I was told that by a fossil the other day. He said “gee its bloody good to hear a bloke just say it how it is, he said, you are just a ******* brutally honest person and I ******* respect that”

I said “foss, you don’t agree with my position politically and quite often get ya back up”

“Yes I dont, but its refreshing to hear”

I was ******* humbled. I am brutally ******* honest and people struggle with honesty. They dont know how to take it.

Honesty rattles people. Especially if its against their views. And I consider myself ******* left of centre. Its a hard pill to swallow for people. But I ******* hate people. Thats why everyone is a campaigner

Holding strong opinions and failing to be considerate of those you share those with isn’t something to be proud of. It’s basic respect.

 

[DuckYeah]

Holding strong opinions and failing to be considerate of those you share those with isn’t something to be proud of. It’s basic respect.

One could easily say that about people who do not agree. Society is a really simple concept if there was no poison media. What is happening with Tarryn is trial by media. Not by law

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Regardless of what she may want. The AFL would then have the duty of notifying police if anything around domestic violence was happening. As far as I know, police aren’t involved

The AFL most certainly do not have any duty of care to report any of these allegations to the police.

 

[gokangas]

The AFL most certainly do not have any duty of care to report any of these allegations to the police.

I'm not sure about that. If they identified what they thought was a crime do you say they have no responsibility to report it?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I'm not sure about that. If they identified what they thought was a crime do you say they have no responsibility to report it?

Correct. There is no legal requirement for them to do it.

You can’t report a crime against a person on behalf of that person, unless it’s a serious injury or homicide.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Correct. There is no legal requirement for them to do it.

You can’t report a crime against a person on behalf of that person, unless it’s a serious injury or homicide.

What kind of integrity unit doesn't report a documented crime to the police...

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

What kind of integrity unit doesn't report a documented crime to the police...

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Because she’s an adult and has the capacity to report it herself.

 

[Merlin007]

It's a criminal matter and anything short of a criminal court means the evidence is not properly tried.

On Pixel 6 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Ummm. No.

If the players don't like the policy under which they play, don't sign the big money contract and work for a living like the rest of us

 

[Merlin007]

Correct. There is no legal requirement for them to do it.

You can’t report a crime against a person on behalf of that person, unless it’s a serious injury or homicide.

sorry mate, but there is, under employment law. Players sign contracts agreeing to abide by AFL policies, and if they don't, the AFL is entitled to take disciplinary action

You can like it, or dislike it, but it doesn't matter, the AFL has the power to take action short of criminal proceedings.

Full stop.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

sorry mate, but there is, under employment law. Players sign contracts agreeing to abide by AFL policies, and if they don't, the AFL is entitled to take disciplinary action

You can like it, or dislike it, but it doesn't matter, the AFL has the power to take action short of criminal proceedings.

Full stop.

I feel there’s some wires getting crossed here.

If he has breached AFL policy, then they’re free to take whatever action that’s allowed by their charter.

There is no legal requirement for the AFL to report criminal allegations made to them to the police on behalf of the alleged victim.

 

[DuckYeah]

 

[Val Keating]

Getting worried now. Hopefully my man is off, but his future at North isn’t certain.

 

[Merlin007]

This is turning into some sort of culture war, so I won't be back on this thread. But to summarise the actual facts:

1. The AFL playing contract is a tri-parte contract between:
• The player – who performs services for the club;
• The club – who pays the player and has responsibilities as an employer;
• The AFL – who run the league (e.g. makes the rules, broadcasting rights)

2. the AFL Respect and Responsibility Policy is a victim-centred regime that allows complainants to make anonymous complaints. It requires players to uphold gender equality and do no harm to any person on account of their sex or gender. This is not a criminal standard.

2. In signing a standard contract, the player agrees to abide by AFL rules and policies

3. Breaches of the AFL Respect and Responsibility Policy are dealt with according to a process that requires natural justice. For the non-lawyers, this means that any person the subject of a complaint is afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations.

4. Under 4.9 of the AFL Rules:

The Commission may at any time and on such conditions as it thinks fit cancel or suspend the registration of a Player where it is of the opinion that such Player has conducted himself or herself in a manner unbecoming of an AFL Player or likely to prejudice the reputation or interests of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.


If you don't like any of that, go howl at the moon.

 

[DuckYeah]

This is turning into some sort of culture war, so I won't be back on this thread. But to summarise the actual facts:

1. The AFL playing contract is a tri-parte contract between:
• The player – who performs services for the club;
• The club – who pays the player and has responsibilities as an employer;
• The AFL – who run the league (e.g. makes the rules, broadcasting rights)

2. the AFL Respect and Responsibility Policy is a victim-centred regime that allows complainants to make anonymous complaints. It requires players to uphold gender equality and do harm to any person on account of their sex or gender. This is not a criminal standard.

2. In signing a standard contract, the player agrees to abide by AFL rules and policies

3. Breaches of the AFL Respect and Responsibility Policy are dealt with according to a process that requires national justice. For the non-lawyers, this means that any person the subject of a complaint is afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations.

4. Under 4.9 of the AFL Rules:

The Commission may at any time and on such conditions as it thinks fit cancel or suspend the registration of a Player where it is of the opinion that such Player has conducted himself or herself in a manner unbecoming of an AFL Player or likely to prejudice the reputation or interests of the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.


If you don't like any of that, go howl at the moon.

Whatever. The rules need to not be arbitrary. By your statement there are many players that should of been hung out by the AFL.

Why now? Why is the AFL making an example now? ****ing Dusty literally threatened to stab a woman with chop sticks? So thats okay? But whatever Tarryn has done? Nuh, doesn’t meet our code of conduct or behaviour clause. FRO (nothing personal, just the situation)