Buddy Elbow -how many week?

Remove this Banner Ad

BruceFromBalnarring

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
12,177
15,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
"The AFL has previously disallowed precedents as it believes no two incidents are the same and that in law precedent normally applies in sentencing not in determining fact. The league is also reluctant to allow one case to become a rehearing of an earlier case and to draw out the process."

I've been hearing this since video evidence was permitted in the 1980's. When did it change?
I can't read the article but I suspect that, as the Tribunal could have last night, they have in particular cases rejected evidence of "like cases". Probably because they weren't "like enough".

It was unusual to allow 3 which is what leads me to the "scapegoat" argument.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I can't read the article but I suspect that, as the Tribunal could have last night, they have in particular cases rejected evidence of "like cases". Probably because they weren't "like enough".
I can't recall a previous case of precedent even being presented. The AFL, like the VFL before it, forbade the practice.

PS Clear your cookies ;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SSSSSS

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2011
12,678
20,784
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Six decades of domination
Hurts..................DON'T IT?:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
Not really. Got two flags and nearly 600 goals out of him, and two more after he pissed off. Still a Hawthorn legend.

Got the best out of Bud so happy for him to enjoy his retirement package and enjoy the Bondi lifestyle.
 

Maddo11

Premiership Player
Apr 17, 2010
4,200
5,069
AFL Club
Sydney
That 1 week was for running through Edwards (Richmond) and knocking him out. Should have been Severe and 3 or 4 weeks...

But for the Sydney discount.
He wasn't knocked out he got up and took his kick.
He only got one week though because we were two weeks out from playing the Hawks at the MCG though remember?
Then I'm pretty sure the next week Hodge and Lewis spent the whole game throwing arms North players and spent some time in the stands as a result.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
28,026
30,227
AFL Club
Hawthorn
He wasn't knocked out he got up and took his kick.
He only got one week though because we were two weeks out from playing the Hawks at the MCG though remember?
Ah I was sure he was concussed. Here we go:


Tippett also only got 1 week when the AFL were handjng out 2 and 3 week suspensions.

No Sydney discount though of course.

Amazing what the colour of the jumper does.
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
12,177
15,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Well if you're going to insist on that being true even after I've pulled out a quote from the article which states that precedent was banned as evidence up to at least 2010... good day to you.
I said I couldn't read the article, but perhaps I should explain better.

Precedent, when it comes to the law, is a binding decision. Because a superior court has ruled one way previously, or even a same level court, then judges are bound to follow those precedents. They apply to questions of law.

You cannot have a precedent to a question of fact.

What you are able to do, and have always been able to do, is point to previous similar enough decisions and say "Cotchin got a fine, why should Hodge get suspended." It's using "precedent" in the common sense, but not in the legal sense.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I said I couldn't read the article, but perhaps I should explain better.

Precedent, when it comes to the law, is a binding decision. Because a superior court has ruled one way previously, or even a same level court, then judges are bound to follow those precedents. They apply to questions of law.

You cannot have a precedent to a question of fact.

What you are able to do, and have always been able to do, is point to previous similar enough decisions and say "Cotchin got a fine, why should Hodge get suspended." It's using "precedent" in the common sense, but not in the legal sense.
Seems the word "precedent" is a hang-up, so leaving it out...

Players fronting the VFL/AFL tribunal have historically not been permitted to cite footage of past incidents in their defence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BruceFromBalnarring

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
12,177
15,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Franklin's team used it to challenge the grading, not the penalty.

If you're right then you should easily be able to cite a couple of, er, precedents...
Here's another.......you can Google yourself for more....

 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Here's another.......you can Google yourself for more....

Fair enough re Fritsch. I gather the rule has changed this year.

Yes I can remember cases where the AFL DVD was used. As per the article, "the DVD is the only means of creating a precedent to judge cases". I'll concede you are technically correct in a limited sense, but at the time of the Hartlett case it would not have been possible for Franklin to use vision of his three incidents given the DVD was produced pre-season.
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
12,177
15,599
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Fair enough re Fritsch. I gather the rule has changed this year.

Yes I can remember cases where the AFL DVD was used. As per the article, "the DVD is the only means of creating a precedent to judge cases". I'll concede you are technically correct in a narrow sense, but at the time of the Hartlett case Franklin would not have been able to use vision of his three incidents given the DVD was produced pre-season.
I'm not being a smart arse here. The media are the problem because they throw around legal expressions when they shouldn't. And it creates confusion.

The rule has never changed. There has never been a rule. It's just the way the media has interchanged "precedent" between the "narrow legal" meaning (there are no precedents) and the broad "example" meaning (these 3 cases were low so why should Buddy get medium).
 

Maddo11

Premiership Player
Apr 17, 2010
4,200
5,069
AFL Club
Sydney
I don't have to be classy and don't be a condescending smart ass. I have followed AFL for 50 years. In the last few years I have seen players suspended for nothing and dickheads like Franklin being reported 17 times for a few week's suspension for incidents 500 times worse
The sh*t he gets away with is ludicrous. They want to look at potential to cause injury then an elbow to the head is right up there with the dog acts you can do

It stinks of Adam goodes all over but Hey as long as AFL Sydney is propped up all good
Kharma would be him doing an ACL
Mate, wishing injuries on players is shithouse and there's no excuse for it.

Maybe they used to do it back in your day, but like you said, it's probably not good karma..
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,652
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm not being a smart arse here. The media are the problem because they throw around legal expressions when they shouldn't. And it creates confusion.

The rule has never changed. There has never been a rule. It's just the way the media has interchanged "precedent" between the "narrow legal" meaning (there are no precedents) and the broad "example" meaning (these 3 cases were low so why should Buddy get medium).
"Precedent" always referenced the general definition prior to the legalese invasion of the AFL in the 2000's.

Given the multitude of weak rulings to choose from, this seems certain to open the floodgates to a procession of inadequate penalties, with those defences turned down by the tribunal screaming blue murder.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad