- Banned
- #301
I can't recall a previous case of precedent even being presented. The AFL, like the VFL before it, forbade the practice.
Precedents have been used many times. You can't forbid it as a practice.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can't recall a previous case of precedent even being presented. The AFL, like the VFL before it, forbade the practice.
UM wasn't it claimed that this was a first offense or some such?
Precedents have been used many times. You can't forbid it as a practice.
Hurts..................DON'T IT?
He wasn't knocked out he got up and took his kick.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?
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.
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.
And that bit is wrong. In terms of penalty, it has always been relevant.
In that case you should easily be able to cite a couple of, um, precedents...
Buddy elbows a guy in the head, free to play.
Worpel tackles a guy, gets a week.
Worpel gets tackled, Swan player free to play.
This game is f’ed.
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...
Should have tried harder to keep him then.Geez, it would've been nice if Hawthorn was given the same generosity from 2005 to 2013
Here's another.......you can Google yourself for more....
Hartlett banned for two
The AFL tribunal has upheld the match review panel's findings and suspended Hamish Hartlett for two weeks.www.portadelaidefc.com.au
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 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
Probably been discussed at length but geez that 360 stat last night was damning. 17 tribunal appearances for a total of 7 weeks. That suggests a little bit of lenient treatment
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).
Brilliant news.Yeah, it kills me that we lose to teams above us on the ladder with older lists and coaches who were groomed and given time to ease into the role.
I struggle to sleep at night.
Cyril Rioli - 'Attempted Striking' ... Two weeks.
Actually elbowing someone in the head?
Probably been discussed at length but geez that 360 stat last night was damning. 17 tribunal appearances for a total of 7 weeks. That suggests a little bit of lenient treatment