- Dec 7, 2001
- 24,230
- 9,904
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
No vision, how can that be.
Charman out for 2 weeks.
- Thread starter campbell
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Easy, the tribunal are brain dead tossers and have been handing out ridiculous penalties all year.
- Dec 7, 2001
- 24,230
- 9,904
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #3
It reminds me of the McRae ban after the Semi years ago. No vision.It happened right in front of our noses on the wing at the Gabba, he never touched him, was not near him,but he was outed.
From the vision I saw it looked like he just does a striking motion but couldn’t see any contact. The ball was no where near him. Is that all they need for two weeks?
I guess also having the Carlton player x-rayed after the game couldn’t help and he might of just said yeah he punched me in the head.
I guess also having the Carlton player x-rayed after the game couldn’t help and he might of just said yeah he punched me in the head.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Any news if they will try to fight it?
Brown appeal didn’t work.
Can’t wait to see our lineup when the come out tomorrow.
from afl.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It was consistent with a punching action and given that it was a backwards and forwards movement, it is not consistent with a grabbing action,” Collis said in handing down his decision.
“We find this movement was directed towards the head of Deluca and given the nature and extent, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was of sufficient force.”
“In making these findings we are not prepared to accept either players’ explanation.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“probabilities” what a joke.
Brown appeal didn’t work.
Can’t wait to see our lineup when the come out tomorrow.
from afl.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“It was consistent with a punching action and given that it was a backwards and forwards movement, it is not consistent with a grabbing action,” Collis said in handing down his decision.
“We find this movement was directed towards the head of Deluca and given the nature and extent, we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was of sufficient force.”
“In making these findings we are not prepared to accept either players’ explanation.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“probabilities” what a joke.
the strange things about it.....
a) the ignored evidence from Jamie (who said he went for the jumper), DeLuca (who said he didn't get hit in the head, the potential injury happened at a different stage in the game), the Carlton trainer (who said DeLuca was fine and not injured in the time) and the Carlton doctor (who went out because they thought DeLuca had hit his head on the ground, but found he was uninjured at the time)
b) the precendence from last year, where if there was no vision, no sustained injury and evidence from players/officials that it hadn't happened, then the player gets off.
I'll admit it looks like he hits him. But once again, not an ounce of consistency from the tribunal not to mention a hardly-veiled accusation that 4 people lied to them.
a) the ignored evidence from Jamie (who said he went for the jumper), DeLuca (who said he didn't get hit in the head, the potential injury happened at a different stage in the game), the Carlton trainer (who said DeLuca was fine and not injured in the time) and the Carlton doctor (who went out because they thought DeLuca had hit his head on the ground, but found he was uninjured at the time)
b) the precendence from last year, where if there was no vision, no sustained injury and evidence from players/officials that it hadn't happened, then the player gets off.
I'll admit it looks like he hits him. But once again, not an ounce of consistency from the tribunal not to mention a hardly-veiled accusation that 4 people lied to them.
They'll have to get in the queue behind The Giesch.
Charman was suspended on the Judges opinion of 'probability'
If you took that into any Court in the land and argued that he 'probably hit him', without proof, vision or witnesses, do you think that the charge would stand?
The Tribunal is a farce and shaming the game.
If you took that into any Court in the land and argued that he 'probably hit him', without proof, vision or witnesses, do you think that the charge would stand?
The Tribunal is a farce and shaming the game.
It certainly makes you wonder why its run so shoddily.I thought it was supposed to be legally correct the tribunal. No evidence, no case.It makes a mokery of the game, but we can't do anything.
I also wonder in my conspiracy theory modeif it has anything to do with our problems between Bowers and Demetriou.
These 2 convictions this week are totally laughable legally, but happened.We have no say or recourse. Something smells.
I also wonder in my conspiracy theory modeif it has anything to do with our problems between Bowers and Demetriou.
These 2 convictions this week are totally laughable legally, but happened.We have no say or recourse. Something smells.
Looks like it is the "Time to Get the Lions" week. Big fines, 2 suspensions, lost appeal, and this AFLQ appealing Corrie decision report. It'd be great to top it off with a win in Perth.
Lionsrock_15_26
Debutant
although it seems the tribunal got it wrong, charman had it comming - he's always going in with the elbows. although it is bad for the team, perhaps two weeks on the sideline will be a wake up call for him??
