- Jul 16, 2002
- 630
- 2
- Other Teams
- port adel
Collingwood will be appealing the 2 match ban on Collingwood Rookie Jason Cloke.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 2
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 1 Winner: dreamkillers
Collingwood appealing
- Thread starter P0RT P0WER
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just a question.. why the collingwood logo in front of the lion in your avatar?
Cheers
The Spornstar
Premiership Player
Who setup the appeals board for you scumbags anyway!
- Banned
- #5
Have fun losing those draft picks my friend.
- Banned
- #6
It is pretty obvious that FigJam is a pies fan, Hawkfan5
Great news that Collingwood are appealing the suspension of Jason Cloke.
I hope that the guy is able to play in the GF.
Whats the point of appealing. After a 2 hour discussion about it and a 2 week suspension what in the hell could they bring in as new evidence that would get him off?
Magpies lodge Cloke appeal
Samantha Lane
afl.com.au
11:38:52 AM Wed 25 September, 2002
Collingwood has announced it will appeal the two-match suspension of key defender Jason Cloke after the AFL tribunal found him guilty of a striking charge, ruling him out of this week’s grand final.
Collingwood general manager of football operations Neil Balme told afl.com.au on Wednesday the club did not hesitate in deciding to go to the AFL appeals board to challenge the verdict.
“No it wasn’t a difficult decision in the circumstances. The fact that he’s been suspended means he won’t play. And if we don’t appeal he definitely won’t play. If we do appeal at least he’s got a chance.”
The appeal hearing is most likely to be held late on Thursday afternoon or early that evening, less than 48 hours before Collingwood takes on Brisbane in the grand final.
Balme denied the 20 year-old or the club would be adversely affected by the appeal, in what is the club's most important week in 12 years.
“That’ll be alright. There won’t be any great disruption. We’ll look after the player affected, and the only one will be Jason and at this stage he ain’t playing,” he said.
Balme said the club had not ruled out the possibility of taking legal action should the appeals board uphold the tribunal’s verdict.
“I’m not saying there won’t be. But we’re not planning it. But anything’s possible,” Balme said.
While declining to comment directly on Tuesday's hearing or the verdict, AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson said: “I presume the Collingwood Football Club will explore all the options available to them under the rules of the game, and they will accept whatever the umpire’s decision is in that regard.”
“The great majority of people in footy would understand what it means for a young bloke who’s played 21 games during the season, I think, to miss. But Collingwood may choose to appeal so to that extent I don’t think I should comment further,” he said.
Samantha Lane
afl.com.au
11:38:52 AM Wed 25 September, 2002
Collingwood has announced it will appeal the two-match suspension of key defender Jason Cloke after the AFL tribunal found him guilty of a striking charge, ruling him out of this week’s grand final.
Collingwood general manager of football operations Neil Balme told afl.com.au on Wednesday the club did not hesitate in deciding to go to the AFL appeals board to challenge the verdict.
“No it wasn’t a difficult decision in the circumstances. The fact that he’s been suspended means he won’t play. And if we don’t appeal he definitely won’t play. If we do appeal at least he’s got a chance.”
The appeal hearing is most likely to be held late on Thursday afternoon or early that evening, less than 48 hours before Collingwood takes on Brisbane in the grand final.
Balme denied the 20 year-old or the club would be adversely affected by the appeal, in what is the club's most important week in 12 years.
“That’ll be alright. There won’t be any great disruption. We’ll look after the player affected, and the only one will be Jason and at this stage he ain’t playing,” he said.
Balme said the club had not ruled out the possibility of taking legal action should the appeals board uphold the tribunal’s verdict.
“I’m not saying there won’t be. But we’re not planning it. But anything’s possible,” Balme said.
While declining to comment directly on Tuesday's hearing or the verdict, AFL chief executive Wayne Jackson said: “I presume the Collingwood Football Club will explore all the options available to them under the rules of the game, and they will accept whatever the umpire’s decision is in that regard.”
“The great majority of people in footy would understand what it means for a young bloke who’s played 21 games during the season, I think, to miss. But Collingwood may choose to appeal so to that extent I don’t think I should comment further,” he said.
Mike has raised some very valid issues on Nick's about this.
- Mar 4, 2001
- 2,358
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lions: Est. 1883, 11 Flags. PAFC
Just wondering, can the Crows, as the grieved party, launch a counter appeal? Now that would be a first.
- Jul 16, 2002
- 630
- 2
- Other Teams
- port adel
- Thread starter
- #12
Spornstar, on your sig can you please add Shaun Burgoyne 3 votes!
I dont know why they are even trying it was a blantant reckless act and strike he's not going to get off.
The tribunal admitted that the act was accidental, so how can something be 'accidently reckless'?
Seems like a contradiction to me.
As has been raised elsewhere, if Cloke had actually hit the ball but infact headbutted Edwards (by accident) from behind as he went for the ball and Edwards then hit the ground, would a player be suspended? There would have been no charge, and the same thing would have occured as a result of an accident.
- Mar 4, 2001
- 2,358
- 14
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lions: Est. 1883, 11 Flags. PAFC
Or maybe they'll get porked from behind
Ouch, did I say that??
- Jul 26, 2002
- 3,053
- 0
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Magpies, Subi Lions
Agree. I don't even know why you're allowed to appeal a decision by the tribunal.......
- Jul 26, 2002
- 3,053
- 0
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Magpies, Subi Lions
But for the suspension to be overruled, wouldn't that mean the tribunal made the wrong decision in the 1st place?
If you guys are that way inclined, I'm not going to insinuate that there's anything wrong with that!Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
Or maybe they'll get porked from behind
I though Akermanis was going to kiss Black the other night at the Brownlow...but again...not that there's anything wrong with that!!
A scenario -
You are driving.
You are speeding. That's reckless.
While you are speeding, you fail to stop in time and crash into another car. That's an accident.
Recklessness and accidental consequences co-exist all the time.
The reckless part of Cloke's action was the swinging round arm. The accident is that he may not have intended to strike Edwards in the face, but he did.
Unless Cloke went into a pack waving his head around like a drunk Glaswegian, there's nothing reckless about the case you put, so of course he would get off. What Cloke did to Edwards was reckless - and as he did it at least twice in the same match (once to Edwards, once to a player who appears to be Stenglein or Stevens from the picture in Sunday's Age), he's really got to look at his spoiling technique.
Incorrect. A car crash caused by recklessness is NO ACCIDENT, it is an INCIDENT.
A teacher used to say to me when I went to school, " I have no idea why they call car crashes caused by recklessness, accidents. They should be called incidents."
- Sep 18, 2002
- 1,093
- 0
- Other Teams
- COLLINGWOOD/ UMPIRES
- Banned
- #23
You don't need new evidence to appeal. You appeal because you don't agree with the decision and therefore want another party to hear the case.
Sammy Newman
Rookie
Eddie would be hoping the appeal is on Thursday night so he can announce the result live on The Footy Show.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
