Collingwood appealing

[MagpieJoel]

Re: Re: Collingwood appealing

Originally posted by Sammy Newman


Eddie would be hoping the appeal is on Thursday night so he can announce the result live on The Footy Show.

In the word's of Same Newman, You Idiot!

 

[Crowaholic]

Originally posted by MagpieJoel


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."

I do agree with you there. Thats exactly right if you are ebing reckless you don't care what happens.

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by MagpieJoel


Incorrect. A car crash caused by recklessness is NO ACCIDENT, it is an INCIDENT.

Accident:

1a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm:
b. An unforeseen incident:

2 Lack of intention; chance.

Anyway - the tribunal did not find that it was an accident. They found that it was "not intentional". Just like a car crash caused by speeding.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by marvin
Accident:

1a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm:
b. An unforeseen incident:

2 Lack of intention; chance.

Anyway - the tribunal did not find that it was an accident. They found that it was "not intentional". Just like a car crash caused by speeding.

1a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: No-one wanted it and it resulted in harm.
b. An unforeseen incident: All Clokey was trying to do was spoil...he couldn't forsee Edwards falling flat on his face!

2 Lack of intention; chance. The tribunal held Clokey had no intention to harm Edwards

THEREFORE: It was an accident.

 

[marvin]

Figjam - the semantics of accidental vs not intentional really aren't that important, and it's not why the tribunal suspended Cloke. He was suspended because his actions were considered reckless.

 

[Grave Danger]

The important thing to consider in this case is whether it should be:

"Collingwood will be appealing the 2 match ban on Collingwood Rookie Jason Cloke"

or:

"Collingwood will be appealing against the 2 match ban on Collingwood Rookie Jason Cloke"

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by piefan2002
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.

Sorry but AFAIK this is simply not the case. An appeal is supposed to be all about new evidence bringing new light on the matter.

If Collingwood appeal, and the appeal sits, the moderator would first ask of Collingwood "What new evidence do you have?".

If Collingwood start out with "None, but ..." then we would have a very short sitting indeed, for the next words from the moderator should in that case be ...

"Appeal dismissed, thanks for coming".

 

[Dave]

Two points:

The appeals process was changed this year, you no longer require new evidence.

Reckless:

Heedless or careless.
Headstrong; rash.
Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

Therefore it is possible to cause something to happen due to carelessness without deliberately trying to achieve it.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave
The appeals process was changed this year, you no longer require new evidence.

Interesting. If what you say is true, why was it that after the McLeod case earlier this year Crows said they did not agree with the decision but would not appeal simply because they had no new evidence to bring to light?

Do you have any references to the alleged change to the appeals process, or do you just make this sort of stuff up as you go along Dave?

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Originally posted by Dave
Two points:

The appeals process was changed this year, you no longer require new evidence.

Reckless:

Heedless or careless.
Headstrong; rash.
Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences: a reckless driver.

Therefore it is possible to cause something to happen due to carelessness without deliberately trying to achieve it.

[smartarse]But disregardFUL contains a shade of intentionality and therefore deliberation[/smartarse]

 

[grayham]

Surely the appeal (with such a slim chance of success) is destabalising for the team.
Wouldnt they be better off working on a list that will play and getting everyone primed for their position.
Just let it go, and concentrate on the game coming up.

Dunkleys shenanigans did absolutely nothing for the swans back in '96.

 

[Crowaholic]

Originally posted by FIGJAM

1a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: No-one wanted it and it resulted in harm.
b. An unforeseen incident: All Clokey was trying to do was spoil...he couldn't forsee Edwards falling flat on his face!

2 Lack of intention; chance. The tribunal held Clokey had no intention to harm Edwards

THEREFORE: It was an accident.

He could obviously fore see Edwards face to make his arm and hand go in that direction. If he was actually going for the ball you would think his hand would go in the direction from which the ball was coming then wouldn't you.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Originally posted by Crowaholic


He could obviously fore see Edwards face to make his arm and hand go in that direction. If he was actually going for the ball you would think his hand would go in the direction from which the ball was coming then wouldn't you.

If you knew a thing about football you would realise that you don't punch a football back into the oppositions attacking 50. Moreover, Clokey has a tendency to spoil with that action.

 

[Crowaholic]

Yeah you obviously punch the opposition in the face now huh?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Interesting. If what you say is true, why was it that after the McLeod case earlier this year Crows said they did not agree with the decision but would not appeal simply because they had no new evidence to bring to light?

Either they didn't know the new rule or they felt without new evidence they wouldn't win an appeal.

Do you have any references to the alleged change to the appeals process

It was in the paper. It's also on the AFL website

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=aflpubln&spg=aflinfosheetdisplay&articleid=17640

"The appeals process:
A player, a club and the AFL's general manager-football operations can appeal a Tribunal decision. The player or club must lodge a completed Notice of Appeal with the secretary of the Appeals Board by no later than 2pm on the day after the Tribunal decision. The appeal must be accompanied by a non-refundable payment of $5000 to cover costs of the appeal and an extra payment of $10,000. If the appeal is upheld, the $10,000 is refunded. If it is dismissed, the board has the discretion to refund the $10,000 as it sees fit. The Appeals Board may confirm, reverse or modify a decision of the AFL Tribunal and make such orders and give such directions as it thinks fit. If a player or club wishes to present new evidence after an AFL Tribunal decision has been handed down, the board will hear evidence as a new hearing. An appeal is decided on a majority decision of the Appeals Board. "

So clubs can present new evidence if they wish, but are no longer compelled to do so.

or do you just make this sort of stuff up as you go along Dave?

Do you have any refernces to the 19-1 free kick you've been crapping on about for the past week or do you just make that sort of stuff up as you go along Mark?

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Dave

Either they didn't know the new rule or they felt without new evidence they wouldn't win an appeal.

Actually, what they said at the time (from memory) was that there was no point to any appeal without new evidence. So I guess you could read into that than an appeal without new evidence is possible, but pointless (in their view).

It was in the paper. It's also on the AFL website

The Appeals Board may confirm, reverse or modify a decision of the AFL Tribunal and make such orders and give such directions as it thinks fit. If a player or club wishes to present new evidence after an AFL Tribunal decision has been handed down, the board will hear evidence as a new hearing. An appeal is decided on a majority decision of the Appeals Board. "

So clubs can present new evidence if they wish, but are no longer compelled to do so.

Again, you can read that into what was reported if you like, but it does not directly say what you conclude it says, and also (even if you put your twist on it Dave) it doesn't hold much promise of any reversal if there is no new evidence.

Do you have any refernces to the 19-1 free kick you've been crapping on about for the past week or do you just make that sort of stuff up as you go along Mark?

No, I don't have any references other than my memory, but then again since I am quoting someone else here then no, I am not just making it up. My memory does concur with what this other person is saying, but it is possible that both he/she and I have got it wrong.

Unlikely, but possible.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Originally posted by Crowaholic
Yeah you obviously punch the opposition in the face now huh?

Yeah that is what I said. Dumbarse.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Actually, what they said at the time (from memory) was that there was no point to any appeal without new evidence. So I guess you could read into that than an appeal without new evidence is possible, but pointless (in their view).

Sounds reasonable.

Again, you can read that into what was reported if you like, but it does not directly say what you conclude it says

It does not specifically say that new evidence is required to appeal. If that was the case I would expect that to be spelt out in black and white. The appeals system now is a rehearing of the case from scratch, not just a review of new evidence as was the old. That was made pretty clear in the paper article I read. As the age charges for it's archival search I haven't been able to find a link to it. What's on the AFL's website is clear enough to me.

, and also (even if you put your twist on it Dave) it doesn't hold much promise of any reversal if there is no new evidence.

That may well be the case but that wasn't the issue under discussion.

No, I don't have any references other than my memory, but then again since I am quoting someone else here then no, I am not just making it up. My memory does concur with what this other person is saying, but it is possible that both he/she and I have got it wrong.

Unlikely, but possible.

LOL! I watched the game again the other night. Free count was 14-5