Eagle....?

[Dogs_r_barking]

Has anyone heard anything on how Eagle went at the Tribunal?

 

[Choco 33]

Out for two matches.
http://sportal.com.au/default.aspx/afl-news-display/eagleton-out-for-two

 

[Ted's Robot]

Bad luck Eagle, I bet he is wondering how Tarrant got away with his punch but he didn't. Just another case of the inconsistent tribunal, what is the bet Rocca gets cleared.

 

[rapidshave]

I bet he is wondering how Tarrant got away with his punch but he didn't.

Tarrant's was a jumper punch, legal. Stupid I know.

 

[Pembleton]

I knew he had no hope when i saw that they were arguing that it wasn't intentional. It clearly was.

 

[skooshtamart]

They should have pleaded accidental contact.

Eagle's fist accidently let go of Tarrants jumper

 

[Ted's Robot]

Tarrant's was a jumper punch, legal. Stupid I know.

Yes I agree, as soon as I saw he didn't have hold of the jumper, I knew he was in trouble. He is unlucky because it was just an automatic reaction, when someone hits you, you usually hit them back.

BTW I can't believe Rocca got 2, he is unlucky also, but the AFL did say that if the Gia and Kosi incident happened this season, it would be reportable.
He should have taken the 1 game.

 

[Wind Sock]

They should have pleaded accidental contact.

Eagle's fist accidently let go of Tarrants jumper

I think that's accidental lack of contact actually.

Nice try though.

 

[Unnamed1]

It's worth having Eagle miss a couple just to see a Collingwood player (especially Rocca) take on a charge and lose for a change.

 

[Reveler]

good stuff

did the crime, does the time.

 

[John Gent]

good stuff

did the crime, does the time.

Tarrant will also do his time - now that the whole football world knows he can't fight - a bit like Ezzard and Capper all those years ago.

Now everybody including the boot-studder will be having a crack at him.

 

[Butane]

good stuff

did the crime, does the time.

Norr, what the hell is with cheeky Freo supporters this week? Why can't they keep their own thoughts to their own board. Lot of respect lost for them this week, and their team.

 

[Ant_]

You had respect for those fools?

 

[The Coon Dog]

You had respect for those fools?

Fair call.

 

[Pigdog]

Norr, what the hell is with cheeky Freo supporters this week? Why can't they keep their own thoughts to their own board. Lot of respect lost for them this week, and their team.

Agree that he should stick to his own board, but what he has said is spot on...

 

[G-Mo77]

I didn't realise what a nice flush punch he threw at Tarrant. I was half cut at the time while watching it and just thought it was a jumper punch. It was a nice blow, got him in the right spot and had he thrown it a little harder he may have dropped the big sook.

I guess there was no harm in appealling the charge, it didn't lessen or extend his charge so why not.

 

[dogs...]

he smacked him good, im sure he made thousands of people jealous, but what the hell?! tarrant hit eagle first, pretty obvious! should tarrant get done for the initial contact? seems common sense but somehow that is something the tribunal seriously lacks... rocca gets done for a hip and shoulder haha lets go play netball

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I heard nothing about Eagles tribunal hearing or the repercussions for us if we loose our next two games. All I heard about was rocca, rocca, rocca, from the squealing pies. Is there 10 clubs in Victoria or only one

 

[G-Mo77]

I heard nothing about Eagles tribunal hearing or the repercussions for us if we loose our next two games. All I heard about was rocca, rocca, rocca, from the squealing pies. Is there 10 clubs in Victoria or only one

I prefer it that way too.

The less the spotlight is on us the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I prefer it that way too.

The less the spotlight is on us the better as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I know you are right.

I'm just irritated because I drove home tonight listening to SEN 1116 - and aside from a brief mention of the tennis all they talked about for an hour and 15 minutes was Rocca - even suggesting that Loewe shouldn't have been on the tribunal panel because the pies play the saints next week - how unbiased is that

 

[geoffjennings79]

Rather than accidental contact, why didn't he plead guilty under provocation??

 

[dales.girl38]

Rather than accidental contact, why didn't he plead guilty under provocation??

I think the AFL said after the Headland/Selwood case that it would not be a precedent for following incidents, which makes no sense but I guess it stops players from using it every single time and getting off.

 

[Unnamed1]

Rather than accidental contact, why didn't he plead guilty under provocation??

Provocation is not a defence at law (I'm aware that a tribunal such as the AFL is not exactly a court room though). For example, if you walk into a pub, the bloke at the bar hurls an appalling insult at you about your family and you subsequently belt him - you can't claim provocation. There is no such defence. You've assaulted the bloke, regardless of what he said and are liable for the assault.

It may be a consideration in sentencing - but never to the point where there is no effective punishment.

You can only plead guilty and argue there were mitigating factors which may partially explain your actions.

Despite the Headland incident, a player isn't really going to be able to get any discount. In that case, the AFL were just soft and took the easy route out. It was a case of non-legal minded people attempting (and failing) to take on a judicial role and use legal jargon.

Such gross inconsistency is always a problem when you have tribunals comprising primarily of ex-players.

 

[Pembleton]

Provocation is not a defence at law (I'm aware that a tribunal such as the AFL is not exactly a court room though). For example, if you walk into a pub, the bloke at the bar hurls an appalling insult at you about your family and you subsequently belt him - you can't claim provocation. There is no such defence. You've assaulted the bloke, regardless of what he said and are liable for the assault.

It may be a consideration in sentencing - but never to the point where there is no effective punishment.

You can only plead guilty and argue there were mitigating factors which may partially explain your actions.

Despite the Headland incident, a player isn't really going to be able to get any discount. In that case, the AFL were just soft and took the easy route out. It was a case of non-legal minded people attempting (and failing) to take on a judicial role and use legal jargon.

Such gross inconsistency is always a problem when you have tribunals comprising primarily of ex-players.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of what you have said, but i don't see how it relates to this case. As you say, the tribunal is not a court, and he wasn't trying to get off a criminal charge, so it does not matter at all that you can't get off an assault charge on the basis of provocation.

The tribunal is a panel of ex footy players, not judges. They recently let someone off because of provocation. So i think making an argument along the lines that its fair enough to throw a punch back at someone who has just punched you (and still has a hold of you) was worth a shot.

PS. Media reports seemed not to mention the provocation angle, but according to Eade on SEN tonight it was a part of the club's argument.

 

[Unnamed1]

I'm not questioning the accuracy of what you have said, but i don't see how it relates to this case. As you say, the tribunal is not a court, and he wasn't trying to get off a criminal charge, so it does not matter at all that you can't get off an assault charge on the basis of provocation.

The tribunal is a panel of ex footy players, not judges. They recently let someone off because of provocation. So i think making an argument along the lines that its fair enough to throw a punch back at someone who has just punched you (and still has a hold of you) was worth a shot.

PS. Media reports seemed not to mention the provocation angle, but according to Eade on SEN tonight it was a part of the club's argument.

Point taken and appreciated. I guess I was commenting broadly to the recent rise in the (mis)use of the term.

I also agree you'd run the argument, it certainly wouldn't harm your case. It's (being swung at) nothing WA players aren't used to these days anyway.