Eagle....?

[Pembleton]

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.

They probably wouldn't have bothered except Eagle was not eligible for the plea discount, so there was nothing to lose.

My problem with the whole thing is that 'jumper punches' seem to be AFL approved 'free hits'.

 

[gohardorgohome]

Eagle got Tarrent flush on the jaw. Pity he didnt do it harder and knock him out to make the suspension worthwhile!!!

(Now thats not politically correct is it?? Too bad I grew up in the '70s and 80's,,,,,,,Reg Regan has got it right........bring back the biff)

 

[Go_Dogs]

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.

Whilst not a court of law, the procedures, defences etc are all very similar and based around the procedures of Australian law courts. Provocation will not work in the Tribunal, at least unless it was extremely mitigating circumstances but they would have to be very extreme I feel.