Universal Love Giants ‘4’ Justice - The ‘Free Toby’ Vigil

Remove this Banner Ad

Ichabod Noodle

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 13, 2011
8,990
13,066
The Riff
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Raiders, Brumbies
Morris reporting that the Giants were disallowed from presenting the Fritsch case as precedent because Kangaroo Court - correction, Tribunal - rules disallow current season examples being presented.

The appeal is going to be red hot.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
And the case up immediately afterwards showed 6 previous examples as part of their defence

absolute bulls#*t
 

Log in to remove this ad.

kool kangas

Premium Platinum
Sep 2, 2007
3,965
2,905
Burnside
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
North Melbourne Vfl
Hi everyone, just dropped in to say l hope he gets off. Toby seems to be a latter version of Dermot Brereton when he was playing. He's a great player and always attracts attention. To me he first hit Dangerfied in the chest and when Dangerfield slipped then his elbow went high...Good luck and l hope you make the finals..
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
41,422
34,905
AFL Club
GWS
So if i am reading this right, the tribunal have allowed Franklin to cite the Fritsch incident as precedent, but haven't allowed Greene to do the same?

That absolutely stink to high hell

Your club will rightfully appeal and Greene will get off. Justice shall be done
Even funnier/enraging, the Very next case they ruled on they allowed precedent to be looked at.
 

ClockworkOrange

Club Legend
Jan 30, 2016
1,093
1,731
AFL Club
GWS
360 tonight

Whateley: This was a more experienced Judiciary panel and they’ve made a BETTER decision [re Toby].

King: No, they’ve made a DIFFERENT decision to all the others this year. What a mess. What a disaster. Another ridiculous matrix table cock-up that will severely effect the finals.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Paul Mac

All Australian
Jun 5, 2016
760
1,358
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
So if i am reading this right, the tribunal have allowed Franklin to cite the Fritsch incident as precedent, but haven't allowed Greene to do the same?

That absolutely stink to high hell

Your club will rightfully appeal and Greene will get off. Justice shall be done
Watching 360 tonight they mentioned GWS were allowed to show previous incidents this year but it was GWS choice they didn't. Completely different to what have been hearing. I am so confused.
 

ClockworkOrange

Club Legend
Jan 30, 2016
1,093
1,731
AFL Club
GWS
Watching 360 tonight they mentioned GWS were allowed to show previous incidents this year but it was GWS choice they didn't. Completely different to what have been hearing. I am so confused.
Yes, confusion reigns on all fronts re the VFL’s Toby hunt.

Tom Morris reported the “Giants not allowed to show 2021 precedents” live on The Couch earlier this week and was then discussed by Brown, N Riewoldt, etc immediately afterwards.

So when Whateley tonight suggests that’s incorrect and N Riewoldt looks confused, that’s because it directly contradicts Morris.

Clear as mud.

It will be interesting to see what case is presented on appeal, and whether that draws in the Fritsch and Buddy precedents.

I imagine you can’t appeal by simply representing the exact same case for the defence of Toby.

So perhaps these 2021 examples become ‘new information’ that must be considered on appeal?

All that’s missing from this web of VFL intrigue is a full ‘12 Angry Men’-style jury wrestle.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ClockworkOrange

Club Legend
Jan 30, 2016
1,093
1,731
AFL Club
GWS
It’s very telling how all aspects of the ‘Toby Tax’ point back to the Cats CEO Hocking.

Who established the current MRO/Judiciary process?

To whom is Chrisso indebted to for his career at VFL HQ?

Reported this week that Dangerfield was prepared to give evidence for Toby, but blocked by who in management at the Cats?

Who signed off on Danger having no case to answer for his GF punch on Vlaustin?

Who oversaw the Judiciary member selection for the Fritsch and Buddy cases, which were different to those used against Toby?

Who was Chrisso really thinking about when he let Selwood walk and singled out Toby?

Who is Whateley’s favourite CEO?

The injustice of the ‘Toby Tax’ is a Cat-astrophe for the credibility of the AFL.

Last chance tonight for a new Judiciary panel to overturn this gross injustice, or the AFL MRO judiciary system is going to collapse.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Callums_Guns

Community Leader
Feb 26, 2019
13,902
20,560
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Phila 76ers, Mt Buller Demons
Last edited:

Gigantic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 31, 2014
11,121
13,808
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Rabbitohs, LFC, PHX
The Giants are now arguing there was an error in law with the Tribunal applying the "wrong test" to see if Greene was careless.


Giants pointing to the transcript from the Tribunal hearing, where the chairman says the jury decided that Greene chose to raise his elbow when contact was likely.

They then point to the rules around what 'careless' means at the Tribunal - "where his conduct is not intentional but is a breach of the duty of care to all other players". It also mentions a "reportable offence", and "to breach the duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not believe it to be prudent in the circumstances ... or to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen".


Giants are saying that the reason given by the Tribunal jury "discloses that it applied the wrong test" to determine whether the conduct was careless.

So this argument is really going into the wording of the rules. The jury said there was a "realistic probability" Greene would make contact. Giants arguing they shouldn't even be worrying about that, rather whether the conduct was a breach of the duty of care/was something a reasonable player would not believe to be prudent.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad