Jimmy's appeal

[benny's buddy]

What are people expecting tonight?

I reckon he'll get the two week suspension reduced to one, while the one week suspension will stand.

Here's hoping, anyway...

 

[Fall Out Boy]

I don't know what to expect.

The appeals board is as inconsistent as the main tribunal, so anything could happen, from him getting off completely, to having a week added on.

 

[JUBJUB]

I think he's more of a chance to get off the striking charge.

 

[Rodion]

I'd guess he's got a 50/50 chance of getting the striking charge annulled, and a 1/3 chance of getting the rough play reduced by a week. Not much chance of getting any additional weeks added on.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

I'd guess he's got a 50/50 chance of getting the striking charge annulled, and a 1/3 chance of getting the rough play reduced by a week. Not much chance of getting any additional weeks added on.

Commonsense says that's about right, but the appeals board is simply too unpredictable to even contemplate looking at his chances.

 

[Catman]

I'm more hoping than expecting that he'll have the striking charge penalty erased and he'll just miss the last two matches of the H&A rounds. That is the best case scenario as I just can't see him having the striking charge penalty wiped out and have the rough play penalty reduced by a week.

*Fingers crossed*

 

[GeeCat]

I'm more hoping than expecting that he'll have the striking charge penalty erased and he'll just miss the last two matches of the H&A rounds. That is the best case scenario as I just can't see him having the striking charge penalty wiped out and have the rough play penalty reduced by a week.

*Fingers crossed*

Took the words right out of my mouth

 

[Fall Out Boy]

If the second charge goes the same way as the first, in the end this will cost Jimmy 3 games, and the club $30,000.

Got to love the AFL, money hungry **********.

 

[jim boy]

I don't know that the $15,000 fee is outlandish. If it was much less, everybody who was ever found guilty would be appealing, making the tribunal a greater farce than it already is. What does seem strange though, is that even if the case is overturned, you still have to fork out a fair whack, $5000 IIRC.

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Jimmy got off the second charge, so he can play in finals

 

[jim boy]

Jimmy got off the second charge, so he can play in finals

Only if we beat Port this weekend

 

[Ricketts]

Jimmy got off the second charge, so he can play in finals

great news!

 

[GeeCat]

Excellent news

 

[LongBomb]

Yes - great news. I have been sweating on this one!

 

[you_idiot]

And here it is, officially, online in black and white...

Bartel suspension trimmed -- afl.com.au

Bartel suspension trimmed
9:42:41 PM
Thu 19 August, 2004
Samantha Lane
Sportal

In-form Geelong midfielder James Bartel is free to play in his side's first final after his one-match suspension for striking was overturned by the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday night.

But the Cats unsuccessfully appealed his two-match suspension for rough play on Fremantle's Troy Longmuir and will pay $22,500 for the exercise.

The club's football manager Garry Davidson said after the hearing that the money was well spent, as Bartel, one of the Cats best performers this season, would be a valuable addition come September. He was the fourth player to beat a charge this year.

"We now give him the opportunity to play finals footy, so he will have two weeks off, train up and get ready for finals footy," Davidson said after the Appeal Board's prolonged deliberation.

In the striking case, Bartel's advocate Ian Findlay cast sufficient doubt over the extent of the Cat's contact with the face of Docker Dylan Smith during a fourth quarter incident at Skilled Stadium last Saturday.

The Geelong defence disputed the evidence that umpire Matthew James presented at Tuesday night's Tribunal hearing, with Findlay describing the umpire's version of events as a 'physical impossibility'.

James was 15 metres away from Bartel when he witnessed the attempted shepherd, but told the Tribunal that Bartel's swinging left arm had made contact with Smith's right cheekbone. The umpire was not required to resubmit his evidence on Thursday night.

"Given the players' positioning it is a physical impossibility for him to hit his right cheekbone," Findlay said.

"Smith would have had to have turned his head."

And the Appeals Board panel concurred.

"We simply take a different view of the facts than the tribunal," chairman Peter O'Callaghan said.

However the panel found no reason to overturn either the guilty verdict or two-match penalty handed down by the Tribunal in the rough play case, for which he was reported by two umpires.

And it reiterated the Tribunal's finding that the fortnight's suspension was a minimum penalty for this type of offence.

It took just over ten minutes for the Appeals Board panel to reach the decision that the charge would be sustained.

"We cannot disagree with the Tribunal that high contact was made and that it was unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances," O'Callaghan said.

The Cats called Australian Institute of Sport bio-mechanist Mark Sayers, who has also worked as an impact skills coach for the Wallabies and several AFL clubs, to provide additional evidence, and used enhanced video footage of the incident.

Sayers told the Appeals Board that both Longmuir and Bartel were guilty of 'clumsy' actions and said the Fremantle player had ducked his head before Bartel crashed into him front-on.

Bartel again argued that he believed Longmuir would stand up after gaining possession of the ball rather than continuing to move forward with his head down and body hunched.

He said he pulled his right hand to his stomach region in an attempt to protect himself and that he had no option than to make contact with him.