Precedent question?

[Maddo11]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-02/accidental-contact-ok-mrp-chairman

MATCH Review Panel chairman Mark Fraser says there was a clear precedent used in the decision to take no action against North Melbourne's Lindsay Thomas.

Oh dear. So for the last two years, the MRP have been stressing that each incident will be judged on its merits, not on any decision previously made. Yeah?

I don't mind this change in position.

However, does this now mean that precedent can be taken into account for defences at the tribunal? This seems like the logical next step, but has any official word been given on this yet? Or are they flying by the seat of their pants?Or will this open the door for a cunning lawyer to take legal action to get a player off on some technical loophole?

If the door doesn't open both ways, it just doesn't seem quite right.

 

[kickazz]

Well spotted. Not sure if he slipped up there or if we have to watch this space .......

 

[D-N-R]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-02/accidental-contact-ok-mrp-chairman



Oh dear. So for the last two years, the MRP have been stressing that each incident will be judged on its merits, not on any decision previously made. Yeah?

I don't mind this change in position.

However, does this now mean that precedent can be taken into account for defences at the tribunal? This seems like the logical next step, but has any official word been given on this yet? Or are they flying by the seat of their pants?Or will this open the door for a cunning lawyer to take legal action to get a player off on some technical loophole?

If the door doesn't open both ways, it just doesn't seem quite right.

No. He didn't say that they used a previous decision as a precedent when deciding this particular case i.e. they didn't evaluate this case based on a previous case.

He said that there has been at least one instance before (i.e. a preceding incident) when an accidental head clash has been ruled as an accident (and consequently no charge) and that this Thomas case - despite the nonsense spoken by coaches, media 'experts' and fans - hasn't changed the way the tribunal evaluates these types of incidents.

They have come to the decision based on an evaluation of this particular case using the same criteria they used on the previous case and arriving at the same outcome.

 

[Prudster]

It really sums up the process though, doesn't it? You can be reported based on precedent, but you cannot bring precedent into your defence. Basically, it's just another way that the AFL keep complete control, and not give anyone a way to challenge their inconsistencies.