Review Round 18, 2019 - Brisbane Lions vs. North Melbourne

[chopperduck]

Sorry for the intrusion but I cant think how the teeth clattering makes any difference.
Was there any injury to be reported? To give him a week and not even fine for such a thing that has been thrown out with elbows Fyfe & Ablett earlier in the year.
Definitely needed the "I've been polling well in our wins" argument to get it over the line.

Was no injury report. He received no treatment for the injury during the game or since, wasn't even looked at.

 

[M Malice]

What does his statement add to Harris’s case? The film and umpire report are as clear as you can get.

We all know players don’t rat out their fellow players so to be honest I have no issue with it.

Was the contact intentional and high? Was it low impact? It’s yes to all 3 and a weeks rest for Harris.

You’re blind if you think a deliberate elbow to a guy throat is the same as Abletts.

It’s closer to Martin’s suspension.

Players in the past have been allowed to tender a statement.

I'm happy for you that you have unwavering faith in the consistency of flog Christian and the tribunal.

 

[braddsey]

The determining fact that got him suspended is that they graded it high enough impact to warrant a suspension. It was intentional, which it was. Even if you don't aim for someones head, if you lift your arm you are responsible for where it lands, no problem with viewing it like that. It was high, yes it was. Did it hit his arm first, doesn't matter, he smacked him in the throat it counts. Again, no issues there. But to rule that, as being hard enough to suspend a player, especially a player who bugger all record is what i can't understand. It wasn't even 2 players running towards each other, his opponent ran to him to put a block on, he put his arm up to basically fend him off. I just don't understand how this gets viewed as a strike hard enough to suspend someone. Especially when you look at other incidents this season which have been thrown out for insufficient force, there is just no consistency.

I would argue it's careless rather than intentional. I would also argue insufficient force.

Rhys Matherson's was intentional - low impact.
There was less in this than Ablett's hit on Dylan Shiel...

 

[The Dodger]

Was no injury report. He received no treatment for the injury during the game or since, wasn't even looked at.

So how have they come to the conclusion the force warranted a suspension? And how is something like that not a fine at worst?
Just bizarre... and around and round we go.

 

[Dylan12]

I honestly think is the most contentious point. Leading up to the incident Harris was manning up on Brown. Larkey wasn't part of the equation, he came running in directly at Andrews. He's then gone the fend off, and for all you or anyone who isn't Andrews and Larkey knows, it could have been intended for across the shoulders and was flung high by accident. Unfortunately they denied a key statement, one of which has been allowed in other incidents in the same season. That there is also cause for concern - if you're going to adjudicate all incidents fair and equally then at least hold them to the same standards for allowing supporting evidence. Why did this one get refused but earlier in the same season was totally fine?

You could almost argue that McInerney should've been suspended for the free to Brown (that wasn't a free) given that he too put his arm out and collected Brown high.

If we are really going to suspend guys for this, then there should be a lot more suspensions being dished out on a weekly basis. What gets me is that the AFL wants players suspended for incidents like this yet it is happy to sign off on players elbowing guys in the head like Ablett did many times and Cunnington and the likes just sucker punching guys in the guts and getting them good. Hell we saw Linc McCarthy a few weeks ago get absolutely gut punched requiring assistance from trainers and was down for minutes and the offender got a miserly fine. The system is seriously wrong.

 

[Dom PC]

The determining fact that got him suspended is that they graded it high enough impact to warrant a suspension. It was intentional, which it was. Even if you don't aim for someones head, if you lift your arm you are responsible for where it lands, no problem with viewing it like that. It was high, yes it was. Did it hit his arm first, doesn't matter, he smacked him in the throat it counts. Again, no issues there. But to rule that, as being hard enough to suspend a player, especially a player who bugger all record is what i can't understand. It wasn't even 2 players running towards each other, his opponent ran to him to put a block on, he put his arm up to basically fend him off. I just don't understand how this gets viewed as a strike hard enough to suspend someone. Especially when you look at other incidents this season which have been thrown out for insufficient force, there is just no consistency.

"He put his arm up to fend him off bumping him, your honour".... bang, no worries, there is enough to suggest that was what was happening. If we argued that Andrews plays this weekend. That argument is so obvious... unless someone is dumb enough to believe Andrews intentionally lifted him arm to strike him in the head...

Amateur hour by our legal team.

 

[spotthedog1]

I don't like to be the one to do it, but it's the VFL.

- They've copped it from the media about their weak-as-piss "crackdown" on striking
- They've decided that it's time to actually start doing something about it. Can't change the rules mid-season. Instead just change the interpretation in retrospect. Can't do that to a club who have any clout though, because that's bad media. Instead:
- Use the interstate club as the message.

Completely ridiculous. Hope the club appeal the tribunal verdict on the grounds that an error of law has occurred, and that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision with regard to the evidence before it.

Costs $5,000 to appeal. Lions_Insider - if the club want to set up a donation page, I'm sure we'd raise that in no time.

 

[Dylan12]

 

[M Malice]

Still can't believe Harris got a suspension for that feather touch when you consider what has been let through to the keeper this season, ah well not much can be done about it now. I need to call stumps for the night before I explode, nighty night.

 

[Dom PC]

Lions_Insider - surely this decision is appealed!?!?!

How can the Ablett and Fyfe scenarios be cleared and not Harris????

It's obvious what Harris's intention was (to fend off the incoming bump).

The kick Zorko got on the weekend was enough for him to push his whole bodyweight backwards. And yet that results in a $1,000 fine.... yet Harris's accidental light knock to the guys chin results in a weeks suspension...

God I hope we can and do appeal this decision... the kid was stunned for maybe 3 seconds and ended up taking his set shot...

Just seems so wrong that Harris gets a week for such an incidental, unintentional and innocuous act.

 

[Paul Mac]

i would love a 30 mins or full show session on AFL 360 with only Michael Christian on with Robbo and going over alot of the decisions and non decisions that have been handed down by the MRP this year. Seriously Robbo would go off his head in the studio with Christians decisions this year. Would be great watching and would be interesting to see if he had the balls to say yeah in hindsight maybe we got a few wrong when you compare some of these now. If the umpires are put in the spotlight for wrong decisions why cant the head of the MRP as well. They wanted transparency and consistency for everyone this year , as usual chook lotto followed.

 

[spotthedog1]

Lions_Insider - surely this decision is appealed!?!?!

How can the Ablett and Fyfe scenarios be cleared and not Harris????

It's obvious what Harris's intention was (to fend off the incoming bump).

The kick Zorko got on the weekend was enough for him to push his whole bodyweight backwards. And yet that results in a $1,000 fine.... yet Harris's accidental light knock to the guys chin results in a weeks suspension...

God I hope we can and do appeal this decision... the kid was stunned for maybe 3 seconds and ended up taking his set shot...

Just seems so wrong that Harris gets a week for such an incidental, unintentional and innocuous act.

I just think it's ridiculous that Larkey was banned from testifying because he might lie to the tribunal. As far as legal precedent goes, that's terrifying. I know - football, not the fate of humanity - but still, it's an absolute farce. That alone would likely be enough to overturn any verdict on grounds of legal error. If Gleeson had evidence of coercion, he'd have to present that. Simply saying that he might feel compelled to lie is just stupid.

 

[bungalow_bill]

If we are paying and getting lawyers for this, better get a good one next time. Hopeless.

Charges 100K but he's the best

 

[Dylan12]

 

[Dylan12]

Harris Andrews advocate tonight:

 

[lionsrules]

I remember in 2003, Brown got reported and leigh and he flew down to Melbourne. I knew they would beat the charge not beacuse the incident happened after the quarter time siren but because Leigh was wearing a Don Vito Corleone cream colour suit jacket. Wear the jacket
Noble #Bosshunting

 

[Brett C]

Take away whatever Harris did and whatever the outcome was ,he was hopelessly briefed and represented,there are several important factors raised here that weren't brought up.

We allowed that to happen. The club should now take a stand and show that we have the right to be adjudicated on like Collingwood ,Geelong or Richmond.

I'd appeal and get a proper lawyer . That's unless the grounds of appeal can only relate to whatever evidence was presented,in which case don't waste our money ,we just stuffed up.

Yeah good call.

Do you even know the guy who appeared on behalf of Harris?

https://www.northquarterlanechambers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Gavin-Handran-CV-2017-1.pdf

One of the best lawyers in the country and has appeared on behalf of the Lions since 2012.

Baffles me when people who have no idea call into questions processionals in their field.

 

[FLVanLandingham]

Is there a full transcript provided or a feed of the proceedings we can see? The short summaries in that live thread by the AFL just make it so...unnecessarily annoying.

Reading The Age article about it:

However Mr Gleeson implored the tribunal chairman to deny the tendering of Larkey’s testimony.

Mr Gleeson cited the tribunal regulations which state clearly that evidence from a victim player should not generally be allowed.

“Victim players feel compelled to give evidence that doesn’t ... unduly make life more difficult for a charged player,” Mr Gleeson said.

“We’ve heard players over the decades say ‘there wasn’t much in it’ when they’ve turned up with two black eyes.”

So the tribunal regulations state a victim player witness can only be called if yada yada:

Leave will be granted if the Chairman is satisfied that the Player’s case will be prejudiced or disadvantaged if the Victim Player’s evidence is not called.

And so decided..

The Tribunal chairman, Ross Howie, has sided with Gleeson, saying it doesn't matter where the strike ultimately made contact: "A strike is a strike."

I'm not entirely sure if Andrews case was disadvantaged by not reading the witness statement, if they are deciding any strike is a strike.... but surely a player can describe the event of blocking a player and the reactions by players to push off and stay with their opponent is common in play? I don't know.... it just seems silly.

 

[mpal6]

Yeah good call.

Do you even know the guy who appeared on behalf of Harris?

https://www.northquarterlanechambers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Gavin-Handran-CV-2017-1.pdf

One of the best lawyers in the country and has appeared on behalf of the Lions since 2012.

Baffles me when people who have no idea call into questions processionals in their field.

Either we went in overconfident or under prepared. It's plain for all to see.

From what I read - The fact Harris did not even bring up his own brain bleed and subsequent time out from game in order to build credibility around how serious he takes high contact, his clean record around no priors and his genuine remorse on this event - shows a clear lack of preparation from our end.

 

[martinson]

Either we went in overconfident or under prepared. It's plain for all to see.

From what I read - The fact Harris did not even bring up his own brain bleed and subsequent time out from game in order to build credibility around how serious he takes high contact, his clean record around no priors and his genuine remorse on this event - shows a clear lack of preparation from our end.

100%

 

[Brett C]

Either we went in overconfident or under prepared. It's plain for all to see.

From what I read - The fact Harris did not even bring up his own brain bleed and subsequent time out from game in order to build credibility around how serious he takes high contact, his clean record around no priors and his genuine remorse on this event - shows a clear lack of preparation from our end.

Lol or could it be simply that Harris was guilty of the charge.

I’m guessing you’re a lawyer and have appears in front of the AFL tribunal on a number of occasions.

If the points above were relevant then they would have been raised.

But keep on thinking us numptys know better than the club and the highly experienced lawyer lol

 

[martinson]

Either we went in overconfident or under prepared. It's plain for all to see.

From what I read - The fact Harris did not even bring up his own brain bleed and subsequent time out from game in order to build credibility around how serious he takes high contact, his clean record around no priors and his genuine remorse on this event - shows a clear lack of preparation from our end.

This is becoming bigger than the Big O goal,but it's just plain annoying.

Perhaps the club could give the members an explanation and apologies to the lawyer if he wasn't properly briefed or just did what he thought was best and it didn't work out

 

[Brett C]

Well mate I'm only going on the feed that came through and we barely presented a case at all with several key factors overlooked or just considered not worth our trouble.

I've known many great lawyers in my time and seen them make a meal of it plenty of times in far more important cases than this.

Perhaps he himself wasn't thoroughly consulted. Did he actually appear ? Surely no one told Harris to say he heard the guys teeth chatter.

But 'one of the best lawyers in the country' ....full credit to the guy for whatever he's achieved but perleeeze. The best lawyers in the country have a lot more important things to do than represent a footy player at a tribunal appeal.

Seriously do you think they told Harris to use that phrase?? It’s highly unlikely they did.

Read the link and educate yourself, plenty of people are involved with footy clubs because they love the game or the club.

I’m guessing you think our club doc is Dr Nick Riviera because why would a decent doctor would have more important things to do.

 

[martinson]

Lol or could it be simply that Harris was guilty of the charge.

I’m guessing you’re a lawyer and have appears in front of the AFL tribunal on a number of occasions.

If the points above were relevant then they would have been raised.

But keep on thinking us numptys know better than the club and the highly experienced lawyer lol

Brett I've dealt with all manner of lawyers and one thing I don't do is think that they know any better than anyone else how a case is going to work out.

Generally they do their best based on their professional experience but don't ever think it means they're going to be right. As any lawyer worth his salt will tell you

The points were self evidently relevant . Perhaps there is a good reason they weren't raised . Or perhaps we just got the tenor of the whole thing wrong.

Either way it's disappointing

 

[mpal6]

Lol or could it be simply that Harris was guilty of the charge.

I’m guessing you’re a lawyer and have appears in front of the AFL tribunal on a number of occasions.

If the points above were relevant then they would have been raised.

But keep on thinking us numptys know better than the club and the highly experienced lawyer lol

Let me be a numpty on this and you can keep backing "experience" of that lawyer. We just have to agree to disagree. My view is we could have done a lot more than how it was presented here.. may be the lawyer thought it's easy work and we got our pants pulled down by clatter evidence.

‘You don’t offer evidence like that’

Brisbane defender Harris Andrews has failed in his bid to overturn his one-match ban for striking North Melbourne youngster Nick Larkey.

www.news.com.au

More media people share the same view, Harris gave an evidence that brought him undone. May be the experienced lawyer slipped up for once? Slim possibility this could be possible too ? No chance at all ?