Chris Fagan
Debutant
Today the Brisbane Lions went to the tribunal to contest the Harris Andrews suspension. For those unfamiliar with the incident, you can see it here.
It seems that the suspension was made by considering the umpire's match-day report, plus some very low-quality vision that was not televised. There is no high-res footage of the incident. Given the lack of definitive evidence, it seemed reasonable for Brisbane to challenge the suspension.
As we know, the suspension was upheld. This outcome is okay, but the way that the tribunal operated today is not. Consider the following excerpt:
Brisbane has asked to read a statement made by Nick Larkey. However, Gleeson has opposed this, arguing that the victim often feels compelled to protect the accused player in their evidence. He argues the vision is clear enough to show there is contact to the neck/throat region of Larkey.
In a case built on low-quality vision and a word of mouth testimony from the umpire, the AFL Tribunal refused to hear a statement from the player that Harris was accused of striking. This just seems broken.
It seems that the suspension was made by considering the umpire's match-day report, plus some very low-quality vision that was not televised. There is no high-res footage of the incident. Given the lack of definitive evidence, it seemed reasonable for Brisbane to challenge the suspension.
As we know, the suspension was upheld. This outcome is okay, but the way that the tribunal operated today is not. Consider the following excerpt:
Brisbane has asked to read a statement made by Nick Larkey. However, Gleeson has opposed this, arguing that the victim often feels compelled to protect the accused player in their evidence. He argues the vision is clear enough to show there is contact to the neck/throat region of Larkey.
In a case built on low-quality vision and a word of mouth testimony from the umpire, the AFL Tribunal refused to hear a statement from the player that Harris was accused of striking. This just seems broken.
