- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Posts
- 3,435
- Reaction score
- 2,717
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Space
"Trial by Video" - remember when that term was in common usage? It seems to have fallen from favour now as the practice has become the norm.
Anyway, recently I was scouring some microfilm researching something non-footy related, when this piece caught my eye. I thought some old-time fans may find it interesting.
From The Herald (Melbourne) May 14th 1964 (no reporter byline).
Incidents on Film? - It Goes Both Ways
Former Melbourne ruckman Bob Johnson, now captain-coach of East Fremantle broke new ground before the WA tribunal recently when he produced a television videotape of an incident.
It didn't help much.
The tribunal described the film as 'inconclusive' and Johnson and Murray Leeder (West Perth) both got two weeks for striking each other.
But this is an interesting move in view of a Melbourne suggestion late last season - following the suspension of captain Ron Barassi - that films should be shown before the VFL tribunal.
Most other clubs didn't share Melbourne's enthusiasm, although VFL delegate discussed it in a special sub-committee.
They came to the conclusion that the general tribunal setup - where films are not allowed - should remain.
The question of introducing films is a controversial one. There's no doubt thosands of supporters will agree, that television replays show incidents that are missed during a game.
But there would be practical as well as semi-legal difficulties. It would have to be proved that the film had not been cut, edited or altered in any way.
And this would mean calling in cameramen and other technicians to certify their part in the film.
And there's another point that obviously caused league delegates to treat films cautiously.
A film would help a player sometimes but other times it would hav the reverse effect.
If film evidence was ever introduced, naturally the tribunal should have the right to call for film at its discretion. Could be rather embarrassing.
-----------------------
Some rather bizarre arguments against its introduction then, I would have thought.
Anyway, recently I was scouring some microfilm researching something non-footy related, when this piece caught my eye. I thought some old-time fans may find it interesting.
From The Herald (Melbourne) May 14th 1964 (no reporter byline).
Incidents on Film? - It Goes Both Ways
Former Melbourne ruckman Bob Johnson, now captain-coach of East Fremantle broke new ground before the WA tribunal recently when he produced a television videotape of an incident.
It didn't help much.
The tribunal described the film as 'inconclusive' and Johnson and Murray Leeder (West Perth) both got two weeks for striking each other.
But this is an interesting move in view of a Melbourne suggestion late last season - following the suspension of captain Ron Barassi - that films should be shown before the VFL tribunal.
Most other clubs didn't share Melbourne's enthusiasm, although VFL delegate discussed it in a special sub-committee.
They came to the conclusion that the general tribunal setup - where films are not allowed - should remain.
The question of introducing films is a controversial one. There's no doubt thosands of supporters will agree, that television replays show incidents that are missed during a game.
But there would be practical as well as semi-legal difficulties. It would have to be proved that the film had not been cut, edited or altered in any way.
And this would mean calling in cameramen and other technicians to certify their part in the film.
And there's another point that obviously caused league delegates to treat films cautiously.
A film would help a player sometimes but other times it would hav the reverse effect.
If film evidence was ever introduced, naturally the tribunal should have the right to call for film at its discretion. Could be rather embarrassing.
-----------------------
Some rather bizarre arguments against its introduction then, I would have thought.
