Play Nice Was that Gaffs last game for WC?

[Strange Cat]

Need to bring back capital punishment to appease the masses here

Yeah best we act like the WCE fans and cry for Gaff

 

[Peel67skin]

Gleeson: "Good people do bad things. It doesn't make them bad people. But the jury's responsibility is to punish the act, not just the person, and the act is very bad

 

[Joey longshadow]

What if he got Brayshaw in the throat?

Yep .. We would be having an entirely different conversation now.. .. They need to send a message to stamp it out completely
State from here on in you get a year ban for this kind of action off off the ball. .
As for Gaff rub him out for 7 which will mean the season even if west coast make the granny. ..
He probably needs to leave west coast ( I know this is on the cards) because to stay now in a two team town he will be copping it from here on in every time he steps out of his house. .. And that's probably not fair but entirely understandable

 

[kaiserchief13]

Let’s see :

Stalker knocked out but played again within 2 weeks ( 10 weeks down to 7 with a 25% off for a guilty plea)

Brayshaw broken jaw, dislodged teeth, surgery required, can’t eat , out for minimum 4-5 weeks

Yeah nah such a poor comparison

Injury should be irrelevant. Hall knocked out a guy who didn't see it coming. He could have killed him. Gaff hit was never going to kill

 

[Smeg Head]

Houli expressed remorse and it was rejected by Lamb, which is his prerogative.

I'm only going on how they treated our player. Is it wrong to want consistency?

The AFL said on appeal that the Tribunal "should only be concerned with upholding the rules that are in place".

They bent them utterly for sniper Cotchin.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

******* joke if he gets more than Hall

Times are different. It's a lot less accepted in society to king hit someone that it was in Hall's era.

 

[Carl Spackler]

******* joke if he gets more than Hall

Really? Brayshaw will lose four, possibly five, teeth and dentists are unsure if they can be replaced with a drilled in tooth. He will require multiple surgeries, the next one in four weeks likely under general, and will be four to five months before recovered.

And Staker? Two weeks missed.

I reckon anything under 16 weeks with the way the injuries are described is a fortunate result for Gaff.

 

[Malifice]

No, that's not my reading at all.

This isn't a court of law. The AFL isn't the state. A lot of AFL structures rely on good faith cooperation of the industry and them not being subjected to real legal challenge.

Playing cops and prosecutors is both the wrong approach and to me undermines what the tribunal should be about.

I respectfully disagree.

The AFL have brought the charge. They're entitled to legal representation, and that lawyer is ethically obligated to prosecute that charge to the best of his ability (within the Rule of Law).

Its not like Gaff doesnt have representation himself. Thats a top Silk standing at his side.

It would cost you or I $5000.00 an hour for representation of that caliber.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Nah. Just saying, you're all free to undertake 5 gruesome years of law school for the privilege of entering a market saturated with young lawyers and struggle to get a job.

It's competitive beyond belief, and a pain in the arse to qualify for. We deserve the money.

And youre always free to represent yourself remember

Every time I have dealt with a lawyer they have been pleasant,empathetic and professional.
I guess what I should say with qualification is I have only been a victim and not a perpetrator .
All about perspective.

 

[Strange Cat]

Injury should be irrelevant. Hall knocked out a guy who didn't see it coming. He could have killed him. Gaff hit was never going to kill

Dry your eyes, they are taken into account and Hall got 10 weeks it was only the stupid system that allowed him to get a % off for a guilty plea

Such a victim complex

 

[Sir_Loin]

Look Bro, Gaff has already plead guilty.

If that is all that matters, why is he even speaking at the moment? Why is he being cross examined at the moment?

Because the tribunal want to hear about anything that mitigates the offence (I didnt mean it, i have a good record, I feel genuine remorse etc) or that aggravates it (it was a straight up king hit to an unsuspecting player, off the ball).

After hearing all that, they'll determine the appropriate sanction for the actual offence as it happened taking into account any relevant information.

Please stop arguing this. You're self evidently wrong.

Explain to me which bit? Should more weight be placed on the punch or his record? and for what’s its worth Gleeson agrees with me:

Gleeson says Gaff's evidence that he wasn't frustrated is "troubling".

He says: "The alternative isn't very colouring. If it was a clear-headed, unfrustrated Andrew Gaff who threw this strike, it is a strike worthy of even more condemnation."

Gleeson: "Good people do bad things. It doesn't make them bad people. But the jury's responsibility is to punish the act, not just the person, and the act is very bad

So was it a good idea to go and plead mitigation on how accidental the strike was? As Ive already said its my opinion it wont be a factor in mitigating the sanction. Strange you get personal when you can’t see any others view

 

[Smeg Head]

Oh and when is Rance getting his summons for punching a person on the ground in the back of the head?

**** me the only thing stupider than a tigers fan, is a bandwagoner tigers fan.

 

[Sausages]

I reckon Gleeson is doing a great job in his final.

 

[Badesumofu]

I genuinely don't like Gleeson.

His job isn't to be a prosecutor, and he absolutely mauls players. The Gaff thing, I understand, but he has pulled off some absolute stitchups before.

Actually that's exactly what his job is.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Really? Brayshaw will lose four, possibly five, teeth and dentists are unsure if they can be replaced with a drilled in tooth. He will require multiple surgeries, the next one in four weeks likely under general, and will be four to five months before recovered.

And Staker? Two weeks missed.

I reckon anything under 16 weeks with the way the injuries are described is a fortunate result for Gaff.

And Staker CTE from that punch at 40

 

[Ron The Bear]

They bent them utterly for sniper Cotchin.

That's a separate issue which never even got to the Tribunal.

I'm talking about the admission of character evidence to an AFL Tribunal hearing.

 

[Malifice]

Every time I have dealt with a lawyer they have been pleasant,empathetic and professional.
I guess what I should say with qualification is I have only been a victim and not a perpetrator .
All about perspective.

We're held to very high professional standards. If you ever have issues, report the lawyer in question to the Legal Practice Board.

 

[Jack5]

Wasn't frustrated by the checking and blocking. But did it anyway. Gaff's own testimony not assisting him.

 

[Malifice]

They bent them utterly for sniper Cotchin.

Please dont agitate the Richmond nuffies.

 

[GWBogan]

Grace says a penalty of 8-12 weeks is "manifestly excessive". He argues that the starting position for the sanction is 3 matches. He says he will not suggest a definitive penalty for the Tribunal, but says a penalty should be at the lower end rather than the "demonstratively higher figure" of 8-12 weeks.

lol

 

[Strange Cat]

Please dont agitate the Richmond nuffies.

Are you going to ban him for the potential to get tiger fans upset?

 

[Malifice]

Explain to me which bit? Should more weight be placed on the punch or his record? and for what’s its worth Gleeson agrees with me:

Gleeson says Gaff's evidence that he wasn't frustrated is "troubling".

He says: "The alternative isn't very colouring. If it was a clear-headed, unfrustrated Andrew Gaff who threw this strike, it is a strike worthy of even more condemnation."

Gleeson: "Good people do bad things. It doesn't make them bad people. But the jury's responsibility is to punish the act, not just the person, and the act is very bad

So was it a good idea to go and plead mitigation on how accidental the strike was? As Ive already said its my opinion it wont be a factor in mitigating the sanction. Strange you get personal when you can’t see any others view

Gleeson isnt agreeing with you!

He's doing his job which is to argue for a stronger penalty, and for the Tribunal to reject the arguments of the other side in determining a punishment.

He's agreeing with me, by simply speaking!

 

[Smeg Head]

That's a separate issue which never even got to the Tribunal.

I'm talking about the admission of character evidence to an AFL Tribunal hearing.

It never got there because the AFL bent over backwards to kiss tiger arse.

 

[Dan]

Gleeson keeping it real.

 

[conrad_437]

Grace reckons a penalty at the lower end (insinuating 3-5) is adequate

WTF