Grounds for Appeal?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Grounds for Appeal?
If I understand the Tribunal decision correctly, Baker was found guilty of rough conduct because he put on a 'block' and as he was 50m away from the ball it was deemed 'out of play' and 'reckless'.
Didn't the Tribunal in the Barry Hall case (belting Goose) deem that Hall was 'in play' becuase he 'anticipated' the football was coming back to his vicinity? If so that would surely mean, on the evidence tendered last night and accepted by this Tribunal, that they (the Tribunal) have made an error in fact by deeming the contact was 'out of play'?
Didn't the Tribunal in the Barry Hall case (belting Goose) deem that Hall was 'in play' becuase he 'anticipated' the football was coming back to his vicinity? If so that would surely mean, on the evidence tendered last night and accepted by this Tribunal, that they (the Tribunal) have made an error in fact by deeming the contact was 'out of play'?
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5509
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
I assume that "rough conduct" is a bit of a grab-bag of a charge that would be difficult to disprove (eg, the constant bumping and buffeting that goes on off the ball in every game could all be construed as "rough conduct").
I guess the best argument is that the 3 weeks penalty is excessive. I think we should aim to get it reduced to 1 week or even a warning.
I also don't understand how the 4 weeks for previous bad conduct is calculated: can anyone on here explain it?
I guess the best argument is that the 3 weeks penalty is excessive. I think we should aim to get it reduced to 1 week or even a warning.
I also don't understand how the 4 weeks for previous bad conduct is calculated: can anyone on here explain it?
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- carn_sainter
- Club Player
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:49pm
- Been thanked: 62 times
conflict of evidence perhaps...
selwood/headland was thrown out because because of insufficient evidence...nobody knows what was said
well, nobody knows what was done in the baker instance
what's that famous line again..."it's the vibe"
baker was playing on farmer, farmer was found bloodied...we can't find any specifics, but "it's the vibe..."
i'm almost resentful towards the saints for existing in such a rubbish competition...i am forced to support the saints, it's beyond my control, but i just wish they weren't in such a comp...i wish i didn't have to support them sometimes, because doing so means i am inadvertently supporting the turdbag afl
selwood/headland was thrown out because because of insufficient evidence...nobody knows what was said
well, nobody knows what was done in the baker instance
what's that famous line again..."it's the vibe"
baker was playing on farmer, farmer was found bloodied...we can't find any specifics, but "it's the vibe..."
i'm almost resentful towards the saints for existing in such a rubbish competition...i am forced to support the saints, it's beyond my control, but i just wish they weren't in such a comp...i wish i didn't have to support them sometimes, because doing so means i am inadvertently supporting the turdbag afl
- SainterX1
- Club Player
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun 21 Mar 2004 2:08am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
The fact that this hasn't been a reportable offence in the past (see Camporeale/Holland) and as far as I am aware there has been no change to this stance.
The DVD that the AFL sends around at the start of the year is meant to show changes in the rules and interpretations. Has this type of offence been included as being reportable?
The DVD that the AFL sends around at the start of the year is meant to show changes in the rules and interpretations. Has this type of offence been included as being reportable?
Can someone explain to me how the discount for an early plea works.
I heard that Baker couldn't have accepted a plea had he been given the opportunity, so he got a ???% loading for a previous poor record.
This is from another ruling this week
IMO he was screwed by the decision to send it straight to the tribunal or am I missing something here?![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
I heard that Baker couldn't have accepted a plea had he been given the opportunity, so he got a ???% loading for a previous poor record.
This is from another ruling this week
If Baker had been cited by the MRP, then why couldn't he have accepted an early plea?The AFL's match review panel assessed the bump Johnson laid during Friday night's match at the MCG as reckless conduct, high contact and with severe impact.
That equated to a level five offence, drawing 750 demerit points, with the 70.31 points Johnson had hanging over from a previous sanction lifting the total to 820.31 points, worth an eight-match ban.
Johnson can accept a six-match ban, if he submits an early guilty plea, which carries a 25 per cent discount.
IMO he was screwed by the decision to send it straight to the tribunal or am I missing something here?
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Just to add to that
I'd suggest in future the club film the game to protect our players . . . but that would result in a $50K fine.
Seriously, if we don't take this to court then we are a joke of a club.
So Baker is penalised because there is no footage?And the jury used its discretion to determine the demerit points tally because Baker was charged following a league investigation rather than being cited by the match review panel that usually classifies the conduct, impact and contact aspects of an offence.
I'd suggest in future the club film the game to protect our players . . . but that would result in a $50K fine.
Seriously, if we don't take this to court then we are a joke of a club.
It doesn't even seem to be clear what an appeal must consist of.
Some say it must prove that a procedural (legal) error has been made by the tribunal, others say that new evidence needs to be presented. Those are two totally different things (and how anyone can be expected to present new evidence just 15 hours after the original verdict was announced has me stumped).
The thing that has me worried though is that there are so many problems with the verdict as it stands, yet no single clear major issue to hitch our cart to. It is difficult to mount an appeal based on several roughly equal issues.
This whole thing stinks to me - I don't have a problem with Baker copping all the loadings if there are clear grounds for a suspension in the first place, but what kind of kangaroo court can convict based on supposition?
Essentially, we are asked to completely rule out any possibility that Farmer simply didn't pay attention to where he was going. There are witnesses who say that was the case, and that should be enough to acquit Baker.
Some say it must prove that a procedural (legal) error has been made by the tribunal, others say that new evidence needs to be presented. Those are two totally different things (and how anyone can be expected to present new evidence just 15 hours after the original verdict was announced has me stumped).
The thing that has me worried though is that there are so many problems with the verdict as it stands, yet no single clear major issue to hitch our cart to. It is difficult to mount an appeal based on several roughly equal issues.
This whole thing stinks to me - I don't have a problem with Baker copping all the loadings if there are clear grounds for a suspension in the first place, but what kind of kangaroo court can convict based on supposition?
Essentially, we are asked to completely rule out any possibility that Farmer simply didn't pay attention to where he was going. There are witnesses who say that was the case, and that should be enough to acquit Baker.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5016
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:42am
- Location: Bayside
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 91 times
Very good thread.
Completely agree, he can't have a 25% reduction because it went straight to the tribunal, hardly ethical.
Why does Kosi have a duty of awareness but Farmer doesn't?
Quite right above in the Hall case, they were in the next movement of play, so to speak...
I just find this unbelievable, really do...
Completely agree, he can't have a 25% reduction because it went straight to the tribunal, hardly ethical.
Why does Kosi have a duty of awareness but Farmer doesn't?
Quite right above in the Hall case, they were in the next movement of play, so to speak...
I just find this unbelievable, really do...
- Grimfang
- Club Player
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:30am
- Location: Tecoma, Vic.
- Been thanked: 1 time
The decision in this case reverses the grounds on which Giansiracusa was not charged for the collision with Kosi. It was argued then that Kosi's lack of awareness was responsible. Here, Farmer shows either a stunning lack of awareness of what's directly in front of him or has deliberately cannoned into Baker and come off second best. The tribunal has decreed though that Baker is responsible?Life Long Saint wrote:The whole In Play / Behind Play category was scrapped for this season.
The grounds we should use are that no reasonable body could find anyone guilty on the evidence presented. Blocking a player's run has never been rough conduct. And it should never be rough conduct.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons; for you are a quick and tasty morsel.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
The point about him not having the opportunity to lodge a plea was a good one.
There must be a number of other questions about the process: how he was originally referred to the Tribunal, what the charge was, how the Tribunal used the evidence (eg, was Baker warned that, if he admitted to having initiated an off-the-ball contact, this was possibly going to be used not only to clear him of deliberately attacking the head of Farmer, but also to convict him of "rough conduct").
If the appeals tribunal won't listen to concerns about the process, then we would presumably need to go to court.
But, if the AFL is determined to rub Bakes out for 7 weeks (and I suspect that they are: he's too successful at legally keeping the star players quiet, and they don't like that), I'm still not sure that going to court is a good idea: given how arbitrary and shamelessly biased every action taken by the AFL is under the current regime, they would no doubt find another way of getting back at us.
There must be a number of other questions about the process: how he was originally referred to the Tribunal, what the charge was, how the Tribunal used the evidence (eg, was Baker warned that, if he admitted to having initiated an off-the-ball contact, this was possibly going to be used not only to clear him of deliberately attacking the head of Farmer, but also to convict him of "rough conduct").
If the appeals tribunal won't listen to concerns about the process, then we would presumably need to go to court.
But, if the AFL is determined to rub Bakes out for 7 weeks (and I suspect that they are: he's too successful at legally keeping the star players quiet, and they don't like that), I'm still not sure that going to court is a good idea: given how arbitrary and shamelessly biased every action taken by the AFL is under the current regime, they would no doubt find another way of getting back at us.
Last edited by meher baba on Wed 22 Aug 2007 11:40am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
Don't think we are going to get any immediate joy from appealing this bs decision given the way the AFL appeal mechanisms are structured but the club will need to lodge an appeal if its to pursue other legal action.
I work in an environmemnt where my decisions can be taken to court and if I made a decision like the tribunal it would be appealed and tossed out.
Therefore IMO the club shoud seek legal advice as to whether it can get a permanent stay on the decison through the courts system on the basis that the decision was legally flawed and did not provide natural justice to Baker.
I work in an environmemnt where my decisions can be taken to court and if I made a decision like the tribunal it would be appealed and tossed out.
Therefore IMO the club shoud seek legal advice as to whether it can get a permanent stay on the decison through the courts system on the basis that the decision was legally flawed and did not provide natural justice to Baker.
- Kate
- Club Player
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Wed 07 Jul 2004 1:58pm
- Location: Emerald
- Has thanked: 133 times
- Been thanked: 37 times
Whatever happened to the concept of giving the accused the "benefit of the doubt"? There seems to be a montain of doubt, and an ocean of inconsistancy.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is another one that seems to have gone out the window. I'm having trouble spotting the "proof" that Bakes did anything dodgy.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is another one that seems to have gone out the window. I'm having trouble spotting the "proof" that Bakes did anything dodgy.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Tue 19 Jun 2007 7:18pm