Our Legal Eagles
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Our Legal Eagles
When it comes to the tribunal we have to have the most underperforming legal representation of any afl club.
They sure earn their money easy with us.
Time and time again we get done over by the tribunal. Not just the tribunal but also the match review committee.
Each week you see infringments not referred but as soon as it is a red , white and black jumper they cant wait to jump on it.
Numerous times in the past has this shepherd been carried out against stkilda players , Kositchske and Luke Ball come to mind but when we are the instigator we feel the full force.....
What a corrupt organisation is the AFL
They sure earn their money easy with us.
Time and time again we get done over by the tribunal. Not just the tribunal but also the match review committee.
Each week you see infringments not referred but as soon as it is a red , white and black jumper they cant wait to jump on it.
Numerous times in the past has this shepherd been carried out against stkilda players , Kositchske and Luke Ball come to mind but when we are the instigator we feel the full force.....
What a corrupt organisation is the AFL
Go Sainters !!!!!
- crackers35
- Club Player
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Fri 10 Oct 2008 8:11pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
giansiricusa on kosi = 0 weeks
melbourne player on ball = 0 weeks
trent west on xavier clarke = 0 weeks
steven king on sam power = 4 weeks
steven baker on jeff farmer = 7 weeks
zac dawson on brad symes = 2 weeks
i also compare the following incidents which were identical and just 8 days apart
Paddy Ryder = 0 weeks
Michael Gardiner = 1 week
melbourne player on ball = 0 weeks
trent west on xavier clarke = 0 weeks
steven king on sam power = 4 weeks
steven baker on jeff farmer = 7 weeks
zac dawson on brad symes = 2 weeks
i also compare the following incidents which were identical and just 8 days apart
Paddy Ryder = 0 weeks
Michael Gardiner = 1 week
Looking forward to 2010 - I'm gonna Lovett!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 3:59pm
- Location: australia
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Makes you bloody cross doesn't itcrackers35 wrote:giansiricusa on kosi = 0 weeks
melbourne player on ball = 0 weeks
trent west on xavier clarke = 0 weeks
steven king on sam power = 4 weeks
steven baker on jeff farmer = 7 weeks
zac dawson on brad symes = 2 weeks
i also compare the following incidents which were identical and just 8 days apart
Paddy Ryder = 0 weeks
Michael Gardiner = 1 week
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
- St Fidelius
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10492
- Joined: Sun 01 Aug 2004 10:30am
Great, but my only wish is that the Club does appeal...derby Street wrote:Makes you bloody cross doesn't itcrackers35 wrote:giansiricusa on kosi = 0 weeks
melbourne player on ball = 0 weeks
trent west on xavier clarke = 0 weeks
steven king on sam power = 4 weeks
steven baker on jeff farmer = 7 weeks
zac dawson on brad symes = 2 weeks
i also compare the following incidents which were identical and just 8 days apart
Paddy Ryder = 0 weeks
Michael Gardiner = 1 weekI will "shout the bar" if we ever win an appeal.
Time for the Club to stand firm FOR ONCE, and appeal....
Don't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear, run down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
- crackers35
- Club Player
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Fri 10 Oct 2008 8:11pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
THE TIME HAS COME FOR US TO STOP TAKING THE BAD DECISIONS WE GET AND STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT!St Fidelius wrote:Great, but my only wish is that the Club does appeal...derby Street wrote:Makes you bloody cross doesn't itcrackers35 wrote:giansiricusa on kosi = 0 weeks
melbourne player on ball = 0 weeks
trent west on xavier clarke = 0 weeks
steven king on sam power = 4 weeks
steven baker on jeff farmer = 7 weeks
zac dawson on brad symes = 2 weeks
i also compare the following incidents which were identical and just 8 days apart
Paddy Ryder = 0 weeks
Michael Gardiner = 1 weekI will "shout the bar" if we ever win an appeal.
Time for the Club to stand firm FOR ONCE, and appeal....
Looking forward to 2010 - I'm gonna Lovett!
- St Fidelius
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10492
- Joined: Sun 01 Aug 2004 10:30am
Mate...saintsrus wrote:Barnum and Bailey for sure![]()
St Fid your on fire tonight!
We have been SHAFTED for years and time to ACT...
Time to get rid of the legal personal we have @ the Club and go for someone with that has a CLUE!
I am of the belief we sacked Sheldon because of the Baker decision, or at least that was the nail in the coffin, time to change legal representation and pay some more $$$ for someone that has a CLUE.
STAND UP ST KILDA AND SUPPORT THE PLAYER!
STAND UP AND SUPPORT A PLAYER THAT HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED!
FOR F*** SAKE STAND UP!
Don't wait for the light at the end of the tunnel to appear, run down there and light the bloody thing yourself!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1833
- Joined: Wed 27 Feb 2008 7:27pm
- Has thanked: 226 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16949
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3602 times
- Been thanked: 2875 times
Re: Our Legal Eagles
I already asked about this at the agm. They said the club uses the same 2 qcs that collingwood and geelong use.tezza1 wrote:When it comes to the tribunal we have to have the most underperforming legal representation of any afl club.
They sure earn their money easy with us.
Time and time again we get done over by the tribunal. Not just the tribunal but also the match review committee.
Each week you see infringments not referred but as soon as it is a red , white and black jumper they cant wait to jump on it.
Numerous times in the past has this shepherd been carried out against stkilda players , Kositchske and Luke Ball come to mind but when we are the instigator we feel the full force.....
What a corrupt organisation is the AFL
The problem is not the representation. The problem is the jumper colour. If any one doubted it before, you surely can not now.
Not sure what is better, to fight it or to move on. To be honest, the team doesn't need the distraction. If he was to get off, you can bet your a*%e the next player that goes up will get double weeks. Just ask Maxwell from Collingwood.
Not sure what is better, to fight it or to move on. To be honest, the team doesn't need the distraction. If he was to get off, you can bet your a*%e the next player that goes up will get double weeks. Just ask Maxwell from Collingwood.
Fortius Quo Fidelius
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Wed 29 Apr 2009 8:24pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Our Legal Eagles
Uhhh... isn't our Board full of lawyers and barristers?tezza1 wrote:When it comes to the tribunal we have to have the most underperforming legal representation of any afl club.
Maybe we're not underperforming. Maybe we're just not rocking the boat?
Re: Our Legal Eagles
the club does not use the solicitors on the board to speak at the tribunal. They use specialist QCs who do the tribunal work all the time , and do tribunal work for other clubs too. I don't want us using anyone other than the most specilist and most expert and experienced barristers representing our club at the tribunal.Sunday Red wrote:Uhhh... isn't our Board full of lawyers and barristers?tezza1 wrote:When it comes to the tribunal we have to have the most underperforming legal representation of any afl club.
Maybe we're not underperforming. Maybe we're just not rocking the boat?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9100
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 434 times
GT thought the sledgehammer verbal approach was the way to achieve all things, but smarter avenues would have got better results..let's sincerely hope the club uses some clever legal nouse in this affair to overturn the abhorrent penalty..skeptic wrote:GT tried to take on the AFL once... cost us 4 pts against Freo
I appreciate guys are angry but we can't take the AFL on and win. Vlad is powerful enough to ignore the media and sink our season
cop it on the chin and move on IMO
the nclub used an expert QC who does tribunal work all the time , very successfully...If it took 30 minutes, the chances of an appeal are almost zero. An appeal is not a second hearing. it is only for an error of law , like when the jury does not follow the laws or rules ,or a manifestly excessive number of weeks. the afl changed it to stop clubs appealing and hoping the Qcs listening to the appeal would have had a different opinion on the report than the jury.spert wrote:GT thought the sledgehammer verbal approach was the way to achieve all things, but smarter avenues would have got better results..let's sincerely hope the club uses some clever legal nouse in this affair to overturn the abhorrent penalty..skeptic wrote:GT tried to take on the AFL once... cost us 4 pts against Freo
I appreciate guys are angry but we can't take the AFL on and win. Vlad is powerful enough to ignore the media and sink our season
cop it on the chin and move on IMO
there has benn only one successful appeal EVER, which was about an error in the actual rules.
So lets not waste thousands of dollars cahsing an impossible dream to make us feel better . That is what you get with a jury. they looked at the incident , probably like most Crows supporters did.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
When Collingwood got Maxwell off, didn't they argue something along the lines of that no reasonable body could not only find Maxwell not guilty but also not suspend the player for five weeks.
We can appeal if we believe that the punishment is unreasonably disproportionate to the crime.
We surely have grounds given that it was in full view of the umpire and no action was taken at the time. In other words, Dawson has not broken any AFL rules.
The ball was within 5m, the contact was to the body and the player was involved in the play. The player was temporarily winded and recovered quite quickly. I read that he has bruising now but I challenge any team to name players that aren't showing bruising at round 16!
We can appeal if we believe that the punishment is unreasonably disproportionate to the crime.
We surely have grounds given that it was in full view of the umpire and no action was taken at the time. In other words, Dawson has not broken any AFL rules.
The ball was within 5m, the contact was to the body and the player was involved in the play. The player was temporarily winded and recovered quite quickly. I read that he has bruising now but I challenge any team to name players that aren't showing bruising at round 16!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9100
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 434 times
It's not about impossible dreams, or feeling better, it's about getting the best team on the field in this cut-throat business, that's what it is, and if avenues of appeal are available, which they are, then they must be used to exhaustion -a club like St.Kilda gets few cracks at a flag, and the hungrier we are, the better.oneteam wrote:the nclub used an expert QC who does tribunal work all the time , very successfully...If it took 30 minutes, the chances of an appeal are almost zero. An appeal is not a second hearing. it is only for an error of law , like when the jury does not follow the laws or rules ,or a manifestly excessive number of weeks. the afl changed it to stop clubs appealing and hoping the Qcs listening to the appeal would have had a different opinion on the report than the jury.spert wrote:GT thought the sledgehammer verbal approach was the way to achieve all things, but smarter avenues would have got better results..let's sincerely hope the club uses some clever legal nouse in this affair to overturn the abhorrent penalty..skeptic wrote:GT tried to take on the AFL once... cost us 4 pts against Freo
I appreciate guys are angry but we can't take the AFL on and win. Vlad is powerful enough to ignore the media and sink our season
cop it on the chin and move on IMO
there has benn only one successful appeal EVER, which was about an error in the actual rules.
So lets not waste thousands of dollars cahsing an impossible dream to make us feel better . That is what you get with a jury. they looked at the incident , probably like most Crows supporters did.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 350 times
This is not completely true, being only part of the Appeal justification. In an attempt to stop clubs from going to the courts (which they can't actually do) to seek remedy, the AFL established the Appeals Board. It conducts a somewhat "first principles" approach to the case, that is, it neither relies on the determinations of the MRP nor the Tribunal. This avoids the claim that it is one "arm" of the AFL reviewing a decision of another "arm". It can consider any evidence it sees fit, that which was introduced at the Tribunal following the referral from the MRP or that which was not which any party can seek to introduce. Of course, it can choose what evidence is relevant and what is not. This from the AFL:oneteam wrote:... An appeal is not a second hearing. it is only for an error of law , like when the jury does not follow the laws or rules ,or a manifestly excessive number of weeks...
Appeals are available in relation to an error of law, a grossly unreasonable decision, manifestly excessive classification or manifestly excessive sanction. The Appeal Rule 24 however provides that an appellant can seek leave of the Appeal Board to produce fresh evidence provided the appellant can convince the Appeal Board that the evidence sought to be produced could not by reasonable diligence, have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing and where that evidence is of sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision.
Appeals have not been successful in the past (with the exception of the Nick Maxwell case) because the MRP and the Tribunal have not sought to extend the rules of the competition through their processes - until now.
Last edited by perfectionist on Wed 22 Jul 2009 2:51pm, edited 1 time in total.