How many weeks. Zac?

dcstkfc · Post: # 1113986Post **dcstkfc** » Mon 01 Aug 2011 6:25pm

Zac has talent, but man can he be stupid.

plugger66 · Post: # 1113988Post **plugger66** » Mon 01 Aug 2011 6:28pm

Junction Oval wrote:Precedents would certainly provide "consistency" Mr Magic - something the MRP cannot or cares not to do.

The fans, players, coaches can all live with "consistency" of decision making and the AFL has an obligation to deliver on this matter. For heavens sake, the Legal system runs on judgement precedents, so why can't the AFL

The problem is that the incidents can be slightly different. For example having now seen both Zac and Browns incident you couldnt use the Brown incident to get Zac off because they are different.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Mon 01 Aug 2011 6:28pm

dcstkfc wrote:Zac has talent, but man can he be stupid.

Be careful, you'll be accused of being a "Zac basher"!
Definitely agree, though. He certainly has some brain snaps.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Mon 01 Aug 2011 6:29pm

plugger66 wrote:
Junction Oval wrote:Precedents would certainly provide "consistency" Mr Magic - something the MRP cannot or cares not to do.

The fans, players, coaches can all live with "consistency" of decision making and the AFL has an obligation to deliver on this matter. For heavens sake, the Legal system runs on judgement precedents, so why can't the AFL
The problem is that the incidents can be slightly different. For example having now seen both Zac and Browns incident you couldnt use the Brown incident to get Zac off because they are different.

How is that different from legal matters? Are they all the same?

plugger66 · Post: # 1113996Post **plugger66** » Mon 01 Aug 2011 6:33pm

AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
Junction Oval wrote:Precedents would certainly provide "consistency" Mr Magic - something the MRP cannot or cares not to do.

The fans, players, coaches can all live with "consistency" of decision making and the AFL has an obligation to deliver on this matter. For heavens sake, the Legal system runs on judgement precedents, so why can't the AFL
The problem is that the incidents can be slightly different. For example having now seen both Zac and Browns incident you couldnt use the Brown incident to get Zac off because they are different.
How is that different from legal matters? Are they all the same?

Have no idea. Ask a lawyer.

gringo · Post: # 1114024Post **gringo** » Mon 01 Aug 2011 7:01pm

The reason the AFL chooses to run the current system based on US style plea bargaining is because it is financially efficient. It clears the players through quickly without the need for appearances by legal, tribunal members, rooms etc. The innocent sometimes go but by golly it's cheap. the plea bargain system is manifestly unjust as it has people gaoled when innocent based on a strong chance of a prosecution. You go to the defendant and say you choose 5 years or 25 to life - we believe we have enough to send you away for that. The skittish crumble -often under the guidance of disinterested court appointed legals. Same basic principal with the current MRP then Tribunal system, show leniency once and the system crumbles, a few innocent go down but it has a deterrent effect on time wasters.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Mon 01 Aug 2011 7:04pm

Glad to see they've got their priorities in order, then.

ozrulestrace · Mon 01 Aug 2011 7:23pm

Then as acomplete contrast Paul Chapman/Lyndon Dunn no case to answer.

So the "love taps" are out now.

And you can hit back with an even bigger punch.

This one will jump up and bite the MRP in the future, no doubt with a
St Kilda being sprung on camera.

perfectionist · Tue 02 Aug 2011 12:56pm

In a shock move, the Saints have accepted the ban.