AFL is a Joke. Tony Greene still suspended!

[BarryGrogan]

Ok. I agree with the decision. I believe he deliberately put his hands near his eyes.
I believe the first incident with Bony deserved 3 weeks.
I think that cheap shot idiot from Geelong deserved 3 weeks too.
My son's watch that s***. It should be stamped out.

That's fine.

I disagree FWIW, as the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict.



The other stuff I agree with.

Thats not quite what Lachie said. He said he can't remember and it all happened pretty quick.
As you are clearly in the 'not guilty' camp, you might have missed this.

The only ball Toby was trying to hold in was Neale' s eyeball.

That doesn't show contact with his eyes.

[CQ SAINT]

Ok. I agree with the decision. I believe he deliberately put his hands near his eyes.
I believe the first incident with Bony deserved 3 weeks.
I think that cheap shot idiot from Geelong deserved 3 weeks too.
My son's watch that s***. It should be stamped out.

That's fine.

I disagree FWIW, as the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict.



The other stuff I agree with.

Thats not quite what Lachie said. He said he can't remember and it all happened pretty quick.
As you are clearly in the 'not guilty' camp, you might have missed this.

The only ball Toby was trying to hold in was Neale' s eyeball.

That doesn't show contact with his eyes.

Lol. Oh please.

[Enrico_Misso]

Well Toby will be well rested and ready to go next week with nicely manicured fingernails.

[BarryGrogan]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

[The Fireman]

[samoht]

Steven Baker would have got 10 weeks for the first incident and 20 weeks for "serially flouting the rules and simulated eye-gouging" for the second "incident" - so I think Greene got off lightly both times.

The guy is a loose cannon and needs to be reined in.

It might be a case of his reputation preceding him - but he only has himself to blame for that.

The joke here is Tobey Greene himself and the way the AFL protects and tolerates him.

[kosifantutti]

And good news for Collingwood. Jordan de Goey has been declared fit for next week.

[degruch]

The joke here is Tobey Greene himself and the way the AFL protects and tolerates him.

Absolutely...this is the only point worth considering when raising bias, GWS and the AFL.

[BarryGrogan]

Steven Baker would have got 10 weeks for the first incident and 20 weeks for "serially flouting the rules and simulated eye-gouging" for the second "incident" - so I think Greene got off lightly both times.

The guy is a loose cannon and needs to be reined in.

It might be a case of his reputation preceding him - but he only has himself to blame for that.

How can a reputation precede someone in terms of being found guilty of something?

They either did it - or they didn't.

[CQ SAINT]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

I understand. However, the MRO decision was made based on that footage, we agree that that wasn't totally unbelievable. Subsequently, I found nothing in the evidence presented that would reverse the MRO's decision. That sits very comfortably with me. Again, great decision by the MRO.

[The OtherThommo]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

"If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale"."

region
/ˈriːdʒ(ə)n/

noun
1.
an area, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
"the equatorial regions"
2.
a part of the body, especially around or near an organ.
"the lumbar region"

[BarryGrogan]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

"If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale"."

region
/ˈriːdʒ(ə)n/

noun
1.
an area, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
"the equatorial regions"
2.
a part of the body, especially around or near an organ.
"the lumbar region"

Surely the nose is the unofficial boundary of the eye region though!

[CQ SAINT]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

"If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale"."

region
/ˈriːdʒ(ə)n/

noun
1.
an area, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
"the equatorial regions"
2.
a part of the body, especially around or near an organ.
"the lumbar region"

Surely the nose is the unofficial boundary of the eye region though!

Yeah. Surely.............nah!

The MRO made a decision based on the rules and the evidence he had before him.

I don't know about you but my eye region, from the left side of my left eye socket to the right side of my right eye socket has the boney part of my nose, the bit that usually got hurt when I was boxing, running right down the middle of it.

[Special]

Suck shyte MC!

Toby is free to play in the Granny and you can do NOTHING to stop it.

What a peabrain MRP adjudicator we have

[The OtherThommo]

Lol. Oh please.

It does if you really want it to.

If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale".


To be honest, I don't really have an issue with the MRO sending it to the tribunal. He only has acesses to footage, which although not enough to find him guilty - it's enough to warrant asking Greene, Neale, the umpires and the doctors to explain what happened.

I mean we had people on here wanting blokes charged with rape because of a photo of them kissing FFS. But once some digging is done, you find that footage and vision isn't always what it seems.

You know, a tribunal hearing. With evidence and s***.

When you combine it all, he's not guilty. Basically what they've ruled is, that that little bit of video 100% shows Greene "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale", and all other evidence of the contrary has been ignored.

Given how inconclusive the video is, that is extraordinary. But given how clear the other evidence was - it's just utterly baffling that they could find him guilty.

What's probably the most puzzling thing, is that once they found him guilty - how did he only get 1 week!!?

Given Neale's reaction, it hurt him. If that contact was to his eyes, and given Neale was in obvious pain and discomfort afterwards - he should have been handed 4 weeks for it!!

Bizarre decision all round.

"If you look at it objectively however, there is no way that that, combined with the other evidence - proves he is guilty of "making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of Lachie Neale"."

region
/ˈriːdʒ(ə)n/

noun
1.
an area, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
"the equatorial regions"
2.
a part of the body, especially around or near an organ.
"the lumbar region"

Surely the nose is the unofficial boundary of the eye region though!

Nah Baz, that deflection dog don't hunt. "Unofficial boundary"?! Surely you can do better that that!;

BarryGrogan » Sat 21 Sep 2019 3:21pm

"....the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict."

'

[BarryGrogan]

BarryGrogan » Sat 21 Sep 2019 3:21pm

"....the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict."

'

It doesn't.

The footage shows his hand in the 'eye region' - which is basically the entire top half of his face.

So as I said, the MRO was within his rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and where the contact actually occured.

The umpire was watching and didn't report cobtact to the eyes.
Neale and Fagan both said he didn't touch his eyes, but contact was with his nose.

That footage doesn't show contact with his eyes. And the 'testimony' from all parties involved stated there was no contact with the eyes.


So as I said - it's as clear a case of 'not guilty' as you can get.

[BarryGrogan]

I don't know about you but my eye region, from the left side of my left eye socket to the right side of my right eye socket has the boney part of my nose, the bit that usually got hurt when I was boxing, running right down the middle of it.

So when you were punched in the nose - you described it as being punched in the eye region?

[CQ SAINT]

I don't know about you but my eye region, from the left side of my left eye socket to the right side of my right eye socket has the boney part of my nose, the bit that usually got hurt when I was boxing, running right down the middle of it.

So when you were punched in the nose - you described it as being punched in the eye region?

Now you are losing it a little Barry. Don't cut out your eyes, just to spite your face. The answer you seek is right between your eyes. Right in that region.

[BarryGrogan]

I don't know about you but my eye region, from the left side of my left eye socket to the right side of my right eye socket has the boney part of my nose, the bit that usually got hurt when I was boxing, running right down the middle of it.

So when you were punched in the nose - you described it as being punched in the eye region?

Now you are losing it a little Barry. Don't cut out your eyes, just to spite your face. The answer you seek is right between your eyes. Right in that region.

?

So if you hit someone's nose, you think that qualifies as the 'eye region'?

You're moving the goal posts on your argument.

You stated that he made cobtact with his eyes. Specifically.

Now you're claiming that it was actually nose contact, but that qualifies as the eye region so the tribunal was right?

Is that what you're saying?

[The OtherThommo]

BarryGrogan » Sat 21 Sep 2019 3:21pm

"....the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict."

'

It doesn't.

The footage shows his hand in the 'eye region' - which is basically the entire top half of his face.

So as I said, the MRO was within his rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and where the contact actually occured.

The umpire was watching and didn't report cobtact to the eyes.
Neale and Fagan both said he didn't touch his eyes, but contact was with his nose.

That footage doesn't show contact with his eyes. And the 'testimony' from all parties involved stated there was no contact with the eyes.


So as I said - it's as clear a case of 'not guilty' as you can get.

The dog's still stuck in its kennel, Baz.

The "charge" was "misconduct", 'in that' Greene 'made unnecessary or unreasonable contact to the eye region'.

Your fundamental misinterpretation lies in suggesting the MRO was "within its rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and whether contact actually occurred'"

It is not that, at all. The MRO gathers the evidence, decides from that evidence if it believes a charge is sustainable - against the written rules - and, if it does believe a charge is sustainable, either gives the player the option of accepting the charge as proven, or refers the charge, along with the evidence it has gathered, to the body that has the authority to adjudicate whether the gathered evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge as presented.

The only questions the 'judge' had to answer were;

1. Did the evidence show contact being made to the eye region?
2. Was it "intentional"? (As was included in the charge sheet, along with "low impact" and "high contact" - the 3 standard 'grading' categories, or whatever they call them).
3. Was it "unreasonable"? (As was included in the charge sheet).
4. Was it "unnecessary"? (As was included in the charge sheet).

The 'judge' obviously satisfied himself all 4 of those questions yielded affirmative responses from the evidence presented i.e. contact was made to the eye region, it was "intentional" (making it more serious than, say, 'negligent' - which was a lesser option available to charge Greene), it was "unreasonable" (largely circumstances dependent) and "unnecessary" (did Greene have options in those specific circumstances?).

Everything else is irrelevant.

Best to let the dog rest.

[BarryGrogan]

BarryGrogan » Sat 21 Sep 2019 3:21pm

"....the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict."

'

It doesn't.

The footage shows his hand in the 'eye region' - which is basically the entire top half of his face.

So as I said, the MRO was within his rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and where the contact actually occured.

The umpire was watching and didn't report cobtact to the eyes.
Neale and Fagan both said he didn't touch his eyes, but contact was with his nose.

That footage doesn't show contact with his eyes. And the 'testimony' from all parties involved stated there was no contact with the eyes.


So as I said - it's as clear a case of 'not guilty' as you can get.

The dog's still stuck in its kennel, Baz.

The "charge" was "misconduct", 'in that' Greene 'made unnecessary or unreasonable contact to the eye region'.

Your fundamental misinterpretation lies in suggesting the MRO was "within its rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and whether contact actually occurred'"

It is not that, at all. The MRO gathers the evidence, decides from that evidence if it believes a charge is sustainable - against the written rules - and, if it does believe a charge is sustainable, either gives the player the option of accepting the charge as proven, or refers the charge, along with the evidence it has gathered, to the body that has the authority to adjudicate whether the gathered evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge as presented.

The only questions the 'judge' had to answer were;

1. Did the evidence show contact being made to the eye region?
2. Was it "intentional"? (As was included in the charge sheet, along with "low impact" and "high contact" - the 3 standard 'grading' categories, or whatever they call them).
3. Was it "unreasonable"? (As was included in the charge sheet).
4. Was it "unnecessary"? (As was included in the charge sheet).

The 'judge' obviously satisfied himself all 4 of those questions yielded affirmative responses from the evidence presented i.e. contact was made to the eye region, it was "intentional" (making it more serious than, say, 'negligent' - which was a lesser option available to charge Greene), it was "unreasonable" (largely circumstances dependent) and "unnecessary" (did Greene have options in those specific circumstances?).

Everything else is irrelevant.

Best to let the dog rest.

Barely any of that is accurate.

The only evidence the MRO has access to is video and medical reports. They don't gather anything beyond that.

They don't interview anyone - other than the umpire who laid the report (if an umpire in fact laid a report).

So based on that footage, I don't have an issue with the MRO offering a week. As flawed as the system is, he's within his rights to guess that there was contact to the eyes, or eye region.

He can't interview anyone - he only goes off what he sees.

But then when Green goes to the tribunal, any evidence that the chairman thinks should be made available - is made available.

Not the judge. There is no judge. There is a chairman, and 3 jurors.

In this case, the chairman wanted Neale to give evidence. Because surprise surprise - it's very f****** relevant!

So the jurors were given this evidence, plus Green's testimony - in addition to the video.

You have to argue specifically at the tribunal though. You argue against one element of the grading given by the MRO.

In this instance, the charge was very clear that it was contact to the eye region.

So he wasn't arguing the grading - he was arguing that the whole charge was wrong as he made no contact to the eyes.

They argued he didn't touch his eyes and if contact was made it was to Neale's nose.

Given the evidence presented at the tribunal, it's unfathomable that someone can be found guilty of making contact with someone's eye region when the 'victim' clearly says his nose hurt and his eyes were fine.

The chairman told them to ignore Greene's record, and to consider Neales testimony.


It's staggering.

[The OtherThommo]

BarryGrogan » Sat 21 Sep 2019 3:21pm

"....the footage I saw didn't show him touching Neale's eyes. Neale said he didn't touch his eyes, the umpire didn't see him touch his eyes - and the footage didn't show him touching his eyes. No medical report said anything happened to his eyes.

It was a clear 'not guilty' verdict."

'

It doesn't.

The footage shows his hand in the 'eye region' - which is basically the entire top half of his face.

So as I said, the MRO was within his rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and where the contact actually occured.

The umpire was watching and didn't report cobtact to the eyes.
Neale and Fagan both said he didn't touch his eyes, but contact was with his nose.

That footage doesn't show contact with his eyes. And the 'testimony' from all parties involved stated there was no contact with the eyes.


So as I said - it's as clear a case of 'not guilty' as you can get.

The dog's still stuck in its kennel, Baz.

The "charge" was "misconduct", 'in that' Greene 'made unnecessary or unreasonable contact to the eye region'.

Your fundamental misinterpretation lies in suggesting the MRO was "within its rights to get the tribunal to gather evidence to determine what actually happened, and whether contact actually occurred'"

It is not that, at all. The MRO gathers the evidence, decides from that evidence if it believes a charge is sustainable - against the written rules - and, if it does believe a charge is sustainable, either gives the player the option of accepting the charge as proven, or refers the charge, along with the evidence it has gathered, to the body that has the authority to adjudicate whether the gathered evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge as presented.

The only questions the 'judge' had to answer were;

1. Did the evidence show contact being made to the eye region?
2. Was it "intentional"? (As was included in the charge sheet, along with "low impact" and "high contact" - the 3 standard 'grading' categories, or whatever they call them).
3. Was it "unreasonable"? (As was included in the charge sheet).
4. Was it "unnecessary"? (As was included in the charge sheet).

The 'judge' obviously satisfied himself all 4 of those questions yielded affirmative responses from the evidence presented i.e. contact was made to the eye region, it was "intentional" (making it more serious than, say, 'negligent' - which was a lesser option available to charge Greene), it was "unreasonable" (largely circumstances dependent) and "unnecessary" (did Greene have options in those specific circumstances?).

Everything else is irrelevant.

Best to let the dog rest.

Barely any of that is accurate.

The only evidence the MRO has access to is video and medical reports. They don't gather anything beyond that.

They don't interview anyone - other than the umpire who laid the report (if an umpire in fact laid a report).

So based on that footage, I don't have an issue with the MRO offering a week. As flawed as the system is, he's within his rights to guess that there was contact to the eyes, or eye region.

He can't interview anyone - he only goes off what he sees.

But then when Green goes to the tribunal, any evidence that the chairman thinks should be made available - is made available.

Not the judge. There is no judge. There is a chairman, and 3 jurors.

In this case, the chairman wanted Neale to give evidence. Because surprise surprise - it's very f****** relevant!

So the jurors were given this evidence, plus Green's testimony - in addition to the video.

You have to argue specifically at the tribunal though. You argue against one element of the grading given by the MRO.

In this instance, the charge was very clear that it was contact to the eye region.

So he wasn't arguing the grading - he was arguing that the whole charge was wrong as he made no contact to the eyes.

They argued he didn't touch his eyes and if contact was made it was to Neale's nose.

Given the evidence presented at the tribunal, it's unfathomable that someone can be found guilty of making contact with someone's eye region when the 'victim' clearly says his nose hurt and his eyes were fine.

The chairman told them to ignore Greene's record, and to consider Neales testimony.


It's staggering.

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20T ... elines.pdf

I should have read that before I mentioned 'judge'. That describes a 'trial by jury' process, as opposed to a 'trail by judge'.

But, as you can see in 2.2b "Role of the Tribunal", the 'chairman's' role is much the same as a judge in a jury trial (e.g. "manages process and decides on points of law").

The decision to prosecute is actually a JV, b/w the MRO & the GM - Football Operations.

From there, the prosecution and defence cases are presented and argued 'in court' by counsel (the AFL used Nick Pane QC, Greene used Adrian Anderson, IIRC).

I'm not aware if it was the chairman who decided to get Neale on the phone, or whether he merely acquiesced to Greene's counsel requesting Neale be 'called' to give evidence. And, it really doesn't matter who initiated Neale's appearance, because both sides argued how that evidence should be considered e.g. Pane suggested Neale's "vague" evidence should be disregarded, and the jury should rely on the video evidence - all bog standard process stuff - the evidence can be contested, by either side.

Any differences to understood legal or quasi-legal process is at the margins. Plenty of such minor differences are seen within, and b/w jurisdictions, in both legal and quasi-legal processes.

Bottom line; there's a prosecution, which is presented to a body charged with the responsibility to decide if the charge is sustained. Both prosecuting and defending parties have the right to legal representation to present and argue their cases.

So, given all that bog standard process stuff, what's the adjudicating body there to do?

See the earlier mentioned "4 questions". Everything else is still irrelevant, and no amount of pigs' ears offered to your dog, as enticement to come back out of his kennel and get back on the hunt, changes that, Baz.

P.S. It seems to me you're easily 'staggered'.

[CQ SAINT]

I don't know about you but my eye region, from the left side of my left eye socket to the right side of my right eye socket has the boney part of my nose, the bit that usually got hurt when I was boxing, running right down the middle of it.

So when you were punched in the nose - you described it as being punched in the eye region?

Now you are losing it a little Barry. Don't cut out your eyes, just to spite your face. The answer you seek is right between your eyes. Right in that region.

?

So if you hit someone's nose, you think that qualifies as the 'eye region'?

You're moving the goal posts on your argument.

You stated that he made cobtact with his eyes. Specifically.

Now you're claiming that it was actually nose contact, but that qualifies as the eye region so the tribunal was right?

Is that what you're saying?

No no, that was someone else and a different argument. Neale had a saw nose, couldnt remember contact with the eyes and stated it all happened pretty quick. The nose is clearly in the eyes region. I stand by the video of poor victimised Toby's left hand and the MRO.

[BarryGrogan]

See the earlier mentioned "4 questions". Everything else is still irrelevant, and no amount of pigs' ears offered to your dog, as enticement to come back out of his kennel and get back on the hunt, changes that, Baz.

P.S. It seems to me you're easily 'staggered'.

It was only 1 question being argued.

Did he make unreasonable and unnecessary contact to Neale's eye region.

The last 3 questions were not being argued. Green was arguing he never tiuched his eyes, therefore the force and intent was irrelevant.

The tribunal jury ignored all evidence, including the guy that said his eyes didn't get touched (once to his coach after the game and again at the tribunal) - and instead went solely on inconclusive video footage.

Bizarre decision.

[BarryGrogan]

No no, that was someone else and a different argument. Neale had a saw nose, couldnt remember contact with the eyes and stated it all happened pretty quick. The nose is clearly in the eyes region. I stand by the video of poor victimised Toby's left hand and the MRO.

?

So you think he was found guilty because the tribunal determined that contact was to the nose, and that constitutes the eye region?


And I don't think he's victimised. He is some of the public, such as yourself. And some in the media. But I don't think the AFL victimise him at all.