The Ben Long Appeal

[bigred]

Jack Rush QC on behalf of Long: 'The inevitable conclusion that he suffered no injury must be because the impact was low'

[bigred]

Jack Rush QC says that Long's contact has caused no injury and that has been totally ignored in the Tribunal's initial finding.

Thats it right there.

[bigred]

Jack Rush QC: The board should be without doubt that the Tribunal has failed to consider a most important aspect of the consideration... there is no other explanation for the Tribunal being surprised Macrae got up so quickly. Why would there be surprise if they had properly taken into account medical evidence that there was no injury?

Ben Long: stares smugly at the Judge.. "Suffer in ya jocks"

[bigred]

Jack Rush QC is concluding his case for the Tribunal's decision to be overturned, then Jeff Gleeson QC will respond on behalf of the AFL

[bigred]

Rush is now taking the panel through the vision of Long's hit on Macrae.

[bigred]

---So they base the contact level on the movement of Mcrae's head, but we cannot have a biomechanical expert look at it.... Righto

[skeptic]

Seems like a bad omen

[bigred]

Rush says the main contact is to the right shoulder and upper torso. At best, it is a 'glancing contact' with Macrae.

[skeptic]

The AFL is so full of $#[£

This isn’t a court of law... and it’s not like the tribunal have a lot else to do. If there’s evidence let it be heard

[bigred]

Rush concluding by saying it is 'Manifestly unreasonable to be designating this as medium contact' given the medical report and 'glancing contact'.

[bigred]

Jeff Gleeson QC is now beginning his argument on behalf of the AFL.

[freely]

So are we trying to get the appeal heard on the basis "That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it."

Or on the basis that "Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate."

??

Sounds like we're hedging our bets.

[Peanut Farm]

Jeff Gleeson can get stuffed.

[bigred]

Gleeson: Long had momentum. Macrae's head snaps back because there is clearly more than 'glancing contact'.

[Devilhead]

I am guessing we cannot use previous adjudications ie: Pickett hit on Heeney or the Rohan hit on Lester - to back up our argument of low impact?

[shadrock]

Gleeson: Long had momentum. Macrae's head snaps back because there is clearly more than 'glancing contact'.

How about mentioning the fact that Macrae HAD THE f****** BALL!!! Contacting a guy when he HAS THE BALL is a fair bit different to laying someone out behind play. I feel like our legal rep has handed this to the AFL on a platter. The glancing blow comment was an underarm lob ready to be hit out of the park. Silly to even mention it.

[shadrock]

I am guessing we cannot use previous adjudications ie: Pickett hit on Heeney or the Rohan hit on Lester - to back up our argument of low impact?

Yes you can. Common to do this in legal settings.

[Devilhead]

I am guessing we cannot use previous adjudications ie: Pickett hit on Heeney or the Rohan hit on Lester - to back up our argument of low impact?

Yes you can. Common to do this in legal settings.

So why aren't we?

Both Heeney and Lester took a lot longer to get up than Macrae - both received free kicks as well - Macrae didn't

[desertsaint]

be very surprised if we win one.

[freely]

It's an appeal. We can only argue one of:
- Error of law.
- That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
- Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
- Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate.

[bigred]

Gleeson is saying it is not outside the permissible range to consider the potential to cause serious injury, because the potential was apparent. 'A few millimetres either way, a few milliseconds either way and the outcome is different.'

[bigred]

Rush: It is apparent that the movement of Long reduced the potential for serious injury and the Tribunal didn't consider this adequately

[bigred]

Rush concludes by saying the initial Tribunal 'Have not weighed up and taken into consideration the fact there was no injury' and have instead put too much weight on the potential to cause injury.

[realdeal]

St.Kilda screwed by tribunal once again..

[bigred]

The jury is now deliberating. Don't think this is going to be a short deliberation period judging by the indication from the chair. Will let you know as soon as we're back.- Fox Footy.

I think they have put forward the best arguement they could....without being able to use the biomech specialist ffs.

Slim chance if you read the arguements with any common sense... But this is the AFL. They dont use common sense.