ZAC VERDICT !!

[degruch]

"AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson SC described it as a "very significant blow".

...and Nick Maxwell's jawbreaker was a hug? WTF are these guys on???

Maxwell was found guilty by the Tribunal and given 5/6 weeks.
He then appealed and got off.
The AFL (monkeyboy) then changed the rules to state that 'accidental contact' was now the responsibility of the 'bumper'.

I believe that Maxwell got charged with another bump and got off that one (after the rule was changed)?

Correct, and it wasn't much better, only nothing was broken in the aftermath...so much for that rule.

Has anything that has gone to the Appeals Board this year been upheld? That is one of the main reasons I'd love to see the ruling challenged. However, I'd hate for it to disrupt the team...much rather they go out Saturday absolutely pissed off.

[degruch]

Who gives a crap.

I do.

[Enrico_Misso]

Who gives a crap. We have other players to bring in to show that we have depth.

That's like saying if you have two sisters and one gets molested, then it is no big deal because you've got another one.

[SteveStevens66]

The team and the club don't need the distraction.

Two points and a question:

Point 1. Must disagree with you saint75. An appeal, irrespective of its merits is not a "distraction" for either the team or the club. It will be handled by a QC, hopefully David Grace. It will have nothing to do with the team at all.

Point 2. With the AFL's obsession with all things American they have lifted the notion of "unduly rough conduct" from American football. A crap game at the best of times, but nonetheless, brutal, there is an on-field penalty called for "unduly rough play." How you have such a penalty in a game so rough is a joke. Similarly, to have it in footy runs counter to the intrinsic nature of the game. This is distinct from just belting someone. It is a contact sport and Zac made contact legally--just not according to the newly Americanised version of our game.

Question. Was the umpire in question called to give testimony? He, after all, saw it and did not deem it worthy of so much as a free kick.

[saint75]

The team and the club don't need the distraction.

Two points and a question:

Point 1. Must disagree with you saint75. An appeal, irrespective of its merits is not a "distraction" for either the team or the club. It will be handled by a QC, hopefully David Grace. It will have nothing to do with the team at all.

Point 2. With the AFL's obsession with all things American they have lifted the notion of "unduly rough conduct" from American football. A crap game at the best of times, but nonetheless, brutal, there is an on-field penalty called for "unduly rough play." How you have such a penalty in a game so rough is a joke. Similarly, to have it in footy runs counter to the intrinsic nature of the game. This is distinct from just belting someone. It is a contact sport and Zac made contact legally--just not according to the newly Americanised version of our game.

Question. Was the umpire in question called to give testimony? He, after all, saw it and did not deem it worthy of so much as a free kick.

Now my turn to disagree on point 1. The media attention this will gather is an unnecessary distraction. They have enough paparazzi hanging around as it is, they don't need any more.

We all know the MRP and tribunal are an absolute joke. Time to move on and make them sorry.

[bigcarl]

cop it sweet and move on. it's a distraction that we can do without. the focus has to be on saturday and the big matches to come.

[matrix]

unreal
but not really surprising i guess...

its that stupid grey area of reasonable recklessness.
they will say "well he didnt have to do it"
it was from a mark (or free) and he then went and bumped the player over, pretty much as the ball had been kicked.
he didnt have to.

yeah, correct....he didnt, but this aint friggin badminton ffs.
on this regard hocking should have got 17 weeks rest for that shirt front on Banger.
oh well
zac rests and max comes in if fit, if not i guess its goose maybe.

[markp]

It was worth a week, but it was a grey area and we needed him for the dogs game more than the swans game, so we took the punt.... it's an opportunity to give him a rest and for someone else to step up. No biggie.

We move on.

[plugger66]

It was worth a week, but it was a grey area and we needed him for the dogs game more than the swans game, so we took the punt.... it's an opportunity to give him a rest and for someone else to step up. No biggie.

We move on.

Agree totally. It isnt worth the detraction as we have a flag to win. Max is ready to go. You can also only appeal on the not following law matters. You cannot bring up other incidents. It looked a tough decision but unless we are saying one of our great champs is corrupt, Loewe, then thats the way it goes. Yes and we can bring up other decisions but they have nothing to do with this even if you think they should. Are there stats to prove we have had a bad deal at the tribunal in the last 2 years.

And this post isnt sticking up for the AFL as I think he is unlucky but it is sticking up for the illogical notion that the AFL hate us, cheat, pick on as and a former player is corrupt. The AFL better get the umps on board if they want us to lose because I think it was 16 to 7 on Saturday.

[widereceiver]

Appeal, with a competent lawyer.
It is not a distraction to the players, it's about standing up for ourselves off the field as the players have on the field all year.

Imagine Collingwood taking it up the backside meekly, not a chance. Throwing in the towel is not our style anymore.

[terry smith rules]

Appeal, with a competent lawyer.
It is not a distraction to the players, it's about standing up for ourselves off the field as the players have on the field all year.

Imagine Collingwood taking it up the backside meekly, not a chance. Throwing in the towel is not our style anymore.

+1

It is not the guilty verdict, it is the severity of the sentence, compared to the others trotted out each week.

The problem with all this is the early guilty plea farce. It's a roll of the dice and that is not justice.

If you want to use the early guilty plea it should not reduce the sentence but maybe something like the carry over points.

If the "crime" deserves 3 weeks then that is what you get.

[Mr Magic]

It was worth a week, but it was a grey area and we needed him for the dogs game more than the swans game, so we took the punt.... it's an opportunity to give him a rest and for someone else to step up. No biggie.

We move on.

Agree totally. It isnt worth the detraction as we have a flag to win. Max is ready to go. You can also only appeal on the not following law matters. You cannot bring up other incidents. It looked a tough decision but unless we are saying one of our great champs is corrupt, Loewe, then thats the way it goes. Yes and we can bring up other decisions but they have nothing to do with this even if you think they should. Are there stats to prove we have had a bad deal at the tribunal in the last 2 years.

And this post isnt sticking up for the AFL as I think he is unlucky but it is sticking up for the illogical notion that the AFL hate us, cheat, pick on as and a former player is corrupt. The AFL better get the umps on board if they want us to lose because I think it was 16 to 7 on Saturday.

Plugger, the mere fact that the Tribunal took more than 30 minutes to reach it's decision (apparently very unusual) could lead one to think that their decision was not clear cut.
From that position it's not a stretch to make the assumption that at least 1 member (probably 2) of the Tribunal initially did not agree with the decision.
I choose to assume that it was Loewe who didn't agree with the decision, so therefore there is no need to consider him as a 'cheat' as you put it.

Even if it wasn't him, there would appear enough doubt on behalf of the 3 person Tribunal that it took 30 minutes to come up with their decision.

Unfortunately, like so many things involving controverial decisions in the AFL, we have no idea what was said during the deliberations and are left to just speculate.

If there was enough doubt in the minds of the Tribunal that it took 30 minutes to reach their decision then I believe an appeal would most likely win. I've read enough commentary that most of Monkey Boy's rules don't stand up to legal scrutiny to feel confident that an appeal would probably be successful.

And what's the damage to us if we appeal and lose?
Money, that's all.

Unless you think there would be some sort of 'grudge' from the AFL for taking their Tribunal decision to appeal?

[1eyedNever]

Heaps of people on here are saying move on COP it SWEET
For all time I can remember the SKFC just cops it sweet and lays down like a puppy.
Fu@#ing sick of this WIMP crap attitude
CollFC,EFC,HFC.CarlFC wouldnt cop it .
Stuff the expence and appeal it
It was a fair bump with the ball within 5 mtrs NOT NETBALL
NO MERCY NO REGRETS FU@# the AFL they do not want us to win a flag and this is a small way to stop US.


ALL Wimp posters go and watch PING PONG

[markp]

ALL Wimp posters go and watch PING PONG

Who's playing?

[degruch]

ALL Wimp posters go and watch PING PONG

Who's playing?

No-one...they're being rested.

[markp]

ALL Wimp posters go and watch PING PONG

Who's playing?

No-one...they're being rested.

...Or are they injured?

And what sound does no one playing ping pong mak.... ah never mind.

[oneteam]

Appeal, with a competent lawyer.
It is not a distraction to the players, it's about standing up for ourselves off the field as the players have on the field all year.

Imagine Collingwood taking it up the backside meekly, not a chance. Throwing in the towel is not our style anymore.

The club used Peter Murdoch QC , who is one of the 2 most successful lawyers at the tribunal. he does all of geelong's tribunal work and other clubs too.

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.
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.

[maverick]

It was worth a week, but it was a grey area and we needed him for the dogs game more than the swans game, so we took the punt.... it's an opportunity to give him a rest and for someone else to step up. No biggie.

We move on.

Agree totally. It isnt worth the detraction as we have a flag to win. Max is ready to go. You can also only appeal on the not following law matters. You cannot bring up other incidents. It looked a tough decision but unless we are saying one of our great champs is corrupt, Loewe, then thats the way it goes. Yes and we can bring up other decisions but they have nothing to do with this even if you think they should. Are there stats to prove we have had a bad deal at the tribunal in the last 2 years.

And this post isnt sticking up for the AFL as I think he is unlucky but it is sticking up for the illogical notion that the AFL hate us, cheat, pick on as and a former player is corrupt. The AFL better get the umps on board if they want us to lose because I think it was 16 to 7 on Saturday.

Who is detracted?

If Max is ready to go structure wise we are fine, except who takes Minson I suppose, but what does it do to the way Zac plays his footy, because part of his value this year has been his blocking and shepherding...

[saintsrus]

Nettlefolds interview on radio after the decision sounded like we are going to accept it and move on, be surprised if this changes

[bigcarl]

Nettlefolds interview on radio after the decision sounded like we are going to accept it and move on, be surprised if this changes

good, that's the smart decision. sometimes you can't fight city hall

[oneteam]

Nettlefolds interview on radio after the decision sounded like we are going to accept it and move on, be surprised if this changes

good, that's the smart decision. sometimes you can't fight city hall

Exactly right. The money we would waste on an appeal can be spent on something better.

[saint66au]

It was worth a week, but it was a grey area and we needed him for the dogs game more than the swans game, so we took the punt.... it's an opportunity to give him a rest and for someone else to step up. No biggie.

We move on.

Agree totally. It isnt worth the detraction as we have a flag to win. Max is ready to go. You can also only appeal on the not following law matters. You cannot bring up other incidents. It looked a tough decision but unless we are saying one of our great champs is corrupt, Loewe, then thats the way it goes. Yes and we can bring up other decisions but they have nothing to do with this even if you think they should. Are there stats to prove we have had a bad deal at the tribunal in the last 2 years.

And this post isnt sticking up for the AFL as I think he is unlucky but it is sticking up for the illogical notion that the AFL hate us, cheat, pick on as and a former player is corrupt. The AFL better get the umps on board if they want us to lose because I think it was 16 to 7 on Saturday.

Yeah..gotta say I'm with you on this one plugger. The MRP terms of reference are open to incredible mis-interpretation, their usage of them is very inconsistant to put it mildly, but the notion of them or the tribunal sitting down and cackling "Goody we get to shaft St Kilda again" is just laughable

All this talk of "sticking up for ourselves"?? Does this mean that if we are getting the rough end of the stick umpiring-wise one day, that Roo or Lenny just go in and continually give the umps a gobful to "stick up for ourselves..give away 50 but feel better for having flown the flag?

[markp]

All this talk of "sticking up for ourselves"?? Does this mean that if we are getting the rough end of the stick umpiring-wise one day, that Roo or Lenny just go in and continually give the umps a gobful to "stick up for ourselves..give away 50 but feel better for having flown the flag?

Yup.... just like GT did.

[oneteam]

All this talk of "sticking up for ourselves"?? Does this mean that if we are getting the rough end of the stick umpiring-wise one day, that Roo or Lenny just go in and continually give the umps a gobful to "stick up for ourselves..give away 50 but feel better for having flown the flag?

Yup.... just like GT did.

Every time a club criticised Andrew demetrou, i reckon they suffer in things like the fixture, and club requests for money for different things. You cant criticise and "stick it up them" and expect they are going to take a favourable approach to us on discretionary things when we want their help.

GT was a classic for this. the afl and the umpires were never going to do anything to help us out .

[spert]

I would have thought Zac's incident was at the extreme, worthy of a reprimand and nothing more, but two weeks is an absolute unrealistic penalty. The club is now sitting on top of the ladder and at this stage, should be seen to be making itself heard in all arenas, and should appeal this penalty. It is really pointless to say cop it and move on, when one thinks of the injustices in life where, by making a stand, investigating all avenues, an injustice is turned around in favour of the victim who would have otherwise meekly gone on as a victim of a flawed system..in this case the AFL tribunal system.