Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

[kruddler]

Yep its Steve...is it right that Hocking has the power to ratify all tribunal decisions hence making him the defacto tribunal?

Someone from the AFL has to decide if/when to appeal, i believe he is in charge of that.
He doesn't get to decide their fate on appeal though.

He does have a lot of power.

Unlike many on here, i don't think its an agenda against the Navy Blue.

My gut feel, without my navy blue glasses, was that Charlie should've got off, and give the hawkins precedent, ed should get a week.

Keep in mind, that gut feel is based on the comments from the AFL re Hawkins incident.
In reality, i think Ed should get off but based on precedent though, ed will go.

[LP]

Good test for the President...where is MLG?..........I'm sure Jeffrey Kennett would have been all over the AFL by now.....

Yes our silence all day long has been deafening!

[cookie2]

Yes our silence all day long has been deafening!

I hadn't noticed that.  ;D

[kruddler]

Wasn't he the one responsible for evening up and knocking out Leigh Mathews behind play following Mathews king hitting Bruns of Geelong in 85? Good pedigree in the hitting dept but I guess not against an umpire.  :

A touch before my time, but i seem to remember him being in some kind of incident of note...that may have been it.

[Gointocarlton]

So the AFL is saying the AFL Tribunal is incompetent.

[kruddler]

So the AFL is saying the AFL Tribunal is incompetent.

Yep. I laughed at that. That isn't going to piss them off at all.

Who appointed the tribunal? I'm assuming the AFL will sack whoever was in charge of that appointment given their ability to make a decision is "manifestly inadequate"  >

[flyboy77]

Hocking said the AFL had appealed both of the financial sanctions on the grounds that:

    no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it the sanction imposed was manifestly inadequate.

Me thinks they will be fine - "no Tribunal acting reasonably"?

Well they just let May off for doing more than ED or Charlie did and which player's contact did all players use in their defence (can't remember) - do we have footage of that?


But "no Tribunal acting reasonably" is an extraordinary high standard to reach/meet.

But will play Sunday imo.

[LP]

I'm not sure who else is on the tribunal, but these four former MRP committee members form part of the tribunal panel.

Nathan Burke
Jimmy Bartel
Michael Jamison
Jason Johnson

Last night I believe it was,

Wayne Henwood
Stewart Loewe
Jason Johnson

[Jack Burton]

Both Curnows will be rubbed out. The AFL knows the result of an appeal before it decides to appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if the club has already been unofficially advised to prepare for Sunday's game without either Curnow playing. The club will also have been told that if it wants to consider legal action it will not have a Friday night game for 5 years, and will have 14 Sunday twilight games next year. That's how the autocrasy works. I just hope they don't give Ed 2 matches to make an even bigger example, but I don't think that will happen as it will affect future cases. Not much the club can do, but the angle I'd be working on is who are the anonymous minions who look at video of games and highlight incidents for the MRO to look at. There have been numerous examples from this weeks games on social media platforms of players from other clubs (including Essendon) making light contact with their hand on an umpires chest, back or arm, yet these are not even referred to the MRO. Is there bias in this process? I say yes. The only players cited are from Carlton and GCS, and the AFL subsequently find a way to make sure their Gold Coast lovechild club are not disadvantaged

[PaulP]

So touching an umpire is a reportable/punishable by suspension offense... unless you're demonstrating something (May)  :o

I can imagine Yarran demonstrating on an umpire what he did to Chapman's head, and walking free.