Moderator: bbmods
Your entire post was so well reasoned, but I have just picked out this point in particular. Basically, if Bruzzy is penalized, it implies that the AFL altered its rules 5 minutes into the game, which would make the penalty "illegal".pietillidie wrote:
You can't suddenly penalise someone playing within the known rules and norms of the game, FFS, which is why he will surely win on appeal or at court.
And the controvosy is generated by click bait hungry mediaLaurieHolden wrote:^ One of the guiding principles of the Tribunal system are:
>To promote appropriate outcomes by processing lower-level offences via the MRO, and higher-level offences via the Tribunal;
>Following the review of each report or referral, the MRO in conjunction with the AFL General Manager Football Operations will determine whether a Player is to be charged with a Reportable Offence. Once charged, if a Player elects to contest a charge at the Tribunal, the formal request and process will be managed by the AFL Legal Department.
>The Tribunal will determine the appropriate sanction for the ultimate Reportable Offence it finds a Player to have committed (if any). The outcome of the hearing will be communicated by the Tribunal Chairperson with a verbal explanation outlining the reasons for the decision, developed in conjunction with the Jury members.
>For challenges to financial sanctions, the charged Player may elect to have the matter decided by a single legally trained Tribunal Jury member on the basis of written submissions only. A reason for the decision will also be provided.
>A Victim Player who has suffered harm as a result of the alleged offence may give evidence prior to or at the Tribunal hearing, but only with the permission of the Tribunal Chairperson.
Role of the Tribunal
» The Tribunal convenes to hear contested Reportable Offences, Direct Tribunal Offences and those Classifiable Offences which are sufficiently serious to be referred to the Tribunal.
» The Tribunal is comprised of a Chairperson and a three member Jury, except in the event the Player elects to have the matter decided by a single legally trained Jury member on the basis of written submissions only.
» The Chairperson manages process and decides on points of law.
» The Jury determines whether the Reportable Offence occurred and applies an appropriate sanction (if applicable).
» The Chairperson will communicate Tribunal outcomes with a verbal explanation outlining the reasons for the decision, developed in conjunction with the Jury.
Role of the Appeal Board
» The Appeal Board convenes to hear appeals of matters from the Tribunal.
» The Appeal Board is comprised of a Chairperson and two members.
» The Chairperson manages the process of the appeal.
» The three member Appeal Board determines the points of Law and whether the ground(s) of appeal is successful.
» Members of the Appeal Board for a hearing cannot be the same members that sat on the matter at the Tribunal
AFL and AFLW Tribunals / Appeals Board
Tribunal Chairs: Jeffrey Gleeson KC, Renee Enbom KC
Tribunal Panel Members: Michelle Dench, Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Shannon McFerran, David Neitz, Paul Williams, Shane Wakelin, Talia Radan, Darren Gaspar, Jordan Bannister, Scott Stevens.
Appeal Board Chairs: Murray Kellam KC, John Middleton.
Appeal Board Panel Members: Wayne Henwood, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge
AFL Tribunal Counsel: Nick Pane KC, Andrew Woods, Sally Flynn KC, Lisa Hannon KC, Sam Bird
Tribunal Secretary: Matthew Whitaker
Match Review Officer: Michael Christian
Match Review Secretary: Hamish Anderson
The AFL can appeal the tribunal.
- Damian Barrett and Nat Edwards preview the Brayden Maynard Tribunal hearing ~
+ Nick Daicos nears end of 'close to perfect' rehab.
They're expecting a 4-5 hour debate. Barrett makes some good points. As with all podcasts / panels, the producers pre-load them with good cop / bad cop to liven up the debate.
The last sentencing that had this much controversy was Ronald Ryan...
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1030791/afl ... nals-hopes
The AFL has very recent history on this road.PyreneesPie wrote:Your entire post was so well reasoned, but I have just picked out this point in particular. Basically, if Bruzzy is penalized, it implies that the AFL altered its rules 5 minutes into the game, which would make the penalty "illegal".pietillidie wrote:
You can't suddenly penalise someone playing within the known rules and norms of the game, FFS, which is why he will surely win on appeal or at court.
As you say, this element in itself should prevail if/when it goes to appeal and/or court.
I thought so too.Haff wrote:I actually thought GW’s comments were fair unless I read the wrong article? He’s just calling out the questions that will have to be decided at the tribunal. I generally like GW, best caller in the game and generally level headed.
Sorry Haff (and David ), but I can't agree. On AFL 360, he insinuated that Bruzzy should not have turned his shoulder into Brayshaw and chosen other impossible options, which was just crap in all aspects. Bruzzy did not turn his shoulder intentionally.... he tilted his head up and away to the left to avoid a head clash and this motion in itself lifted his right shoulder slightly higher. Try it for yourself and see what happens.Haff wrote:I actually thought GW’s comments were fair unless I read the wrong article? He’s just calling out the questions that will have to be decided at the tribunal. I generally like GW, best caller in the game and generally level headed.
