A Tribunal review...

[yipper]

As an advocate who worked in the VCAT Tribunal for over 10 years, allow me to attempt a review of the AFL's tribunal process. VCAT is legislated for and an Act is in place to cover the operations / conduct of all Hearings. The AFL Tribunal will not have this - but will still have it's own rules. The conduct of a Hearing must still be in line with all other civil tribunals in that courtroom etiquette is applied and the laws of evidence should still apply.

So, last night - they had a case before them which was referred to them by the AFL investigations team. There was no physical evidence to present at all i.e. a video, but there were some still photographs tendered for consideration by the St.Kilda F C. The case was referred largely on the basis of testimonies of an alleged eye-witness: The Freo trainer!!

At the last minute - testimonies were allowed from Jeff Farmer - despite his previous statement to investigators that he could not recall the incident at all!! and from another eye-witness in Ricky Nixon.

The Hearing heard that the Freo trainer did not get a clear view of the incident but a testimony nevertheless that Baker came in from the side and struck Farmer hard with his hip and shoulde, whilst Farmer was running fast towards the play . Farmer - quite miraculously could now recall that he was hit from the side in his face whilst he was looking downfield but standing still at the time!! So which was it??

Ricky Nixon saw what apppears to have been the actual incident - that Farmer, whilst running fast, crashed into the back of Baker and struck his face on the Baker's head. Baker testified that he stopped in front of Farmer and blocked his run into the forward 50 area.

The Freo trainer was caught out in the fact that he did not see the contact, was incorrect in where the ball was at the time and contradicted Farmer's own testimony in that he said Farmer was running quickly at the time. (as opposed to standing stationary)

Now the process of a Tribunal Hearing is that Baker does not have to prove his innocence - rather, the AFL must prove his guilt. Prove that he committed an act that warranted a punishment because it was outside the rules and untoward. By my reckoning they did not do this - rather they achieved that there was no king-hit, no strike, no kick, no charge, and no wrestle. Instead they were able to conclude on the balance of probabilities that a block occured that resulted in an accidental head clash. Baker could not have forseen that result - so therefore, could not be found guilty on any deliberate type of action. So is the action of the block unlawful?? Not if it was within 15 metres of the ball - perfectly legal in that case. But 50m off the ball - it was against the rules of football and a free kick was warranted, however, no umpire saw it. So no action. The contact was severe and caused injury - but it was established to have been accidental and not a forseeable consequence. But they still found him guilty on rough conduct in that he laid a block?? on the player. And that this action warranted a severe penalty!! An appeal should call the decision of the Tribunal as flawed because the result of his actions could not have been forseen and that it was purely accidental. The actions of blocking a player are allowed for in the rules. So there - over to you St.Kilda - appeal it.

[n1ck]

Have you sent that to everyone at the club, yip?

[True Blue Sainter]

Yipper

Send that to the club. Send it to the AFL. Send it to media contacts... Send it everywhere... Let's make it well known that we're sick of being screwed over by a corrupt corporation.[/img]

[HarveysDeciple]

sounds about right.

They essentially suspended him for a shepherd.
It was a free kick no doubt about it, but not a 7 week offence, or even a 4 week offence as it would have been if not for his record.

[Dan Warna]

there is nothing wrong with the tribunal
no WCE players do drugs
Barry Hall doesn't have a case to answer for belted maguire
judd never eye gouged
hits on Ball are fair go

etc etc

UMpires never decide the outcome of games.

[yipper]

Done. sent to Archie, Kenny and Rod.

[n1ck]

You should also send it to *shudder* Caro, and the rest of the football media.

[Dan Warna]

dont worry they all read it.

or will soon.

[St. Luke]

That's my understanding from what I've read and heard also Yipper. Thanks for an educated run-down on it.

My favorite bit is how the Saints are required to come up with more evidence now to try and get Baker acquitted, but the Tribunal needed none themselves to find him guilty. How double standard is that!!!

[meher baba]

Like you, Yipper, I have had had a lot to do with all sorts of tribunals, and I follow your reasoning if - as is typically the case - tribunals are not empowered to dismiss all charges put to them and then invent their own and charge and convict a party of that charge.

The AFL Tribunal acted as if they have this power. Having formed the conclusion that they could not work out for certain the nature of the clash between Baker and Farmer - so could not convict Baker on any specific charge of the type you have listed - they have then switched to an all-purpose category of "rough conduct". Without any witnesses they seem to have found that (a) the conduct was rough because Farmer ended up with a broken nose, and (b) deliberate because Baker admitted to having run a distance to initiate the contact.

So, if they are empowered to act in this way, then there really are no grounds for complaining against their decision as such. We would really have to go for the process through which they made the decision: and I reckon we could have a field day with this in court.

But we won't make any friends at the AFL. It is pretty clear that the hierarchy and most of the media suspect that - whatever anybody says - Baker king-hit Farmer behind play in a deliberate and premeditated act. And they really don't like Baker, because they don't like effective taggers (remember when the AFL "investigated" Baker and, supposedly, other taggers). They'd be really happy to see him driven out of AFL altogether, along with a number of other players who play the old style, hard contact sort of game that they believe alienates fans from Gens X and Y (especially female fans).

So, unless some new evidence comes to light that would cause the AFL humiliation were they not to overturn Baker's suspension (and it's hard to imagine what this might be), they won't back down and any legal action we might take will be really ugly and rebound upon us as all the AFL's media lackeys gang up against us.

[yipper]

I believe that a successful appeal can be launched on how the Tribunal reached a guilty verdict on the evidence presented. And that the guilty verdict was based on an action that is allowed for in the rules. So the process could be challenged as flawed and lacking in reason and unjust in it's conclusions.

[Dan Warna]

I believe that a successful appeal can be launched on how the Tribunal reached a guilty verdict on the evidence presented. And that the guilty verdict was based on an action that is allowed for in the rules. So the process could be challenged as flawed and lacking in reason and unjust in it's conclusions.

erm unjust yipper?

your implication is that justice is a goal of the AFL?

the AFL is about revenue and markets, it hasn't been about justice for sometime.

I have no doubt the AFL has agenda's to run.

IMO even after cousins admitted to having a drug problem they couldn't or didn't or chose not to test him for hte appropriate substances.

kerr admitted to consuming drugs and being a drug courier, the AFL chose to take no action.

allessio was found to have STOOD on baker, and yet baker cops a 1 week suspension?

JUSTICE? its deader than vlads brain.

[Brewer]

We would really have to go for the process through which they made the decision: and I reckon we could have a field day with this in court.

Surely someone needs to try and keep the bastards honest...

But we won't make any friends at the AFL.

Well no change there then...

They'd be really happy to see him driven out of AFL altogether, along with a number of other players who play the old style, hard contact sort of game that they believe alienates fans from Gens X and Y (especially female fans).

Therein lies the motivation for all of the AFL's recent decisions methinks. If you ever want to pre-empt an AFL decision, just ask yourself - what would an interstate mother's opinion be? Demetriou et al are slowly turning this great game into a soccer spinoff where all contact is gradually being outlawed.

So, unless some new evidence comes to light that would cause the AFL humiliation were they not to overturn Baker's suspension...

If humiliation is the only language the AFL seems to understand then so be it

...any legal action we might take will be really ugly and rebound upon us as all the AFL's media lackeys gang up against us.

So no change there either. Why can Collingwood challenge but not us?

Some great posts in this thread, but I fail to see what sort of favours our previous, passive behavious has earnt us?

What's the worst that could happen? St Kilda becomes the mongrel underdog of the league? And that would be worse how?

[HarveysDeciple]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

[Mr Magic]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

And we have done sensationally with them by toeing the line?

[Mr X from the West]

Yipper - surely our Counsel should have stated what you stated in his submissions?

Who is the turkey who represents us? We seem to have real trouble with getting half decent counsel.

[n1ck]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

How is that different to the last 5 years though mate?

We need to stand up and face this head on for once.

Too many times we have proven to be pissweak in an attempt to get some 'face value' truths from the AFL. This hasnt happened, so why not fight like Collingwood would.

[Dan Warna]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

And we have done sensationally with them by toeing the line?

tbh our draw this year has been better than for a number of other years.

dimwit hated GT because GT didn't toe the line.

we knew it, GT knew it, the club knew it.

the draw we got this year was in part a reward for sacking GT.

[yipper]

Yipper - surely our Counsel should have stated what you stated in his submissions?

Who is the turkey who represents us? We seem to have real trouble with getting half decent counsel.

Yes, I have concerns in that area - we never seem to go well at the tribunal. Is Jack Gaffney still around?? He used to get Big Carl off quite a few charges in his day..

[St George]

Well done yipper - great post!

[HarveysDeciple]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

How is that different to the last 5 years though mate?

We need to stand up and face this head on for once.

Too many times we have proven to be pissweak in an attempt to get some 'face value' truths from the AFL. This hasnt happened, so why not fight like Collingwood would.

hey I agree entirely.

I will be annoyed if we didnt challenge and we should push it all the way, just making an obersvation as to the corrupt nature of this organisation.

[Dan Warna]

I get the feeling that if we win a court case the AFL will send us interstate 8 times next year, make us play at Skilled Stadium and give us every team in the top 6 twice, as well as 14 6 day breaks.

Can see that coming.

How is that different to the last 5 years though mate?

We need to stand up and face this head on for once.

Too many times we have proven to be pissweak in an attempt to get some 'face value' truths from the AFL. This hasnt happened, so why not fight like Collingwood would.

hey I agree entirely.

I will be annoyed if we didnt challenge and we should push it all the way, just making an obersvation as to the corrupt nature of this organisation.

to play devils advocate the 'planegate' incident where umpires 'had the win' could well be a consequence of standing up.

the AFL has the power to break a club.

st kilda will no doubt go over the salary cap in 07, due to injury/match payments and elevating rookies.

st kilda is dependant on AFL distributions.

st kilda will be dependant on at least a moderate to fair draw in subsequent years.

the AFL could destroy st kilda.

[St.Kenny]

Correct yipper. The appeal I think should and will be based on the technicality of whether the there was enough evidence to accept that a reportable ofence occured. There is a lot of grounds to argue here

[Superboot]

How would the argument put by the Tribunal apply in the Kos fractured scull incident against Footscray?

[Mr Magic]

How would the argument put by the Tribunal apply in the Kos fractured scull incident against Footscray?

Simple,
Kosi is a Saints player and is obviously at fault for anything that happened.

The whole thing is a joke - they are making the rules up as they go along so they can fit the evidence to teh desired result they want.


I believe the Club was aware last year before the 2 week 'attempted jumper punch' suspension that teh league was 'after' Baker and nothing has changed.

He is the 'poster boy for taggers' and they don't want his type being effective against the superstars of the comp.