Grounds for Appeal?

[Mr Magic]

If I understand the Tribunal decision correctly, Baker was found guilty of rough conduct because he put on a 'block' and as he was 50m away from the ball it was deemed 'out of play' and 'reckless'.

Didn't the Tribunal in the Barry Hall case (belting Goose) deem that Hall was 'in play' becuase he 'anticipated' the football was coming back to his vicinity? If so that would surely mean, on the evidence tendered last night and accepted by this Tribunal, that they (the Tribunal) have made an error in fact by deeming the contact was 'out of play'?

[Life Long Saint]

The whole In Play / Behind Play category was scrapped for this season.

The grounds we should use are that no reasonable body could find anyone guilty on the evidence presented. Blocking a player's run has never been rough conduct. And it should never be rough conduct.

[JeffDunne]

Barry Kirkwood - remember the name - is a lying sack of s*** and that's what an appeal will be based on.

Anyone know what school he works at?

[meher baba]

I assume that "rough conduct" is a bit of a grab-bag of a charge that would be difficult to disprove (eg, the constant bumping and buffeting that goes on off the ball in every game could all be construed as "rough conduct").

I guess the best argument is that the 3 weeks penalty is excessive. I think we should aim to get it reduced to 1 week or even a warning.

I also don't understand how the 4 weeks for previous bad conduct is calculated: can anyone on here explain it?

[carn_sainter]

conflict of evidence perhaps...

selwood/headland was thrown out because because of insufficient evidence...nobody knows what was said

well, nobody knows what was done in the baker instance

what's that famous line again..."it's the vibe"

baker was playing on farmer, farmer was found bloodied...we can't find any specifics, but "it's the vibe..."


i'm almost resentful towards the saints for existing in such a rubbish competition...i am forced to support the saints, it's beyond my control, but i just wish they weren't in such a comp...i wish i didn't have to support them sometimes, because doing so means i am inadvertently supporting the turdbag afl

[SainterX1]

The fact that this hasn't been a reportable offence in the past (see Camporeale/Holland) and as far as I am aware there has been no change to this stance.

The DVD that the AFL sends around at the start of the year is meant to show changes in the rules and interpretations. Has this type of offence been included as being reportable?

[JeffDunne]

Can someone explain to me how the discount for an early plea works.

I heard that Baker couldn't have accepted a plea had he been given the opportunity, so he got a ???% loading for a previous poor record.

This is from another ruling this week

The AFL's match review panel assessed the bump Johnson laid during Friday night's match at the MCG as reckless conduct, high contact and with severe impact.

That equated to a level five offence, drawing 750 demerit points, with the 70.31 points Johnson had hanging over from a previous sanction lifting the total to 820.31 points, worth an eight-match ban.

Johnson can accept a six-match ban, if he submits an early guilty plea, which carries a 25 per cent discount.

If Baker had been cited by the MRP, then why couldn't he have accepted an early plea?

IMO he was screwed by the decision to send it straight to the tribunal or am I missing something here?

[JeffDunne]

Just to add to that

And the jury used its discretion to determine the demerit points tally because Baker was charged following a league investigation rather than being cited by the match review panel that usually classifies the conduct, impact and contact aspects of an offence.

So Baker is penalised because there is no footage?

I'd suggest in future the club film the game to protect our players . . . but that would result in a $50K fine.

Seriously, if we don't take this to court then we are a joke of a club.

[Brewer]

It doesn't even seem to be clear what an appeal must consist of.

Some say it must prove that a procedural (legal) error has been made by the tribunal, others say that new evidence needs to be presented. Those are two totally different things (and how anyone can be expected to present new evidence just 15 hours after the original verdict was announced has me stumped).

The thing that has me worried though is that there are so many problems with the verdict as it stands, yet no single clear major issue to hitch our cart to. It is difficult to mount an appeal based on several roughly equal issues.

This whole thing stinks to me - I don't have a problem with Baker copping all the loadings if there are clear grounds for a suspension in the first place, but what kind of kangaroo court can convict based on supposition?

Essentially, we are asked to completely rule out any possibility that Farmer simply didn't pay attention to where he was going. There are witnesses who say that was the case, and that should be enough to acquit Baker.

[maverick]

Very good thread.
Completely agree, he can't have a 25% reduction because it went straight to the tribunal, hardly ethical.
Why does Kosi have a duty of awareness but Farmer doesn't?
Quite right above in the Hall case, they were in the next movement of play, so to speak...
I just find this unbelievable, really do...

[Mr Magic]

Legally and tactically we may need to lodge an appeal.

It may be that the Club has plans to challenge this in a Court of Law and the last thing it would want is to have that challenge thrown out becuae it didn't avail itself of the opportunity (within AFL Rules) of lodging an appeal?

[Grimfang]

The whole In Play / Behind Play category was scrapped for this season.

The grounds we should use are that no reasonable body could find anyone guilty on the evidence presented. Blocking a player's run has never been rough conduct. And it should never be rough conduct.

The decision in this case reverses the grounds on which Giansiracusa was not charged for the collision with Kosi. It was argued then that Kosi's lack of awareness was responsible. Here, Farmer shows either a stunning lack of awareness of what's directly in front of him or has deliberately cannoned into Baker and come off second best. The tribunal has decreed though that Baker is responsible?

[matrix]

farmer gets 6 weeks for eye gouging pratt
baker gets 7 weeks for rough conduct on farmer.

yeah....that makes sense.

[meher baba]

The point about him not having the opportunity to lodge a plea was a good one.

There must be a number of other questions about the process: how he was originally referred to the Tribunal, what the charge was, how the Tribunal used the evidence (eg, was Baker warned that, if he admitted to having initiated an off-the-ball contact, this was possibly going to be used not only to clear him of deliberately attacking the head of Farmer, but also to convict him of "rough conduct").

If the appeals tribunal won't listen to concerns about the process, then we would presumably need to go to court.

But, if the AFL is determined to rub Bakes out for 7 weeks (and I suspect that they are: he's too successful at legally keeping the star players quiet, and they don't like that), I'm still not sure that going to court is a good idea: given how arbitrary and shamelessly biased every action taken by the AFL is under the current regime, they would no doubt find another way of getting back at us.

[JeffDunne]

Not sure if anyone heard the Blue Dweeb on The Morning glory just before 9:00am

He claims new evidence has come to light that might not only clear Baker but may also result in legal action.

May just be the dweeb making up stuff again, but Watson also thought it was a very interesting development.

[saintrod]

Don't think we are going to get any immediate joy from appealing this bs decision given the way the AFL appeal mechanisms are structured but the club will need to lodge an appeal if its to pursue other legal action.

I work in an environmemnt where my decisions can be taken to court and if I made a decision like the tribunal it would be appealed and tossed out.

Therefore IMO the club shoud seek legal advice as to whether it can get a permanent stay on the decison through the courts system on the basis that the decision was legally flawed and did not provide natural justice to Baker.

[Kate]

Whatever happened to the concept of giving the accused the "benefit of the doubt"? There seems to be a montain of doubt, and an ocean of inconsistancy.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is another one that seems to have gone out the window. I'm having trouble spotting the "proof" that Bakes did anything dodgy.

[Dan Warna]

long post edited to say farkem.

[Grimfang]

So have we announced an appeal yet? Midday is the cut-off.

[Behind Play]

Have any of the AFL hierarchie made any statements yet? Would be very interested in hearing their spin on this.