Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:23 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:35 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17877
Wojee wrote:
Blues21 wrote:
Essendon*** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.


Ummm......

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-0 ... s-appealed



Quote:
The Club is now currently considering the options available ahead of Thursday’s hearing.


What the @#$%&! does that even mean??

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:10 pm
Posts: 33617
Location: COMFORTABLY DISSATISFIED
buzzaaaah wrote:
Wojee wrote:
Blues21 wrote:
Essendon**** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.


Ummm......

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-0 ... s-appealed



Quote:
The Club is now currently considering the options available ahead of Thursday’s hearing.


What the @#$%&! does that even mean??


Exactly what it says?

_________________
WADA medical director Dr Alan Vernec describes Essendon* FC drug case as biggest scandal in team sport the world of sport has seen. #WC2WB

#GUILTY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:38 pm
Posts: 7640
what else can they say legitimately - what they should say is that like May if both were on a plane to China or in China AFL would not have appealed and this is a very arbitrary decision and typical of AFL fixer mentality


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:11 pm
Posts: 14235
Navy Blue Horse wrote:
My tip: Charlie cleared again, Ed suspended

That is what I thought would happen last night. No way Charlie meant to touch the umpire, I doubt he even knew he had.
What a joke our game has become.
This was a witch hunt from the start. The media were almost wetting themselves when they discovered vision of the Charlie incident.
To not appeal the May one just is mind boggling. It is okay to head butt an umpire but not touch one however so slight.
I am confused as to why some players get fined for making accidental contact with umpires, as Cripps was on Saturday, but there is supposedly a difference between Charlie and the others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 22924
Location: Bondi Beach
kezza wrote:
Navy Blue Horse wrote:
My tip: Charlie cleared again, Ed suspended

That is what I thought would happen last night. No way Charlie meant to touch the umpire, I doubt he even knew he had.
What a joke our game has become.
This was a witch hunt from the start. The media were almost wetting themselves when they discovered vision of the Charlie incident.
To not appeal the May one just is mind boggling. It is okay to head butt an umpire but not touch one however so slight.
I am confused as to why some players get fined for making accidental contact with umpires, as Cripps was on Saturday, but there is supposedly a difference between Charlie and the others.



Good point

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am
Posts: 28221
Donstuie wrote:
buzzaaaah wrote:
Wojee wrote:
Blues21 wrote:
Essendon***** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.


Ummm......

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-0 ... s-appealed



Quote:
The Club is now currently considering the options available ahead of Thursday’s hearing.


What the @#$%&! does that even mean??


Exactly what it says?


Well, there's only one option - defend the tribunal decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 9:02 pm
Posts: 11421
Location: Melbourne
Given the ridiculous backlash I think they will both end up suspended.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am
Posts: 33828
missnaut wrote:
Given the ridiculous backlash I think they will both end up suspended.


Media get outraged --> Public get confused and/or outraged --> AFL knee-jerk reaction.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17877
Rexy wrote:
Donstuie wrote:
buzzaaaah wrote:
Wojee wrote:
Blues21 wrote:
Essendon****** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.


Ummm......

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2018-0 ... s-appealed



Quote:
The Club is now currently considering the options available ahead of Thursday’s hearing.


What the @#$%&! does that even mean??


Exactly what it says?


Well, there's only one option - defend the tribunal decision.


What other options are they considering??
I hope that caving in isn't one.
Supreme Court injunction is one I would consider
Or hiring Mick Gatto to negotiate a good settlement

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:17 pm
Posts: 2582
Navy Blue Horse wrote:
My tip: Charlie cleared again, Ed suspended


That's what my original view was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm
Posts: 23865
Blues21 wrote:
Essendon** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.

Oh yes. Fabulous club Essendon*
A lot to admire and emulate there.

_________________
That’s not a political statement — it’s a harsh reality, and we must act,” she said. “He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free. I support impeachment.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:41 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17877
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Now that I have that over with, as an expert on law based on many years of TV and novels, I believe that a truly independent appeals body would uphold the tribunal verdict with little deliberation.

Quote:
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.


The Appeals Tribunal doesn't have to think that the tribunal decision was correct, just that, given the evidence before them, the decision was reasonable.
I cannot see any way that the decision was not "reasonable". Doesn't have to be correct, just reasonable.
The charge was intentional contact with an umpire. The AFL lawyer would have to show that the evidence was so definite that Ed and Charlie deliberately contacted the umpire, there was no possible way a tribunal could find otherwise.
This is not a retrial. It's an examination on legal procedure.

If Curnows get suspended, legal challenge to the Supreme Court MUST be initiated.

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am
Posts: 28221
buzzaaaah wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Now that I have that over with, as an expert on law based on many years of TV and novels, I believe that a truly independent appeals body would uphold the tribunal verdict with little deliberation.

Quote:
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.


The Appeals Tribunal doesn't have to think that the tribunal decision was correct, just that, given the evidence before them, the decision was reasonable.
I cannot see any way that the decision was not "reasonable". Doesn't have to be correct, just reasonable.
The charge was intentional contact with an umpire. The AFL lawyer would have to show that the evidence was so definite that Ed and Charlie deliberately contacted the umpire, there was no possible way a tribunal could find otherwise.
This is not a retrial. It's an examination on legal procedure.

If Curnows get suspended, legal challenge to the Supreme Court MUST be initiated.


That's how I see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 5:01 pm 
Offline
formerly King Kenny
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:35 pm
Posts: 20076
buzzaaaah wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Now that I have that over with, as an expert on law based on many years of TV and novels, I believe that a truly independent appeals body would uphold the tribunal verdict with little deliberation.

Quote:
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.


The Appeals Tribunal doesn't have to think that the tribunal decision was correct, just that, given the evidence before them, the decision was reasonable.
I cannot see any way that the decision was not "reasonable". Doesn't have to be correct, just reasonable.
The charge was intentional contact with an umpire. The AFL lawyer would have to show that the evidence was so definite that Ed and Charlie deliberately contacted the umpire, there was no possible way a tribunal could find otherwise.
This is not a retrial. It's an examination on legal procedure.

If Curnows get suspended, legal challenge to the Supreme Court MUST be initiated.


How are they going to prove intent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:10 pm
Posts: 33617
Location: COMFORTABLY DISSATISFIED
Coz otherwise da kidz will be sad

_________________
WADA medical director Dr Alan Vernec describes Essendon* FC drug case as biggest scandal in team sport the world of sport has seen. #WC2WB

#GUILTY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:11 pm
Posts: 14235
Rexy wrote:
buzzaaaah wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Now that I have that over with, as an expert on law based on many years of TV and novels, I believe that a truly independent appeals body would uphold the tribunal verdict with little deliberation.

Quote:
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.


The Appeals Tribunal doesn't have to think that the tribunal decision was correct, just that, given the evidence before them, the decision was reasonable.
I cannot see any way that the decision was not "reasonable". Doesn't have to be correct, just reasonable.
The charge was intentional contact with an umpire. The AFL lawyer would have to show that the evidence was so definite that Ed and Charlie deliberately contacted the umpire, there was no possible way a tribunal could find otherwise.
This is not a retrial. It's an examination on legal procedure.

If Curnows get suspended, legal challenge to the Supreme Court MUST be initiated.


That's how I see it.

Yes, but his is the AFL.
No room for any common sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:42 pm
Posts: 4666
the afl would only appeal if they know it's going to look good for them (ie get the fines overturned into suspensions), yeah?


with nic-nat's suspension and now this. along with all the shithouse rules and flooding within the game. the AFL is a real chore to follow right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:00 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 397
Location: Melbourne
buzzaaaah wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Now that I have that over with, as an expert on law based on many years of TV and novels, I believe that a truly independent appeals body would uphold the tribunal verdict with little deliberation.

Quote:
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.


The Appeals Tribunal doesn't have to think that the tribunal decision was correct, just that, given the evidence before them, the decision was reasonable.
I cannot see any way that the decision was not "reasonable". Doesn't have to be correct, just reasonable.
The charge was intentional contact with an umpire. The AFL lawyer would have to show that the evidence was so definite that Ed and Charlie deliberately contacted the umpire, there was no possible way a tribunal could find otherwise.
This is not a retrial. It's an examination on legal procedure.

If Curnows get suspended, legal challenge to the Supreme Court MUST be initiated.


Agree with you, we need a John Elliot approach to this, we have had a good week and we need to keep it going....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:13 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 2032
The media all agree in unison that they should be suspended, so they will all agree suspension follows. Media tells the AFL what to do even though both were incidental contact.

The only suspension that should come from the weekend is Sydney’s Luke Parker, but because he is a good old boy in an AFL flagship team (what a hero) he gets off.

10cms to the right and that Hawthorn player could have been a quadriplegic or have had a serious neck injury...but that’s ok it didn’t involve an umpire. The media dictate the furore and they have decided a player brushing past an umpire is worse than a potential spinal injury.

Jon Ralph has decided for us all that May & Parker should be ignored “due to the message it sends” though two Carlton players need to be suspended. You’re a hypocrite Jon.. May ok? “Not an easy answer” .. yeah he’s a Gold Coast player that’s the difference.

Consistent? Hawkins was facing his umpire and did it with anger, both Curnows weren’t even facing the umpire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 2032
Adam Simpson got it right when interviewed on Fox.Why are the media universally so clueless? Because they like drama, that’s what.

“I’m not confused by the decision. In the end, suspension vs fine it’s still guilty.” Said Simpson.
In other words you can’t have “consistency” of decisions as some contact is more severe than others.
If someone breaks someone’s jaw that’s worth over 5 weeks, if someone brushes his chest- a fine. That is right that it isn’t “consistent”

Hawkins pushed away the umpire with just as much venom as Greg Williams, so if it is “consistent” Hawkins should have got 9 weeks suspension.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blue Vain and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group