Ummm......

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

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

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

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.

Exactly what it says?

Given the ridiculous backlash I think they will both end up suspended.

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

My tip: Charlie cleared again, Ed suspended

Essendon** would challenge in the courts. Carlton simply bend over. Typical. The club just remains silent. Piss weak by Carlton as well.

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.

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.



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.

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.



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.

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.



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.