Hun: Blues slam tribunal

camel · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:44 pm

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,86 ... 11,00.html

Quote:

CARLTON last night took a swipe at the tribunal, claiming the AFL had failed to deliver its promise that the new-look system would be more transparent.

/continues...

ScottSaunders · **Posted:** Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:52 pm

very very happy they are doing this.

i think the club has taken enough and is sick of what appears to be a very one sided tribunal system.

i get the distinct impression that if people dont accept their decisions, be they right or wrong, they will try and punish them to force the "power" into effect.

that will not work.

still think its a disgrace that fev got two weeks.

i know it could be argued either way - but really, in a normal court of law, grover would be the one on trial, not fev, and i think the AFL has lost the plot if its the other way round

blueman · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:28 pm **Posts:** 2220

The fact that :

1.Fevola was attacked from behind.

2. He was in a postion where he was in a panic.

3. Short of neig trained how to handle such a situation, there was little he could do, except try to defend himself.

were all past of this case, and the tribunal doesnt explain what a player is reasonably meant to do in that situation is why Carlton has no confidence in it and thinks that it is not transparent at all.

molsey · **Posted:** Sun May 01, 2005 12:39 pm

Agreed. Jonathan Brown lost 3 (?) weeks last year for a headlock and subsequent pull to the ground, and in that case the guy could still breathe. Grover should have gone for what he had done, and leniency provided to Fev given self-defence. Just a shambles of a system really.

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 35135

It was very interesting listening to the radio before Friday night's game, they were talking to Fev and Peter Schwab was part of the commentary team. Schwab basically admitted that they were unsure whether to proceed with the report and only decided to once they'd decided they could probably ping Fev. It gave the distinct impression that guilt is decided before the tribunal hearing and you might as well not bother contesting any charge.

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

He said the verdict was decided so quickly he didn't even have time to sit down. They decided it was not worth appealing when it was obvious they'd made their mind up before the hearing. :roll:

Wojee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:17 am **Posts:** 35135

Parkin's comments about headlocks being dangerous were very sensible, and I think there should be more scrutiny on that sort of thing. Unreasonable contact to the face is understandably looked at, but what about unreasonable contact to the throat?

Megaman · **Posted:** Sun May 01, 2005 1:42 pm

molsey wrote:

Agreed. Jonathan Brown lost 3 (?) weeks last year for a headlock and subsequent pull to the ground, and in that case the guy could still breathe. Grover should have gone for what he had done, and leniency provided to Fev given self-defence. Just a shambles of a system really.

Agree with the overall sentiment, but Brown got off that charge on a technicality didn't he? ie unduly rough play but it was not 'in play'.

killpies · **Posted:** Sun May 01, 2005 2:26 pm

On the fact that fev was not trained in how to handle it, why doesn't the club get someone with martial arts expertise in to teach guys the pressure points to make people release this kind of thing. ie the one in front of the trap muscle near the neck would make a headlock holder let go and you don't need to touch the face.

bluegirldanielle · **Posted:** Sun May 01, 2005 2:35 pm

killpies wrote:

ie the one in front of the trap muscle near the neck would make a headlock holder let go and you don't need to touch the face.

We would probably give away a free for a high tackle... It's an absolute joke. I've totally lost interest in the footy lately, everyone is trying to change the game, each week there is a different headline suggesting something else be changed. I don't think anyone knows what's going on with the tribunal system & the inconsistencies are worse than I've ever seen. Give me the old system any day!

thehalford · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:52 am **Posts:** 12807

The incredible thing is - people up here are saying that he should have gotten the rest of the year off! Fatty "I have no credibility" Vautin, Paul "I think I'm a good journo" Kent and the general populace all reckon he was let off lightly. Conveniently overlooking the fact the Grover ran to the contest, had him in a headlock and pulling his hair, and that Fev couldn't see. Fair dinkum... :roll:

monkee · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:24 pm **Posts:** 30

And if i can bring up the inconsistencies of the tribunal, does any one have the information that was used to clear Mark Johnson against Rhyce Shaw and compare it to Fevola on Nathan Brown from laste year?
i.e. ball close to contest, legitimate attack on the ball etc.....

Bluebernz · **Posted:** Mon May 02, 2005 3:52 pm

killpies wrote:

On the fact that fev was not trained in how to handle it, why doesn't the club get someone with martial arts expertise in to teach guys the pressure points to make people release this kind of thing.

We've already got someone at the club that can help with this sort of thing. IIRC, Tony Liberatore's brother is a bit of an expert in Greco-Roman wrestling.

Hun: Blues slam tribunal

Who is online