Judiciary - You're Verdict

[Coastal Boy]

Are they really going to change the by-laws because they called for an appeal which is illegal under their own rules?? Wow!!

The whole event of recent days only serves to highlight that
a) the Sydney AFL deem that the tribunal which they appoint is incompetent; and
b) the Sydney AFL will lower themself to whatever level is necessary to achieve a result.

I know many people may not be surprised by either of these statements but I sincerely hope that this is not happening. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[felix]

The AFL(NSW/ACT )by-laws and regulations clearly state that "Appeals from Tribunal findings arising out of on field offences may only be lodged where there is evidence of an error of law or procedure."
This in itself disallows an appeal over the length of sentence decided upon by a properly convened tribunal.
When you look at the Reece Conca incident on national television getting 2 weeks then a 7 game sentence for this incident seems more than adequate.
And the AFL does appoint its independent tribunal as opposed to the DPP who do not appoint the court adjudicators.
I would not be surprised if the AFL is tampering with its By Laws in order to get an appeal up.
I have just noted that the AFL SYDNEY by laws have been last modified on 26/8/14 (TODAY) at 10.53 and for some reason can not be downloaded on my computer while I have no trouble downloading any other documents.
Very interesting

[unconfuseme]

What tf are these people trying to prove?

It was a bad look, it's provided unwanted head lines, it's been dealt with appropriately, it was done and dusted and yesterday's news ... and now they just drag it back into the spotlight!!!

Should we expect anything more from the Keystone Kops? ... NFI



... and has #31 been brought up on striking charges based on the clear video evidence ....?

[floppinab]

The SydneyAFL's advocate at the first hearing would've suggested or requested a penalty??? Anyone know what that was??

Not sure what they are looking for here, 12 games?, a full season?? I seem to remember a similar one to this last year that got 8 weeks off the back of a club citing.

They often take the impact on the player hit into account (I don't necessarily agree with that but it always seems to have an impact on the penalty) and I gather the Easts player wasn't too badly hurt.
I thought they maybe could've gone to maybe 8/9 tops but regardless it didn't seem too far out of line of similar incidents we have seen in the past. His previous record was pretty clean I think, if that is taken into account.

[Coastal Boy]

I appreciate and accept your comments Mountains and Just. I copied this from the leagues website regarding appeals. It was difficult to find so I opted to copy it. I could be wrong but I can't see grounds for appeal in this section and the first few lines clearly state otherwise. Especially as the league is not questioning law or procedure but purely the leniency of the sentence. Can anyone think of a precedent of the league appealing a decision?

[Coastal Boy]

APPEALS
7.1 Findings of fact and determination of penalty shall be final except that:
7.1.1 the tribunal may, in its discretion, re open any hearing for the purpose of considering fresh evidence (but not for the purpose of reconsidering any finding made or penalty imposed on the basis of previously presented evidence);
7.1.1.1 fresh evidence means evidence which was not known to be available, and could not, with reasonable diligence, have been known to have been available at the time of the original hearing;
NOTE: The test here is important, for it is not sufficient that the new evidence was just not presented at the first hearing. An example would be wanting to call fresh evidence from another witness who is, say, a trainer or club official and who could have been interviewed before the original hearing. This would not satisfy the test. An example of what would satisfy the test is belated awareness that a spectator had taken a private recording of the incident but had not communicated this fact to the club prior to the hearing.
7.1.2
appears that even if presented to the original hearing, the fresh evidence could not reasonably be expected to have resulted in a different finding or penalty.
the tribunal shall not re-open any hearing to consider fresh evidence where it appears that even if presented to the original hearing, the fresh evidence could not reasonably be expected to have resulted in a different finding or penalty.

7.2 An appeal from any decision on a point of law or procedure only may be made to the AFL (NSW/ACT) on such conditions as that body shall determine.
NOTE: It is important to distinguish between an appeal and a re-hearing. Persons without legal training usually talk about the former when they really mean the latter.
A re-hearing simply means recycling the same evidence before another body of persons in the hope that (even though the first hearing made no procedural errors) the second hearing might be persuaded to come to a different view of the facts. There is neither need, nor provision under these rules, for any re-hearing.
An appeal is directed to correcting some error of procedure or law which may have been made in the original hearing and affected its findings. Examples are failure to give proper notice of a hearing, wrongly admitting or excluding certain evidence, misinterpreting a by-law etc. ?Error? in this sense does not include a belief by the unsuccessful party that the ultimate decision is wrong. It is not the result but the path to that result which matters and if the tribunal has followed the correct procedures the mere fact that it has believed one witness and disbelieved another in arriving at a conclusion is not an ?error? which provides grounds for an appeal.

[justabaraker]

Linsen isn't being tried twice - he's already been found guilty and that verdict isn't in question. It is the sentence which is being appealed.

The tribunal is an independent body. What is happening now is no different to what happens with the legal system in NSW. If the DPP isn't happy with a sentence handed down by the courts, it appeals.

No argument with you Mountains but, ahhhhhhhh, Kevvy ain't gonna be happy - his club will be in direct conflict with the ruling body. Those raparound sunglasses of his will be melting from the heat of the steam coming out of his ears !

[mountainsofpain]

I don't understand. Linsen presented to a hearing and a verdict was given. I can understand if a MRP offers Linsen a sentence without a hearing and this is appealed by the league. How can a player be tried for the same offense twice? Isn't the judiciary appointed by the league? How can you appeal yourself?

Linsen isn't being tried twice - he's already been found guilty and that verdict isn't in question. It is the sentence which is being appealed.

The tribunal is an independent body. What is happening now is no different to what happens with the legal system in NSW. If the DPP isn't happy with a sentence handed down by the courts, it appeals.

[Coastal Boy]

I don't understand. Linsen presented to a hearing and a verdict was given. I can understand if a MRP offers Linsen a sentence without a hearing and this is appealed by the league. How can a player be tried for the same offense twice? Isn't the judiciary appointed by the league? How can you appeal yourself?

[mountainsofpain]

I thought that seven weeks was extremely lenient. In terms of striking offences, you don't get too many worse than that.

Given that, I can see why the Sydney AFL appealed I guess, but I think they would have been better off letting things be.

[ShortHalfHead]

Interesting to read on the Sydney AFL website that Sydney AFL have appealed against the 7 weeks handed down, claiming it to be inadequate. For mine, I thought it was a fair outcome and should be left as it is.

[often_confused]

This is clearly not over yet ... the Sydney AFL has appealed the sentence on the basis of it being too lenient (see AFL Sydney Statement - AFL Sydney - FOX SPORTS PULSE ) .

My guess is that they have not followed the view of some on this forum that the player was required to chase him down and deliver the blow or that there was any circumstance that would reasonably cause a reduction in the sanction. This has attracted huge media attention from papers in places like Canada and the UK jumping on to the footage. It is almost surprising they have not added bringing the game into disrepute to the charge sheet. Wests will have to defend this one.

[justabaraker]

The slug-ee has been named in the team for this weekend...must be ok.

[mountainsofpain]

And would it have been necessary for the Wests player to hit the UNSW player from behind, if he did not throw the 1st cheap shot and run up the ground like a girl.

Hang on - it was necessary for Linsen to king hit his opponent?

Now I've heard it all.

[mountainsofpain]

None of the players on the field saw the incident either so how do you describe those 34 individuals?

The commentator clearly misses it as well so go him too while youre there.

I've been told most spectators missed it too. Without the camera the whole event would have been a mystery.

But let's blame the umpires. Sounds fair.

Unlike the players (and spectators and commentators), I thought one of the aims of the three umpire system was to be able to keep an eye on behind the play incidents?

Were the two non-controlling fieldies watching the ball as well?