Nathan Schmook:

The vision is behind the goals vision, showing Viney "move into the path of the oncoming players".

I wonder if this vision was shown the other night?

Nathan Schmook:

In plain terms, Gleeson is arguing that the jury found this was a bump, who is the Appeals Board to find differently?

Judges have been known to overturn blatantly incorrect jury verdicts.

That most of the football community feel it was brace not bump ( not just MFC supporters) tells you that this jury just got it wrong.

18:01

Nathan Schmook:

The vision is behind the goals vision, showing Viney "move into the path of the oncoming players".

He was trying to get the footy!!

Nathan Schmook:

The trouble for the Demons is they need to prove the Tribunal acted "so unreasonably that no Tribunal acting reasonably would have come to that decision". The options Gleeson gave the jury were essentially both reasonable, even if some disagree.

You can only judge Viney's movement in the last half second. Before that time the ball was in dispute.

I haven't seen the behind the goals footage, and can't find it anywhere now.

Anyone have a link?

Nathan Schmook:

The jury would have to "cock it up massively, Gleeson says, for the decision to be overturned. "

do we get another say, in rebuttal to Gleeson? Otherwise we are done.

Nathan Schmook:

The jury would have to "[censored] it up massively, Gleeson says, for the decision to be overturned. "

So it will be ovewrturned then.

do we get another say, in rebuttal to Gleeson? Otherwise we are done.

Shouldn't the prosecution have gone first or do normal trial rules not apply in a kangaroos court?

Comment From james lt

Nathan, do you believe it should be overturned?

Nathan Schmook:

I believe he should have been found not guilty on Tuesday night.

But i don't see how it can be overturned now.

You can disagree with the original verdict, but it's hard to assert the jury acted "so unreasonably" ...

I guess its pretty hard to argue that three blind mice for a jury have acted unreasonably

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by Young Dee

Nathan Schmook:

The jury would have to "[censored] it up massively, Gleeson says, for the decision to be overturned. "

88% of the age readers polled said the jury did [censored] it up. A cross section of all football followers

Comment From Guest

Doesn't that mean that no verdict could ever be overturned? A jury by definition must act reasonably.

Nathan Schmook:

It depends on what grounds you challenge.

Nick Maxwell had a decision overturned because the Pies argued the rules were misapplied.

Only one in 14 have been successful.

Shouldn't the prosecution have gone first or do normal trial rules not apply in a kangaroos court?

That's what i'm saying. You can't defend yourself if you don't know what you are exactly defending yourself from?

This behind the goals vision seems new, how fair is that?

I'd like to see the "change in direction from behind the goals" but I would suggest, from the side on footage, that when the blal bounces towards Lynch, it also bounces on an angle. Viney (and Lynch) both adjust their angle slightly and subconsciously to be still moving towards the ball. After that inate moment (a step towards the ball), Viney realises that he couldn't take possession anymore, but because of that first adjustment, he could no longer possibly "spin out" to avoid contact safely.

I don't understand why we haven't gone down a bi-mechanics expert path with this. surely they would be able to show that while covering a distance of 3-5 meters in in the 0.4 seconds, there was no way that the players could have made any consious decision that would have prevented this impact. Both players were committed to the ball and unfortunately a collision happened. Viney was LUCKY not to injure himself.

Nathan Schmook: The jury would have to "[censored] it up massively, Gleeson says, for the decision to be overturned. "

Obvious that he should get off then. They did [censored] it up massively.

Given the basis of the appeal, how can new vision be introduced to support either side? The question has to be was the tribunal unreasonable on the evidence they had.

The system is fundementally flawed, viney should be able to prove it wasn't a bump and then the original case falls apart, not that the jury acted u reasonably their decision was unreasonable

Nathan Schmook:

"There was no ability for the jury to come to the conclusion they did, and it was so unreasonable." - David Grace QC

Not sure if this is a new comment or Nathan just repeating a comment from earlier.

Nathan Schmook:

OK, we're out now and the board is deliberating...

When we lose this, I hope we take it further.

Last time it took 16 minutes.

Rationale like rpfc's a few pages back is spot on. Logical denunciation of the penalty - based on the very rules of the game.

I'm sure our QCs are doing that in the tribunal/appeals room - but reading the feed it never seems to be brought up.

Can any lawyers help me out as to why? Jack?

WJ is Grace a member of the Devils Advocate