The Curnow Brothers at the Tribunal

[Demonland 64,804]

Seems like Gleeson should have been on the case from the beginning.

[Demonland 64,804]

Gleeson:

- the only reasonable available conclusion is that this was intentional

- intentional and careless - they are mutually exclusive. If you find the player was careless, you are finding he did not intend to touch the umpire.

- Tribunal decision was so unreasonable no other Tribunal could have reasonably come to that conclusion.

[Lucifers Hero 37,007]

Just now, Demonland said:

Seems like Gleeson should have been on the case from the beginning.

Especially since he acted for the AFL in the Hawkins case.  Had he had it from the beginning, we would have had a consistent line of legal argument from one week to the next. 

Gleeson is very convincing!

Charlie may have got off on Tues night but now if one bro goes down, both go down...

[beelzebub 22,225]

I wonder if both will go down.

Maybe a one all draw lol

[DeleteUser 638]

have a feeling both will be let off/original decision upheld

[Diamond_Jim 11,744]

Finding will probably be along the lines that while we might have come to a different decision the decision of the tribunal was open to it at the time.

That way the original tribunal bear the scorn and the warning is sent that you may not be so lucky next time.

Can't wait to see if we have the famous "links in the chain argument"

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

20 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Especially since he acted for the AFL in the Hawkins case.  Had he had it from the beginning, we would have had a consistent line of legal argument from one week to the next. 

Gleeson is very convincing!

Charlie may have got off on Tues night but now if one bro goes down, both go down...

If one is going to get off, it's Charlie.

If Charlie goes, Ed's in big trouble.

 

[Demonland 64,804]

The Appeal board will deliver its verdict on both cases at the end.

[Demonland 64,804]

3 minutes ago, timbo said:

have a feeling both will be let off/original decision upheld

The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks this to be the case too. AFL had to appeal based on the community backlashed but will be satisfied if the decision is upheld.

[Deemania since 56 6,132]

Just now, Demonland said:

The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks this to be the case too. AFL had to appeal based on the community backlashed but will be satisfied if the decision is upheld.

Yes, very probable - just a whitewash for a gleaming facade.

[Lucifers Hero 37,007]

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

The Appeal board will deliver its verdict on both cases at the end.

Given that Gleeson QC requested the two be heard concurrently but Clark QC objected and the Tribunal chair agreed with him why is the Tribunal reserving its decision till after Ed's case has been heard?

They are heard and decided separately or as one...seems a bit 50/50...

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

Following the report from Nick Bowen live whilst I wait a further 1.5 hours at an airport as some bloke tried to rip the door of a plane...ugh. Anyways, Gleeson sounds so so compelling, I can't fathom how either of them can not be suspended.

[DeleteUser 638]

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks this to be the case too. AFL had to appeal based on the community backlashed but will be satisfied if the decision is upheld.

Or else Ed gone, charlie upheld

Gleeson - was he the SC part of the Catholic Diocese's Melbourne Response? noted he was at IRCSA Royal Commission.

[Demonland 64,804]

Gleeson refers to transcript of Ed Curnow's evidence:

- at moment hand made contact with umpire, accepted made contact with umpire

- Accepts the umpire was talking to him at moment of contact

- Doesn't accept he was looking at him. 'No recollection, can't see (from vision) where my eyes are looking, Merrett's right behind ..."

- Didn't say he didn't make eye contact, just that he couldn't tell from the screen and couldn't remember him

- if admits umpire talking to him and that close together, doesn't matter whether their eyes met ... you don't need to see their eyes, as long as you see them.

Happy for these Curnow Bros to play this week since they both seem to have a problem with their vision.

[SFebes 4,692]

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks this to be the case too. AFL had to appeal based on the community backlashed but will be satisfied if the decision is upheld.

Yep and people laugh when others say the afl is corrupt. So many red flags from umpires, rules, draw, MRP it’s hard not to be skeptical 

[Demonland 64,804]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Given that Gleeson QC requested the two be heard concurrently but Clark QC objected and the Tribunal chair agreed with him why is the Tribunal reserving its decision till after Ed's case has been heard?

They are heard and decided separately or as one...seems a bit 50/50...

Seems like they'll either both get off or both get done.

[Redleg 37,571]

9 minutes ago, timbo said:

have a feeling both will be let off/original decision upheld

Have a stronger feeling you are incorrect.

Charlie might get off, but from what I am reading of the submissions, they may both go down.

[Demonland 64,804]

1 minute ago, Danelska said:

Following the report from Nick Bowen live whilst I wait a further 1.5 hours at an airport as some bloke tried to rip the door of a plane...ugh. Anyways, Gleeson sounds so so compelling, I can't fathom how either of them can not be suspended.

If he goes to the AFL tribunal then he will get off.

[Thehardtackler 785]

QC's for a game of footy. How pretentious is the AFL? Just scrap the whole thing and have yellow and red cards. It would save so much nonsense. 

[Lucifers Hero 37,007]

Just now, Demonland said:

Seems like they'll either both get off or both get done.

I agreee - one in all in.

But why is the Tribunal not prepared to hand down each decision separately since they agreed to hear them separately. 

The cynic in me thinks it is so they can phrase their verdict so that it is acceptable to all parties...

[sue 8,429]

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Have a stronger feeling you are incorrect.

Charlie might get off, but from what I am reading of the submissions, they may both go down.

Basing expectations on the basis of the arguments made is not a wise way to make a prediction with the AFL.

[Demonland 64,804]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

The cynic in me thinks it is so they can phrase their verdict so that it is acceptable to all parties... 

Agreed.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

If you ever want to know in advance who is on the appeals panel, just sit outside Gil’s house the night before and wait for them to leave after they have finished their three course meal.

[Brownie 5,175]

4 minutes ago, Thehardtackler said:

QC's for a game of footy. How pretentious is the AFL? Just scrap the whole thing and have yellow and red cards. It would save so much nonsense. 

yeah I was thinking about how more effectively they do it with horse racing.

Drag them into a room after the game and have a cheif steward sort it out on the spot.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Brownie

[Demonland 64,804]

I'm no lawyer but I think this might be why the case will be upheld.

Clarke:

- AFL has not satisfied high hurdle it must overcome to be successful in its appeal