Collins sustained no injury from this incident. It's complete  horse $hite from the Afl once again. The gross incompetence  of these so called tribunal members is a bad joke. 

 

 

7 hours ago, chook fowler said:

i don't think Jack will be offered a MENSA membership any time soon

I consider that this is the crux of the matter. 

Free Jack Viney

Has a change of plea occurred during a hearing before?

29 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

"DON'T TRY ME" 

 

Viney and Collins were clearly talking during the incident. Viney says Collins was challenging him to hit him, and Viney replied "don't try me".

Is this legit?

Bloody hell what a pisser!

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

Well the only person who could clarify that is Collins.

Yep, the video angle wasn't conclusive. I wasn't sure whether contact was to his neck or jaw from the angle everyone was judging on last night.

First look seemed the jaw/side of head but as I say...inconclusive.

Unless there is better video then Collins is the man to clarify.

4 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Well the only person who could clarify that is Collins.

Agree.  Are they allowed to call the other player in to give evidence? 

Lol arguing over if it was his neck or chin, here’s an idea ask Collins 

9 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

It’s been clarified that they only pleaded guilty to the serious misconduct charge and not the point of contact 

Not the point I was making.  legal counsel would surely know before his client pleads guilty or otherwise what the charge actually is.   My point was how could our legal counsel let the hearing get all the way to the penalty stage without knowing what Jack pleaded guilty to.  

What did Anderson think 'serious misconduct' meant a light touch to the jaw!  If so it would never have got to the Tribunal.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

From the vision the jaw is a fair call and would be almost impossible to refute.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by McQueen
jaw not neck

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Is this legit?

Bloody hell what a pisser!

Made me chuckle too. I’m following it on AFL.com and Nathan Schmook posted it about half an hour ago. 

Just now, Demons11 said:

Agree.  Are they allowed to call the other player in to give evidence? 

And the afl didn't even bother getting  collins to call. Its amateur hour really 

 

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not the point I was making.  legal counsel would surely know before his client pleads guilty or otherwise what the charge actually is.   My point was how could our legal counsel let the hearing get all the way to the penalty stage without knowing what Jack pleaded guilty to.  

?

Just now, McQueen said:

From the vision the jaw is a fair call and would be almost impossible to refute.

oops - meant jaw.

Surely the onus is on the prosecution to call Collins to testify that contact was made to the neck? And presumably they didn't call him for a reason. Only two people know exactly where contact was made, and Viney has said it was to the jaw. Without conflicting evidence, surely that has to be taken in good faith? 

Just now, Skuit said:

Surely the onus is on the prosecution to call Collins to testify that contact was made to the neck? And presumably they didn't call him for a reason. Only two people know exactly where contact was made, and Viney has said it was to the jaw. Without conflicting evidence, surely that has to be taken in good faith? 

Yep, Gleeson has gone out on a limb here and ius the real amateur.

16 minutes ago, McQueen said:

This could backfire badly here....

Agree. Fair chance they will upgrade the 2 weeks to 3 weeks if found to be to the throat. 
 

6 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Surely the onus is on the prosecution to call Collins to testify that contact was made to the neck? And presumably they didn't call him for a reason. Only two people know exactly where contact was made, and Viney has said it was to the jaw. Without conflicting evidence, surely that has to be taken in good faith? 

Hard to do when Gleeson told the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as 'nonsense'.

Based on the AFL website, Gleeson is almost saying Viney is lying:  On Viney's evidence that contact was to the jaw, he says: "You'll have no difficulty rejecting that submission when you look at the evidence ... he's given evidence that is flatly inconsistent with what he knew he did."

Bit of a stretch by a leagle eagle.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Davey Jones for the prosecution

I'm a Believer

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Can't believe Anderson had him plead guilty to a 'serious misconduct' charge without knowing/checking the nature of the conduct.  It was clear at the start of the hearing it was about elbow contact and force to the throat and neck region.  

He gets to the point of penalty the penny drops the charge is more serious than he thought, withdraws the guilty plea and tries to renegotiate the charge down to contact to the jaw. 

Amateur hour by Anderson.

5 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Not the point I was making.  legal counsel would surely know before his client pleads guilty or otherwise what the charge actually is.   My point was how could our legal counsel let the hearing get all the way to the penalty stage without knowing what Jack pleaded guilty to.  

What did Anderson think 'serious misconduct' meant a light touch to the jaw!  If so it would never have got to the Tribunal.

Ease up Lucifer, you don't know what you're talking about.

Serious Misconduct is not defined in the AFL's Tribunal Guidelines.

There is nothing within that phrase which requires a player to make contact to any particular part of the body.

The charge against Viney is that he committed serious misconduct. He pleaded guilty to that. Without the benefit of a "charge sheet" (if such a thing is given to a player) or otherwise the transcript of precisely what he was asked to plead to, I reckon you and anyone else criticising Anderson should ease off.

Viney says Jaw, maybe he thinks everyone’s Jaw is as big as his aha 

21 minutes ago, McQueen said:

This could backfire badly here....

It surely will ?

Not calling Collins is amateurish by the AFL, hope he gets off

video evidence inconclusive and no evidence presented to confirm contact was with the throat. On what basis can the jury convict?

6 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Surely the onus is on the prosecution to call Collins to testify that contact was made to the neck? And presumably they didn't call him for a reason. Only two people know exactly where contact was made, and Viney has said it was to the jaw. Without conflicting evidence, surely that has to be taken in good faith? 

You know what David Byrne would say? He’d say STOP MAKING SENSE! ?