1 hour ago, Antioch said:

He was a Collingwood player.

Wasn’t he with Essendon when he did that? I believe he may also have been a Dee at one stage, as well as a Kangaroo.

4 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Wasn’t he with Essendon when he did that? I believe he may also have been a Dee at one stage, as well as a Kangaroo.

spot on, ht 

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The AFL appealed the Houli 2 week ban because they thought it was 'manifestly inadequate'.  The ban was increased to 4 weeks on appeal.

Not sure how the appeal rules work but it looks like they were able to challenge the sentence without risk of overturning the guilty verdict.

The AFL or a player can appeal a Tribunal decision on one of four grounds:

1. Error of law
2. Decision of Tribunal was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have reached it
3. Classification of offence by Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate
4. Sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate

The AFL would be appealing under ground 4, that the sanction was manifestly inadequate.

Greene is entitled to appeal, and if he wants to get off he'd have to argue that the Tribunal either made an error of law, or its decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have reached it.

If there had been an error of law, I reckon we'd have heard about it by now (and GWS wouldn't have immediately said they won't appeal), and I don't think anyone could argue the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal could reasonably have reached it.

tl;dr - I don't think there's much risk to the AFL of Greene winning an appeal.

Don’t get tribunals. What a waste of money paying stupid lawyers for this crap. Have a set ban and fines and it does away with all this nonsense which has nothing to do with AFL. Tribunals are an American idea and are just another example of Aussies adopting a poor model for doing things! Give him a standard 2 match ban amd let him play in the Grand Final. Stevic might be a complete pain for all we know!

Anyway for a country that is supposed to not take things too seriously there are far too many rules! The Poms are way more relaxed!

10 hours ago, rpfc said:

They can't tease the appeal and then not bother.

It isn't great that the AFL is going to distract from the build up to semis but this is news and clicks either way.

3 weeks is a poorly executed bump on a player - so if you are an umpire you are now just another person on the field, hated by all, blamed by nuffies for all issues, and fair effing game...

I don't want to see Greene until Rd 6 next year.

Dont want to see him at all ! 22 odd charges, Needs to find another sport!

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by picket fence

20 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I suspect whatever happens today, there will be an appeal. GWS and Greene will want to appeal any suspension and my gut tells me the AFL will appeal if there isn't a suspension.

This aged well! Not only has GWS said they won't appeal, but even though he has been suspended, the AFL may be the ones who appeal.

I think I should avoid making predictions and stick to bon mots and responding to Demonstone's diabolical quizzes from hereon.

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

The AFL or a player can appeal a Tribunal decision on one of four grounds:

1. Error of law
2. Decision of Tribunal was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have reached it
3. Classification of offence by Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate
4. Sanction imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate

The AFL would be appealing under ground 4, that the sanction was manifestly inadequate.

 

GWS have said they will not appeal.

Titan is correct the AFL should appeal under the 4th ground. 

The penalty is so obviously not adequate for a repeat offender. 

If you go to Court after your 22 appearance and 7th imprisonment you don't get a slap on the wrist, after being found guilty.

Edited August 31, 20214 yr by george_on_the_outer

I think Stevic's testimony was reprehensible.

As I suspected, he tried  to ingratiate himself with the players by not incriminating a star.

In doing this , he's let down his fellow AFL umpires, and all umpires at all levels of Australian football.

It's noticeable that ex-player media( like Jonathon Brown), and players like Treloar and Petracca , are also reluctant to be too critical of Greene. A bit more understandable from them, since they're in the "Boys' Club". But Stevic's performance was unforgivable.

 

10 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I think Stevic's testimony was reprehensible.

As I suspected, he tried  to ingratiate himself with the players by not incriminating a star.

In doing this , he's let down his fellow AFL umpires, and all umpires at all levels of Australian football.

It's noticeable that ex-player media( like Jonathon Brown), and players like Treloar and Petracca , are also reluctant to be too critical of Greene. A bit more understandable from them, since they're in the "Boys' Club". But Stevic's performance was unforgivable.

I don't blame Stevic. I think he could have been more direct ... eg " yeah, he came right at me and straight out shoved me. I was stunned at his blatant disrespect".

But he knows that he could have reported Greene, only to have Christian undermine him, or the tribunal, all to the soundtrack of media "experts" caterwauling that the umpires treat the players like kiddies, they've gone too far, they're too big for their boots, etc.

The AFL have let their umpires down for a long time. The nonsense about calling players by their first names, telling them when they are about to break a rule ... give me a break. Stevic should have said "I don't want to hear it. If you've got something to say, send your captain over to say it." instead of this "I turned around to explain to him ..." You don't have to explain anything. You blow the whistle when you see a free and you call play on when it's play on. End.

This has been coming, and the AFL have let it evolve. It's on them, not Stevic.

The real issue is that most won't realise that the sport is impossible to umpire properly ... and it's even more difficult these days with all the congestion and with so many players on the ball

So using that as a starting point the end point by the tin-foil hat brigade and the crazed conspiracy theorists is that the umpires hate us and are cheats

A gigantic shark is leaped and otherwise intelligent people end up joining in as the confirmation bias is enormous.  It all starts at a young age and stays with us for our entire lives

Unless you make a change

So take 10 steps back, change your thinking and show respect.  Don't be a bad loser and stop blaming umpires

Edited September 1, 20214 yr by Macca

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The real issue is that most won't realise that the sport is impossible to umpire properly ... and it's even more difficult these days with all the congestion and with so many players on the ball

So using that as a starting point the end point by the tin-foil hat brigade and the crazed conspiracy theorists is that the umpires hate us and are cheats

A gigantic shark is leaped and otherwise intelligent people end up joining in as the confirmation bias is enormous.  It all starts at a young age and stays with us for our entire lives

Unless you make a change

So take 10 steps back, change your thinking and show respect.  Don't be a bad loser and stop blaming umpires

#Freekickbulldogs. 

Dangerfield and Brown have weighed in by claiming that because it's a Final, different standards should apply. What complete and utter nonsense. So if it's a final it's automatically a 'Get one free week' deal???? Rafferty's rules, if you do it from March until August you get three weeks, however, if you're playing a final you get a discount. What utter crap!

4 minutes ago, dieter said:

Dangerfield and Brown have weighed in by claiming that because it's a Final, different standards should apply. What complete and utter nonsense. So if it's a final it's automatically a 'Get one free week' deal???? Rafferty's rules, if you do it from March until August you get three weeks, however, if you're playing a final you get a discount. What utter crap!

Of course Dangerfield is going to have that opinion because he wants that free pass.

14 minutes ago, dieter said:

Dangerfield and Brown have weighed in by claiming that because it's a Final, different standards should apply. What complete and utter nonsense. So if it's a final it's automatically a 'Get one free week' deal???? Rafferty's rules, if you do it from March until August you get three weeks, however, if you're playing a final you get a discount. What utter crap!

Were they saying this just for umpire infringements or all infringements?  If the latter it sounds like a free pass to knock out an opponent in a final to ensure a win (and even knowing you will be able to do it in the next final too).  Maybe the different standard that should apply is bigger penalties than in the home and away games.

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

#Freekickbulldogs. 

Because they play in front and are very good at playing for free kicks (as we should be)

And the AFL allows players to play for free kicks ... Spargo does it.  Not an umpiring issue ... cause & effect

Most free kicks (when the ball is in dispute) will go to the player in front ... just think about how hard it is to win a free kick playing from behind

By contrast, Richmond play on the edge, are very aggressive at the player with the ball and are happy to give away professional free kicks.  Result: Free kick differential the other way to the Bulldogs

Besides all that, there are 1000's of footy acts that influence games which includes poor decision making, clangers & turnovers as well as all the rest of it

Edited September 1, 20214 yr by Macca

 

I'm a tad cynical, so the AFL wants only 2 weeks?

I wish people would stop calling it a “brain fade.” Andrew Gaff’s punch to the face of Andrew Brayshaw is a brain fade. 
Once it becomes your bread and butter it is no longer a brain fade. 

47 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I wish people would stop calling it a “brain fade.” Andrew Gaff’s punch to the face of Andrew Brayshaw is a brain fade. 
Once it becomes your bread and butter it is no longer a brain fade. 

You are missing 1 vital piece of information..

You actually need to have a brain before being able to have it fade. Take the point regarding bread and butter. Gaff looked totally mortified with what he had done. The other still has no remorse and never will learn. EVER

1 hour ago, Jontee said:

I'm a tad cynical, so the AFL wants only 2 weeks?

Umm, they asked for 6. They want to send a message.

The message is that the AFL is not umpired by professionals. Make the umpires full time!

Edited September 1, 20214 yr by Thehardtackler

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I wish people would stop calling it a “brain fade.” Andrew Gaff’s punch to the face of Andrew Brayshaw is a brain fade. 
Once it becomes your bread and butter it is no longer a brain fade. 

Greene has never done anything so violent and physical as what Gaff did.  A brain fade is letting him rather easily.  He broke his jaw!