Before remembering they are playing Collingwood in Rd 23 I would have said throw the book at him.

Edited August 10, 20223 yr by layzie

I think it’ll get thrown out in minutes on the fact that they don’t meet the conditions of an appeal. 
 

No way he is getting off. 

59 minutes ago, layzie said:

Hopefully this gets binned

I'll see what I can do.

32 minutes ago, TheWiz said:

Question: if Cripps’ suspension gets extended and Carlton gets knocked out of the H&A season, as the extension will roll into next year would he be ineligible for next year’s Brownlow?

No

45 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

Pretty sure a suspended player is only ineligible for the season in which the offence occurs.

 

 

Thank you

57 minutes ago, layzie said:

It's a good question, I'd say it should. Unless they factor in the stupid pre season games.

Am pretty sure suspension only counts for H+A, after some shenanigans in finals 20 years ago.

7 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

Am pretty sure suspension only counts for H+A, after some shenanigans in finals 20 years ago.

That makes sense.

What's the penalty / cost for appealing tribunal verdicts? If there is no deterrent (eg extra week penalty), I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

It should be 4 weeks if it backfires. 

Hope he plays and we [censored] them all the same

Wasting briefs time going there if they are just going to pick and choose who they want off.

Such a waste of the court's time. 

I just watched the hit for the first time, over which Leigh Matthews was on commentary saying - “I suspect that was incidental contact”. Wowee! Thugs never die I guess. Incidental of course to the fact he wanted to maim Ah Chee without having to look at the ball or make any attempt to take possession of it. 

1 hour ago, poita said:

What's the penalty / cost for appealing tribunal verdicts? If there is no deterrent (eg extra week penalty), I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

No extra penalty, but a $5000 cost for the appeal.

What are the rules in the case of an appeal?

Don't they have to claim they have new evidence that wasn't already considered by the original tribunal?

6 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

What are the rules in the case of an appeal?

Don't they have to claim they have new evidence that wasn't already considered by the original tribunal?

It's another really good question that no-one ever seems to have an answer for. I always thought they just get the lawyers involved and try to get off on technicalities but I'd really know diddly. 

On 8/9/2022 at 8:32 PM, Dee-monic said:

The grounds for an appeal against a tribunal decision are extremely limited. A player can appeal on one or more of the following grounds:

 An error of law has occurred;

The decision is so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;

The classification of the offence by the tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate;

The sanction imposed by the tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Can't see how any of those would stand a chance of success.

If this act had been done by a fringe player, I doubt if it would even have got as far as the tribunal.

Re-posting this (nice work Dee-monic) to answer the questions raised above. 

Wasn't it a Brownlow Medalist too, and they found he had an extra finger that got in the way. 

32 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

No extra penalty, but a $5000 cost for the appeal.

So will that extra 5000 bucks cost them from recruiting another GWS player at the end of the season.

46 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

No extra penalty, but a $5000 cost for the appeal.

ABC this morning reported its  a $5000 fine and an additonal week suspension, taking it to 3 weeks.

Thus missing first final if they make it.  Hence the "...huge gamble..."  they are taking.

Silly strategy IMO

Phil Carman got a 2 weeks suspension missed the 1977 GF which was a draw and missed the replay as well!!  ....if my memory serves me correctly.

Collingwood would have (rightly) tried to get the 2nd game rolled over to 1978 R1 but  no joy.

When do we know about this crap?

6 hours ago, layzie said:

Such a waste of the court's time. 

It's not a Court. It's an AFL appointed Board.

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It's not a Court. It's an AFL appointed Board.

I know Mr Leg, just having a lend of this 'appointed board' 

How’s the latest throw at the stumps going?