sue

Always happy to help....

Bad news, I have been on a jury for a case of 'felonious slaying'. Guilty as charged.

I've followed the discussion about the the fairness of the publication of the allegations etc and overnight I came to the following conclusions which satisfy me, if no one else. 1. It was perfectly reasonable for the Hawthorn review to only question those making allegations. That review was not charged with establishing the truth of the allegations by interviewing the alleged offenders. That should be done by a seperate investigation by the club or the AFL. A bit like the Crown prosecution service may decide there is a case to answer which then goes to trial where everyone gets to present their case. 2. So the next question then is, should the review (or its effective contents) have been made public. Surely it could not be kept secret until the 'trial' of the matter was concluded. We don't do that for criminal trials. Keeping such things secret undermines public confidence that justice is being done. It's what you expect to happen in totalitarian countries. 3. So the next question is, could have it been made public without naming names? That is, the AFL announces an enquiry into these allegations without naming the senior coach, other coaches or club. But that wouldn't wash. First for those who are concerned about Malthouse etc being besmirched, if it wasn't clear who was being accused, every coach at every club would be under an unfair cloud. Anyway, it would soon become clear which club it was, so they just as well have been named at the start. 4. To me that leaves only the question of should the coaches have been given more time to respond. I really can't see what would be achieved by that. Very unlikley that they would 'confess' or say there is some truth in some of the less obnoxious allegations and offer to assist any investigation. Very much more likely, they'd either dodge responding to a journo or just deny the allegations and offer to support any investigation the AFL makes. And that is what they did. Whether they had 24 hours or a week, I can't see them doing anything else.

Sorry OldDee I can’t stay quiet any longer. Hearsay is one word.

Do you think that if they had more than 24 hours they'd say anything beyond the complete denial they have made anyway?

You could say that every person accused of a crime and named in the media as being arrested and charged is being denied natural justice and their name besmirched because they haven't yet defended themselves in public. But generally we leave that to the trial. The AFL review will effectively be the trial in this case.

Well perhaps he has taken leave so he can have time to be interrogated.

Gil said he had it a week Edit: about a week. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/sep/21/afl-investigates-claims-hawthorn-separated-first-nations-players-from-families-and-called-for-pregnancy-termination AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said the governing body had received the report “about a week ago”.

Not quite - Gil has publically said he got it a week ago. Hawthorn said they got it 2 weeks ago and contacted the AFL without specifying when. Hard to imagine they'd sit on it for too .long.

Interesting if Brisbane had to put their coach on ice before the prelim (or maybe even before playing us, depending on exact dates). I think that may explain why the AFL sat on it till now at least.

I think I heard on the radio that is was overseas (NY?) and just referred to a Hawthorn press release when asked about the issue.

But you can adduce evidence that lends the claim credible, for example by bringing forward other who were told that at the time.

Doesn't matter what's in the contract. North's problem is that they thought they had secured a great coach in dire times and suddenly they might not.

Of course it is unlikely there will be an independent witness of the type Bystander seems to mean, an uninvolved "bystander" who witnesses the events. However, there may well be a lot of peripheral evidence that gives credence to the claims such as others that were told at the time. And then there is a possibility that someone involved in a relatively minor way may speak up.

If this is true (which on the face of it seems likely sadly) Hawthorn sound more like a cult than a footy club.

That does not mean the decision was correct or that the mechanism is appropriate for football, Even Gil was spitting chips.

Don't worry, you're not thick. It took the best legal minds money could buy several hours to come up with a rationale for the decision.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before (haven't read this entire thread because I think the Brownlow is rubbish) but I was pleased (and somewhat surprised) to read this. Maybe Gil isn't the complete company man I thought. Maybe it was easier to write as he is on the way out. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2022-patrick-cripps-brownlow-medal-suspension-hit-on-callum-ah-chee-appeals-board-gillon-mclachlan-comments/news-story/f4603f6834cd9f3e70c0d3d882c885d9

Try https://www.afl.com.au/vfl/matches/4769 In some areas it is on free to air TV too.

What about the article about Van Rooyen looking forward to playing in a GF? Some are quick to grumble.

Aquiescing in something that offends your mates else is just as political.

A line drawn on the grass would be too obvious

The AFL should paint a line on the ground. Then umps wouldn’t have to shout back to the nine which is messy especially if the player plays on. No shouting. Penalise a player who doesn’t immediately head back to the line.

Anyone who can remotely be considered a key forward would be nice.

Very impressive. How can such an intelligent person sit next to BT without feeling ill is beyond me.