Do You Have Any Confidence In The AFL Tribunal System

[TheHood]

It is the considered opinon of this footy fan that the AFL tribunal system has earned no respect because of its inconsistencies, poor punishments for serious breaches and major punishments for rubbish!

I have no faith that this system serves its intended purpose and that is to bring to justice those players that have brought (REAL AND NOT PERCEIVED) harm to other players outside of the game's rules of fair play.

* The Licuria decision? rubbish!
* Booking Richo $4,000 for wrestling? give them one of your
famous middle fingers Richo!
* Baz gets 5 for Primus and Holland gets less for Willo? who's
sucking who's _ _ _ _ out there for goodness sake?

The list is massive but I am not happy with 90% of the decisions out of that office. Have they even got a half sensible laywer on that panel?

Disclaimer: Like doing your groceries just before dinner, I am teeing off here because of Baz having to face this rubbish women's auxiliary in the first place!

[swansrule100]

I think the tribunral is too heavily influenced by the media

[Bleed Red Blood]

Certainly no faith in the tribunal to do the right thing, but I've been confident for a while that they can make the wrong decison.

That Hall eye gouging was nothing compared to Holland or Rioli.

[monopoly19]

I actually think the Licuria decision is not a bad one - but I do think that if previous incidents that are extremely similar (eg. Kosi) have been given suspensions, then Licuria should have been suspended as well. In itself, I don't know that what he did should incur a suspension.

As long as they are consistent (which they are obviously not), then I think the actual suspensions become less significant, simply because the players would be aware of what they are getting themselves into when they infringe. At the moment, it's anyone's guess as to what can happen at the tribunal.

[NMWBloods]

The tribunal are inconsistent morons.

As far as I know the only player to ever be found not guilty previously from a tripping charge was Gary Lyon - that's how long ago it was.

[liz]

I think the tribunal lacks any coherent framework to which it looks as guidance. Surely the whole idea of suspending players is to act as some kind of deterrent so that players do not recklessly (or intentionally) do things that could cause avoidable injury.

Is a trip likely to cause significant injury. If so, any trip (or even attempted trip) should be deemed to be a suspendable action. If not, it should be a free kick only. I don't have a clue whether it is likely to cause injury, but once they have made such a determination, surely it should be easy to apply it consistently?

Similarly, is forceful reckless (ie not incidental) contact to the head likely to cause serious injury - whether that comes from a swinging arm, clenched fist or hip and shoulder? This seems like a no-brainer to me. Any action (and I reckon attempted action as well) that is either deliberate or reckless and of a reasonably forceful nature should be suspendable. This one may be harder to adjudicate because there is a little more judgement in whether an action was reckless or incidental, but I don't see any consistency in the tribunal's application.

I would also prefer to see players suspended for shorter periods, but maybe erring more on the side of suspending them than not. Repeat offenders within the same season should maybe get an extra week, but at the start of each season the slate should be wiped clean. Some players seem scarred for life from past track records, even when they seem to be trying to turn things around. In recent year's the Swans have suffered from three players who clearly have/had "thug" tattooed on their foreheads as far as the tribunal is concerned and seem to have had an arbitrary week or three added onto their sentences way above what the incident really deserved based on its likelihood of causing injury.

One of the reasons we're all so het up about the Hall case is that we know that if he does get suspended, it won't be for one week. It will more likely be for 3. And yet this is a player who has been "clean" for nearly two years and got completely whacked with an OTT penalty last time he was suspended. At what point does anyone give him credit for the fact he is trying to control himself.

Maybe Hall is guilty of striking. But given the circumstances, had it been a strike of serious force, particularly to the part of the body Grant was most clearly clutching, there is no way he wouldn't have been more physically affected than he was.

[Mike_B]

No confidence in the tribunal at all, for much the same reason as I get so frustrated with the umpires - no consistency at all.

To add another example to TheHood's list - Matthew Lloyd having his appeal upheld after the elbow to the throat. It is a sad indictment on the game that he is able to get off that charge despite it clearly being dangerous, yet other players with a different image would have had no chance at all to have the ruling overturned.

Maybe televising the tribunal hearings will give us a better insight into what the decisions that are coming out of the hearing room are based upon, but until then, you'd be just as well off tossing a coin and hoping for the best - heads you play, tails you sit out. Or maybe Brian Collis just has to turn his thumb up or down as per Roman times?

[sharpie]

NRL has standard guidelines for offenses, with ranges of severity of high tackles, etc, each of which receives a specified punishment. Can it really be that hard to implement much the same sort of system for the AFL tribunal?

It takes all the guesswork away, and the players have a very good idea what their punishment will be even before the hearing. They then choose if they want to plead guilty or not, and if guilty, sometimes they dont even have to go to the tribunal, they just straight away receive the punishment. Otherwise plead not guilty and then either get a reduced punishment (maybe off altogether) if proven innocent or get an extra week (or similar) for wasting everyone's time.

The rest of the NRL is a basket case, but they have the tribunal down to a tea. But that's no surprise, coz otherwise they'd be there for months sorting through every high tackle from one game alone.

[AussierulesOK]

It's a joke - and no-ones laughing. Collis seems to have a vendetta against the Saints this year, not one charge dropped, yet quite a few similar cases have been thrown out.

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Mike_B
No confidence in the tribunal at all, for much the same reason as I get so frustrated with the umpires - no consistency at all.

You hit the nail on the head here, we only want consistency. This morning I saw a different shot of Licuria?s action, his legs were splayed so far apart when he tripped the guy, it can hardly be called a natural reaction, and guess what a reflex action is still illegal.

It is crap to wax on about a very occasional ?behind? that wasn?t when the standard of umpiring in general play is so appalling.

The third umpire was introduced at a big cost to monitor ?downfield? incidents however when the ball is still in the centre and the defender starts to hold the full forward prior to the ball clearing, the downfield umpire just looks on!

Plugger got, I think, single figure free kicks in a whole season where he kicked over a ton. They umpire the 'tough' forwards in an entirely different manner to the Tarrants and Lloyds of this world!

The umpiring and the judiciary are simply sub standard for our great game.

[anne]

The tribunal, like most of the AFL is very biased in favour of the big Melbourne clubs. Collingwood and Essendon players can basically do anything they like.l

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by sharpie
NRL has standard guidelines for offenses, with ranges of severity of high tackles, etc, each of which receives a specified punishment.

The NRL judiciary system is wonderful, and the AFL should start planning how to implement a similar system.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
The NRL judiciary system is wonderful, and the AFL should start planning how to implement a similar system.

Tooright, the AFL system is officially out of control and not accountable.

They have a discretion that is frighteningly backward! Just when you think they have delt appropriate justice, they turn around and show love and favouritism to the Dons or Pies.

There needs to be certain mandatory sentences and grades of recklessness or severity.

AFL is doing too much stuff on the run like charging for wrestling, no one knows the fine for this stuff. Potentially suspending Grant for staging as an anvil over his head to dob Barry in after their umpires completely fu#ked up!

The umps didn't see Harris jump early and knee Baz in the head and they didn't see Baz remonstrate with Grant. What did those maggots see on Saturday night?

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by TheHood
What did those maggots see on Saturday night?

Maggots don't have visible eyes. I guess that explains a lot.

[Glenn]

No confidence in the tribunal what so ever, as mentioned in other post consistency is non existant. You could get more consistant results throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded