Scarlett precedent

[Snowy]

Surely if Scarlett can get off where the vision basically showed contact with a slight element of doubt Hall can be exonerated where there is no vision and the tribunal is totally reliant upon Grant's evidence. In many cases the tribunal has not been prepared to believe the players with the implication being collusion and so forth.

In Scarlett's case one would have thought on the balance of probabilities that he would have received a penalty as the video evidence was damning. In Hall's case there is only circumstantial video evidence.

[ScottH]

Let's hope so, Snowy.

They can suspect he is guilty, but cannot suspend him on suspicion, they need proof.

[TheHood]

Re: Scarlett precedent

Originally posted by Snowy
Surely if Scarlett can get off where the vision basically showed contact with a slight element of doubt Hall can be exonerated where there is no vision and the tribunal is totally reliant upon Grant's evidence. In many cases the tribunal has not been prepared to believe the players with the implication being collusion and so forth.

In Scarlett's case one would have thought on the balance of probabilities that he would have received a penalty as the video evidence was damning. In Hall's case there is only circumstantial video evidence.

I like the way you think Snowy! I think this another example of the Tribunal leaving us with our jaws agap! If Scarlett can get off, so should Neddy Smith have gotten off.

We have to bring up this precedent at the Tribunal or do you think they were being lenient on an All-Aussie rep and won't be as lenient on Baz?

[Barry Schneider]

I am not positive about this but I thought I read that the tribunal does not take precedent into account.Whether that is true or not it does explain the mindboggling inconsistency.

[Snowy]

They don't like precedents and yet they accepted Crawford's precedents in terms of his marking attempts as evidence. Just further underlines the inconsistency. This type of judiciary would not be accepted in law.