Judiciary - You're Verdict

[mountainsofpain]

Of course I'm dying to know what you're on about and how this justifies King hitting a bloke from behind...

I think the point was that you've got to be careful taking the high moral ground ("germ of a human being" - wtf?) when there are plenty of skeletons in your own club's closet as well.

For example - I was at a game a number of years ago where two opposition players were sent to hospital courtesy of UTS elbows and another player was king hit by a UTS player near the boundary line as well (which I was about 5 metres away from).

And this behaviour was in a game which UTS was winning in a canter.

[Coastal Boy]

To my surprise I think the Sydney AFL have handled this event extremely well. They posted a comment online pre and post tribunal which gives the sense they are respectful to the footy community and gives confidence that have the situation in hand.

[wise one]

Think the 7 weeks was reasonable given the over the top reaction to this incident, tribunal would have been under a great deal of pressure to be seen to be making a stance on these issues, however i do not feel it was in line with several recent incidents of a similar nature at AFL level.

Does anyone know if the UNSW player has to face the tribunal?

And would it have been necessary for the Wests player to hit the UNSW player from behind, if he did not throw the 1st cheap shot and run up the ground like a girl.

[saviour01]

A push in the back and then follow the play. AFL must be full of girls because you see that happen a dozen times every game.

[unconfuseme]

He should have tried the "Nat Fyfe" defence ...

" ... Fyfe?s legal team argued that his off-the-ball hit on Lewis was reckless rather than intentional and the ban should be reduced to one match."

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

[The Runt]

There would of not been any case to answer if the umpires actually done their job and paid the cheap shot on Marcus Linsen the free kick. But since Auburn has come and gone there seems to be very limited vision from those in orange. Basically they are oblivious to anything that happens unless it is in unison with crowd noise.

[Coastal Boy]

There would of not been any case to answer if the umpires actually done their job and paid the cheap shot on Marcus Linsen the free kick. But since Auburn has come and gone there seems to be very limited vision from those in orange. Basically they are oblivious to anything that happens unless it is in unison with crowd noise.

None of the

[Coastal Boy]

There would of not been any case to answer if the umpires actually done their job and paid the cheap shot on Marcus Linsen the free kick. But since Auburn has come and gone there seems to be very limited vision from those in orange. Basically they are oblivious to anything that happens unless it is in unison with crowd noise.

None of the players on the field saw the incident either so how do you describe those 34 individuals?

The commentator clearly misses it as well so go him too while youre there.

I've been told most spectators missed it too. Without the camera the whole event would have been a mystery.

But let's blame the umpires. Sounds fair.

[mountainsofpain]

None of the players on the field saw the incident either so how do you describe those 34 individuals?

The commentator clearly misses it as well so go him too while youre there.

I've been told most spectators missed it too. Without the camera the whole event would have been a mystery.

But let's blame the umpires. Sounds fair.

Unlike the players (and spectators and commentators), I thought one of the aims of the three umpire system was to be able to keep an eye on behind the play incidents?

Were the two non-controlling fieldies watching the ball as well?

[mountainsofpain]

And would it have been necessary for the Wests player to hit the UNSW player from behind, if he did not throw the 1st cheap shot and run up the ground like a girl.

Hang on - it was necessary for Linsen to king hit his opponent?

Now I've heard it all.

[justabaraker]

The slug-ee has been named in the team for this weekend...must be ok.

[often_confused]

This is clearly not over yet ... the Sydney AFL has appealed the sentence on the basis of it being too lenient (see AFL Sydney Statement - AFL Sydney - FOX SPORTS PULSE ) .

My guess is that they have not followed the view of some on this forum that the player was required to chase him down and deliver the blow or that there was any circumstance that would reasonably cause a reduction in the sanction. This has attracted huge media attention from papers in places like Canada and the UK jumping on to the footage. It is almost surprising they have not added bringing the game into disrepute to the charge sheet. Wests will have to defend this one.

[ShortHalfHead]

Interesting to read on the Sydney AFL website that Sydney AFL have appealed against the 7 weeks handed down, claiming it to be inadequate. For mine, I thought it was a fair outcome and should be left as it is.

[mountainsofpain]

I thought that seven weeks was extremely lenient. In terms of striking offences, you don't get too many worse than that.

Given that, I can see why the Sydney AFL appealed I guess, but I think they would have been better off letting things be.

[Coastal Boy]

I don't understand. Linsen presented to a hearing and a verdict was given. I can understand if a MRP offers Linsen a sentence without a hearing and this is appealed by the league. How can a player be tried for the same offense twice? Isn't the judiciary appointed by the league? How can you appeal yourself?