Fyfe offered 2 by Chook Lotto

[Mailman the 2nd]

What do you mean the case wasn't handled correctly? No one would've allowed him to do it if he wasn't within his rights to as a chairman?

What makes you say that's even the reason Freo is appealing? From what I've read they're appealing because they believe that Fyfe's contact wasn't meant for the head and hence therefore wasn't intentional.

Any off the ball incident is considered intentional, so the chairman immediately dismissed the case, in the same way that a judge can skip a jury deliberation for an invalid argument

He has the right to dismiss the case if he does it at the start of the hearing, he then allowed the hearing to proceed.  He then proceeded to dismiss the case after hearing the case.  He can't do that - he had to dismiss it before the hearing was concluded.

Well looking at their live case, whatever you're talking about isn't why they're appealing.

They're appealing because they don't think Fyfe's intent to strike is objective

[valkorum]

You're wrong again mailman

Nathan Schmook: The jury wasn't invited to come to a verdict, it was directed to come to a particular verdict. Fyfe was denied the opportunity to have a jury decide on whether he was guilty of intentional or reckless striking.

This is why they are appealing.  If that part fails then then ruling from the MRP stands, if this wins then they start the hearing again.  Answer coming shortly.

[valkorum]

Appeals has decided there was no error of law and therefore no new case is to be heard.

I still disagree with the law from the tribunal but it cant be taken any further now and we have to live with it.

[j959]

Appeals has decided there was no error of law and therefore no new case is to be heard.

I still disagree with the law from the tribunal but it cant be taken any further now and we have to live with it.

if what you wrote above is true valk then the tribunal did not follow proper procedure ... I don't know the tribunal laws but a chairperson/judge cannot start the hearing of a case/matter and then direct a particular ruling except for a 'no case to answer' when the 'prosecution' have not made out the case that any jury could return a 'guilty' verdict on ...

guessing the appeals tribunal held that it was open for the chairperson to make an assessment on the facts as opposed to the law, so therefore in the appeal no error of law??

[valkorum]

Basically that's it.

[Mailman the 2nd]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-21/fyfes-twomatch-ban-stands

He said there would have been just one option open to the jury that Fyfe was guilty of intentional striking and Howie was right to take the matter out of their hands and make his own ruling.