Fyfe offered 2 by Chook Lotto

Mailman the 2nd · August 19, 2014, 07:45:24 PM

Not suprised the case got thrown out immediately

SydneyRox · August 20, 2014, 02:11:30 PM

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/fremantle-coach-ross-lyon-says-nat-fyfe-must-learn-to-harness-competitive-spirit-following-suspension/story-fni5f6su-1227030663452

I cant see what argument they can have for appeal?

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 04:49:26 PM

From the live chat it appeared that the chairman made the decision and not the panel. If that is the case then there is absolutely grounds to appeal.

There were 3 on the panel plus a chairman so the result must have been agreed upon 3 - 1 (at a minimum). If the chairman has made the decision himself (as the live chat would suggest) then Freo have the right to appeal (with a whole new panel)

Mailman the 2nd · August 20, 2014, 05:02:26 PM

Appeal what? Freo accepted their case was useless and it got thrown out

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 05:24:45 PM

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on August 20, 2014, 05:02:26 PM
Appeal what? Freo accepted their case was useless and it got thrown out

If you cared to read what I just wrote you would understand what they potentially could appeal. If the chairman of the tribunal has made the decision without the panel then that is an "UNFAIR" hearing and Freo would have rights to appeal the process and therefore get another hearing with a new chairman and panel

Ricochet · August 20, 2014, 05:35:28 PM

Its official, we're appealing it

SydneyRox · August 20, 2014, 05:39:47 PM

I think they may have a case that the hearing wasnt very fair, but as far as getting a reduced sentence or getting off, I think they will be struggling.

Mailman the 2nd · August 20, 2014, 06:02:09 PM

Quote from: valkorum on August 20, 2014, 05:24:45 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on August 20, 2014, 05:02:26 PM
Appeal what? Freo accepted their case was useless and it got thrown out

If you cared to read what I just wrote you would understand what they potentially could appeal. If the chairman of the tribunal has made the decision without the panel then that is an "UNFAIR" hearing and Freo would have rights to appeal the process and therefore get another hearing with a new chairman and panel

And their case will get thrown out at that hearing too. They practically had none

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 06:18:55 PM

They didnt get a fair hearing so they get to plead their case to the court of appeals. Meaning we can fight the original 2 match suspension ruling from the MRP - not the 2 match sanction from the tribunal.

That will mean that they can re-state their case

As I said previously there is a case for reckless instead of intentional which the tribunal chairman obviously didnt care about. Freo will fight for that again which could mean a 1 week suspension instead of 2 if they win.

Mailman the 2nd · August 20, 2014, 06:28:09 PM

Because freo argued that fyfe tried to hit him in the guts instead. The chairman was well within his right to throw it out. You'd be delusional to think that was reckless instead of intentional

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 06:35:42 PM

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on August 20, 2014, 06:28:09 PM
Because freo argued that fyfe tried to hit him in the guts instead. The chairman was well within his right to throw it out. You'd be delusional to think that was reckless instead of intentional

The chairman IS NOT WITHIN HIS RIGHTS to throw it out. It's a tribunal consisting of a chairman and up to 4 panel members (in this case there were 3).

The hearing has to be heard and then the chairman AND PANEL are to come to a unanimous decision, which in this case needed to be at least a 3-1 vote. Due to the chairman making the decision the vote was not unanimous and therefore Freo can appeal the decision... which they have

Mailman the 2nd · August 20, 2014, 06:45:22 PM

If he thinks its completely objective then of course he can. He's perfectly able to skip the jury. That's not even why freo are challenging

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 06:59:57 PM

He cant skip it - once its gone to tribunal they have to hear the case and then make a ruling.... which the chairman hasnt done correctly.

Let me be clear - I am not saying Fyfe will get off. I am saying that they have the right to appeal the tribunal case which was not handled correctly. I do believe that they have a case for reckless instead of intentional but have to wait and see the results.

Mailman the 2nd · August 20, 2014, 10:23:52 PM

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

valkorum · August 20, 2014, 10:39:48 PM

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on August 20, 2014, 10:23:52 PM
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.