SA Footy

carey wrote:

Grahaml wrote:Said he was caught between spoiling the ball and bracing for the impact. No surprise they didn't believe that fairytale. Also flies in the face of copping whatever you get when you challenge anything.

How did he challenge it? He went straight to the tribunal!

They challenged the interpretation that it was deliberate but argued for careless

I see.

carey wrote:I see.

Gaff didn't!

6 is right for mine. I've no doubt he lined him up and went whack.

I think his remorse was more "Why did I do that?" than "I didn't mean to do that"

I am gob smacked at Port's stupidity re their tribunal tactics.
It beggars belief & flies in the face of what Jonas said at his presser yesterday.
Someone needs to remind the hierarchy at Alberton that spin won't cut it with everyone.

Would like to be a fly on the wall in an operational sense at Alberton after the situation panned out tonight. To be called a liar in a professional tribunal is pretty humiliating considering Gleeson recommended to completely dismiss Jonas' reasoning. There has plenty of debates over the years in tribunals but never can I recall such brutal feedback to a clubs initial case put forward.

6 weeks is a long time. How do Port manage Jonas during that time?

Does he have a week or so off, to clear his mind, rest his body then train hard for 4 weeks?

Or do they put extra work and training sessions into him?

Do they punish him by way of doing extra stuff for the club... Coaching clinics, doing the coffee run, cleaning the crappers?

Curious to know what happens between now and the end of his suspension.

Spargo wrote:I am gob smacked at Port's stupidity re their tribunal tactics.
It beggars belief & flies in the face of what Jonas said at his presser yesterday.
Someone needs to remind the hierarchy at Alberton that spin won't cut it with everyone.

Quality. The player advocate is provided by the AFL Players Association, not by the club.

The club and player would follow the directions of the advocate to reduce the penalty in all, not some, not a few, but ALL tribunal appearances.

Of course they (anyone would) try and mount a case to have the incident seen as lesser than what it was. Obviously Jonas won't ever pick up an acting gig in Law and Order.

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Would like to be a fly on the wall in an operational sense at Alberton after the situation panned out tonight. To be called a liar in a professional tribunal is pretty humiliating considering Gleeson recommended to completely dismiss Jonas' reasoning. There has plenty of debates over the years in tribunals but never can I recall such brutal feedback to a clubs initial case put forward.

He withdrew that comment, he's a lawyer so he knows what calling someone a liar can cost.

Corona Man wrote:6 weeks is a long time. How do Port manage Jonas during that time?

Does he have a week or so off, to clear his mind, rest his body then train hard for 4 weeks?

Or do they put extra work and training sessions into him?

Do they punish him by way of doing extra stuff for the club... Coaching clinics, doing the coffee run, cleaning the crappers?

Curious to know what happens between now and the end of his suspension.

It's 7 weeks in essence ( with our mid season bye ) and he'd train as the others do, perhaps add a session in on the weekends and yes, I'd imagine some extra curricular activities may be on offer.

More interesting, for me anyway, is if they bring in Clurey or Carlile to cover him. I think Clurey is a longer term proposition than Carlile who may be in the last year or two of his career. Jonas would then probably replace O'Shea, if he's still there in 7 weeks time.

Jonas is 188cm/89kg, Carlile 192/98 and Clurey 193/89. I think Clurey needs to come in.

Booney wrote:

Spargo wrote:I am gob smacked at Port's stupidity re their tribunal tactics.
It beggars belief & flies in the face of what Jonas said at his presser yesterday.
Someone needs to remind the hierarchy at Alberton that spin won't cut it with everyone.

Quality. The player advocate is provided by the AFL Players Association, not by the club.

The club and player would follow the directions of the advocate to reduce the penalty in all, not some, not a few, but ALL tribunal appearances.

Of course they (anyone would) try and mount a case to have the incident seen as lesser than what it was. Obviously Jonas won't ever pick up an acting gig in Law and Order.

Are you saying Port had no say whatsoever in Jonas' defence yesterday?

Of course they would have, but like any case that involves a legal defence who do you defer to, the advocate/lawyer or the football director?

It's like pleading guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder, why do you think they do that?

Booney wrote:

LaughingKookaburra wrote:Would like to be a fly on the wall in an operational sense at Alberton after the situation panned out tonight. To be called a liar in a professional tribunal is pretty humiliating considering Gleeson recommended to completely dismiss Jonas' reasoning. There has plenty of debates over the years in tribunals but never can I recall such brutal feedback to a clubs initial case put forward.

He withdrew that comment, he's a lawyer so he knows what calling someone a liar can cost.

That's right Boon he withdrew his comment to save his own arse. He still said it though and has only withdrawn it for technical reasons.

It's a horrible defence really, how can you say you made a last moment, split second decision to spoil with all the video and photo evidence that has been floating around?

Why would he come out and say he knows be stuffed up and throws himself at the mercy of the tribunal, and then try and say that was careless and not intentional? It's baffling

Probably cost him an extra game

MW wrote:Probably cost him an extra game

No doubt, hints why I would like to be a fly on the wall at Alberton when this is reviewed internally.

MW wrote:Probably cost him an extra game

Nope, the AFL counsel called for 7 games.

bennymacca wrote:Why would he come out and say he knows be stuffed up and throws himself at the mercy of the tribunal, and then try and say that was careless and not intentional? It's baffling

Did you see it as careless/reckless or intentional?

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:Probably cost him an extra game

Nope, the AFL counsel called for 7 games.

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Why would he come out and say he knows be stuffed up and throws himself at the mercy of the tribunal, and then try and say that was careless and not intentional? It's baffling

Did you see it as careless/reckless or intentional?

That was the only way you could see it...