Tribunal

[The Big Shrek]

So this topic doesn't get deleted keep the talk sensible.

I believe it is time for an overhaul of the SAAFL tribunal. Stories have emerged of people being treated unfairly and suspended based on flimsy evidence. No information is published beside the outcome and we have no idea as to the reasons for the decision or the evidence which it was based upon. How can we have faith in a system when we have no clue as to how it operates. Transparency is the key to our legal system and the same principles should apply here. We need to observe how and why the tribunal makes its decisions to ensure they are not abusing their power. Justice seen is justice done. This is especially important now that the Tribunal has the power to end a player's career in the SAAFL.

Can anyone think of any counter arguments?

[The Ash Man]

So this topic doesn't get deleted keep the talk sensible.

I believe it is time for an overhaul of the SAAFL tribunal. Stories have emerged of people being treated unfairly and suspended based on flimsy evidence. No information is published beside the outcome and we have no idea as to the reasons for the decision or the evidence which it was based upon. How can we have faith in a system when we have no clue as to how it operates. Transparency is the key to our legal system and the same principles should apply here. We need to observe how and why the tribunal makes its decisions to ensure they are not abusing their power. Justice seen is justice done. This is especially important now that the Tribunal has the power to end a player's career in the SAAFL.

Can anyone think of any counter arguments?

No argument here TBS
Unless you have been to the tribunal before you really have no idea how it operates or what is considered when coming to a conclusion e.g. severity of injury, etc

[boozehound]

Nope I'm completely with you on this one. There is zero consistency other than umpires word rules. It does not even follow basic legal concepts. It is not at all transperent. Two umpires can have COMPLETELY differing versions but provided they both say someone was hit, tripped, scratched or bitten then a guilty verdict is handed down. If you are going to report someone, firstly you must KNOW what happened, secondly you must be able to recall that and give evidence based on your observations and this MUST be corroborated either by other umpire/witness or injuries to a player.

I completely understand that it is difficult to recruit and retain umpires but the lengths the tribunal goes to to keep them happy is outrageous. It needs to be looked at urgently, particularly as you mentioned, they now have some pretty extreme powers.

[The Big Shrek]

Your right Ash man, how can you prepare a defence when you don't know what's going on? A clear set of rules outlining the elements of each offence should be provided. Also, a written statement from the umpire(or whichever college or Uni team starts the investigation) should be provided at least a couple of days before the tribunal so that the player knows what is being alleged and can prepare. At the moment it seems like the odds are stacked towards a guilty finding as no-one can prepare.

[The Ash Man]

Your right Ash man, how can you prepare a defence when you don't know what's going on? A clear set of rules outlining the elements of each offence should be provided. Also, a written statement from the umpire(or whichever college or Uni team starts the investigation) should be provided at least a couple of days before the tribunal so that the player knows what is being alleged and can prepare. At the moment it seems like the odds are stacked towards a guilty finding as no-one can prepare.

Exactly right you dont really know what you are defending until you rock up and I think a lot of guys are in shock when they hear what the umpires have to say

[jointman]

Your right Ash man, how can you prepare a defence when you don't know what's going on? A clear set of rules outlining the elements of each offence should be provided. Also, a written statement from the umpire(or whichever college or Uni team starts the investigation) should be provided at least a couple of days before the tribunal so that the player knows what is being alleged and can prepare. At the moment it seems like the odds are stacked towards a guilty finding as no-one can prepare.

Exactly right you dont really know what you are defending until you rock up and I think a lot of guys are in shock when they hear what the umpires have to say

yeah but you know what you are going up for like a strike...etc

[boozehound]

Very well said shrekkie, you need to know elements of the offence that need to be met as well as every detail of what is being alleged against you. even a handwritten report written by the ump after the game with sufficient detail would suffice.

[boozehound]

Another awesome effort from the tribunal tonight......how can a tribunal disregard (their words apparently) witness evidence and umpires version and accused version and base a verdict totally on video footage, even though the umpire adjudicating was in great position and had a much closer and clearer view than the footage aswell as being at a better angle.

Not sure what precedent they are setting here if this is the case....

[Bold Strategy]

Your right Ash man, how can you prepare a defence when you don't know what's going on? A clear set of rules outlining the elements of each offence should be provided. Also, a written statement from the umpire(or whichever college or Uni team starts the investigation) should be provided at least a couple of days before the tribunal so that the player knows what is being alleged and can prepare. At the moment it seems like the odds are stacked towards a guilty finding as no-one can prepare.

Exactly right you dont really know what you are defending until you rock up and I think a lot of guys are in shock when they hear what the umpires have to say

if your going to the tribunal you should know what you did!! but you can look at it this way a guilty person knows what he did and can build a defense but a innocent person can be going to the tribual for doing nothing and cant build a defence

[boozehound]

Even if you know what happened you still dont necessarily know what will be alleged at the hearing....it changes with regularity.

[Footy Chick]

I think this more applies to investigations which for some reason don't give what is being investigated, although in my experiences always did.

[carey18]

Y does this matter? Not like the are going to go by the evidence giving before them!

[boozehound]

True, pointless argument because they will not change it. Don't want to give up their little power trip.......

[Footy Chick]

Perhaps if there were a combined want from member clubs for change to the tribunal/investigation system, the league would have to listen.

Of course there are certain clubs which wouldn't support any change

[The Big Shrek]

The tribunal could also be perceived as having an interest in suspending people to portray that they are "being tough on thugs".

We need to remember it's not a criminal trial so the same procedures probably aren't necessary. However, the same principles that people get a fair go and aren't punished unecessrily should apply.

[carey18]

So do we go in there having to prove something is innocent or do they have to prove he is guilty?

[The Big Shrek]

I'm guessing from your comments boozehound that Gatto was suspended. How many?

Not good to see a team's star suspended coming into finals. We want to beat EP's best team, you guys make enough excuses already.

[DemonGirl]

I'm guessing from your comments boozehound that Gatto was suspended. How many?

Not good to see a team's star suspended coming into finals. We want to beat EP's best team, you guys make enough excuses already.

He got one game so he will be ok for finals he only misses this weeks Salisbury West game..

[mypaddock]

Ladies and Gentlemen-

If the AFL can't get the tribunal system right, I don't really think we can expect a body such as the SAAFL to have the perfect system.

[Shirtfront]

Been a problem for some time. Last year a player got 5 weeks for an incident that had conflicting eveidence from umpire, player, opposition player and a key witness from the other team. Now i'm no lawyer, but if no one can get the story right then surely there is a fair amount of doubt that it actually happened, not to mention this was 2 weeks after the apparent incident. Very unprofessional.