SA Footy

Chris Motley from Brahma Lodge apparently got a straight 12 week ban for reckless contact with an umpire.

I must say the Advertiser report is very light on in detail.

I have been told the umpire in question gave evidence that he thought the contact was made by him rather than the player. The other ump gave evidence that it was the players fault.

Unfortunately it is my experience that the tribunal seems to be too swayed by the evidence of umpires, particularly when the umpire appears confident. Confidence is no indication of reliability yet the tribunal (and juries) are impressed by it. Given their role you might think the tribunal might be less sucked in though.

When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

Re the League's comments in the Advertiser my suspicion is given the furore following the Rumbleow incident (and Gepps/SPOC's issues) Kernahan likely played it down as much as possible with a hope of minimising any damage to the League/98% of Club's with no issues reputations.

Without actually having heard what happened at the Tribunal and the evidence before it we're borderline left speculating on speculation.

Given the amount of incidental contact with an umpire that results in the Umpire and player helping one another up I suspect there was substantially more in this one than meets the eye.

This happened weeks and weeks ago, Adelaide Now struggling for news content if they want to bandy about news from 2 months ago

The Big Shrek wrote:Chris Motley from Brahma Lodge apparently got a straight 12 week ban for reckless contact with an umpire.

I must say the Advertiser report is very light on in detail.

I have been told the umpire in question gave evidence that he thought the contact was made by him rather than the player. The other ump gave evidence that it was the players fault.

Unfortunately it is my experience that the tribunal seems to be too swayed by the evidence of umpires, particularly when the umpire appears confident. Confidence is no indication of reliability yet the tribunal (and juries) are impressed by it. Given their role you might think the tribunal might be less sucked in though.

When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

player had a duty of care to avoid collision with umpire we all know the concesqences

The Big Shrek wrote:
When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

He's not banned for life, he can still go and play in other leagues - but I get your point

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:
When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

He's not banned for life, he can still go and play in other leagues - but I get your point

He got 12 weeks. Thats a national ban now isnt it?

HH3 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:
When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

He's not banned for life, he can still go and play in other leagues - but I get your point

He got 12 weeks. Thats a national ban now isnt it?

16 for national, 12 for C9AFL

jo172 wrote:

HH3 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:
When you are handing out life bans (as opposed to 2 or 3 week suspensions) it seems to me that the tribunal should be a little more circumspect.

He's not banned for life, he can still go and play in other leagues - but I get your point

He got 12 weeks. Thats a national ban now isnt it?

16 for national, 12 for C9AFL

So he's on 15 with past history then.