Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal (Read 31594 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #195 –
"a few seconds ago
Ed Curnow appeal. Video demonstrates clearly concession was honest and well based. But in those circumstances not other conclusion reasonable that contact was intentional.
 
Appeal upheld"

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #196 –
"Gleeson QC for appeal:
- no scope for automatic suspension to be applied
- in the guidelines is included in serious acts of misconduct ... not as serious as some of those charges, but sits in this category for a good reason, a very serious matter
- minimum sanction should be a one-week suspension"

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #197 –
Gleeson wants a week.

Makes an assumption about Ed's state of mind, Gleeson calls it a brain fade!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #198 –
"Gleeson:
- it was just a brainfade. he touched him, he meant to"

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #199 –
Ch.7 News. Charlie clear, Ed guilty. Still deliberating the penalty.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #200 –
Bit of a slip ;D
Not sure if it was Gleeson or the reporting bloke Bowen

"Gleeson:
clarity and certainty is needed to let players know that this is the rule. If you touch a player and you mean to, you will be suspended"

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #201 –
Glad Clarke highlighted the difference in intent between Hawkins and Ed, Hawkins was clearly hostile to he umpire and the umpire told him so!

This whole situation has come about because they've got previous cases wrong.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #202 –
"Clarke says a fine is appropriate. Says $2000 would be appropriate."

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #203 –
Quote from: Lods on
Bit of a slip ;D
Not sure if it was Gleeson or the reporting bloke Bowen

"Gleeson:
clarity and certainty is needed to let players know that this is the rule. If you touch a player and you mean to, you will be suspended"

I noticed that as well. The media and various others like Buckley and Danger have been baying for Ed's blood since the initial verdict was handed down.

At any rate, the amount of air time, discussion, hysteria etc. for what are minor actions that may result in a one week ban is ridiculous. You'd think it was a murder case.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #204 –
Ed gets a week

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #205 –
I hope we have plenty of Blues fans get on Whateley's show and give it to him tomorrow.

Hawkin's should clearly have gotten two weeks.

Not clear if Charlie's result means his fine is also dismissed.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #206 –
Quote from: LP on
I hope we have plenty of Blues fans get on Whateley's show and give it to him tomorrow.

Not clear if Charlie's result means his fine is also dismissed.

No, $1000 fine stands.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #207 –
I guess we'll be needing Kerridge and Graham to give Cripps a hand this weekend.

I'm not Ed's biggest fan, but he was mining a rich vein of form the last few weeks.

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #208 –
Reports are that the jowls from "Pudding Face the Elder" are spreading across the western district as we post!

Smalls towns in the jowl path have been alerted to evacuate in fear of cheek crush death or drowning by drooling!
The Force Awakens!
 

Re: Blues Brothers trip to the tribunal

Reply #209 –
Mitch Cleary
‏Verified account @cleary_mitch

On whether Patrick Dangerfield should be making comment on the tribunal findings...

Carlton football boss Andrew McKay: “I don’t think I should comment on that, and neither should Patrick.”
5:03 PM - 17 May 2018