AFL Tribunal reduces Dustin Martin's suspension

Write the AFL a letter - let them know there should be more dobbing on each other.

In that case Richmond would have argued for careless not intentional. Therefore a low impact was available - that's only a fine. That doesn't seem to be the judgment. Noting 4.2.C: Where contact is both High and to the Body, the MRO will classify the contact as High. It seems that the Tribunal did no support christian in his use of 4.2A: Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause injury, particularly in the following cases: »»Intentional head-high strikes, such as those with a swinging clenched fist, raised forearm or elbow; and especially 4.3: Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these guidelines, any Careless or Intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as “Low Impact” even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved. So well done Richmond legal team for arguing that this particular instance sits outside the meaning of 4.2 and 4.3 when looked at in totality. But it still begs the question, for christian, in what circumstances should he grade something like that "medium"? Hence my suggestion above that he invoke 3.2.A and let them work it out....

now that the Tribunal seem to have undermined the guidance in this regard, I'd be sending everything there way.

Two men at a pub have 1 too many drinks. Both get in their cars to drive home. One gets pulled over by a booze bus and looses their license. The other runs over a pedestrian. They both had the same intent. One will be punished far more than the other. It's almost as if the legal system takes into account the actual measurable outcome instead of the imaginary intent.

I wouldn’t have thought that was something you’d use for an ordinary striking/rough conduct charge, though? I don’t think it’s intended to circumvent the points system.

No I am not arguing for the sake of it. Kennedy's testimony suggests the hit was mostly on the shoulder suggesting the intent was not to hit him in the head or if it was (impossible to conclude) he missed. Otherwise I would agree with you. Your opinion just doesn't match the facts presented.

"accidental"

Actually the more I look into it the weirder it is. Christian actually applied The medium grade in accordance with guideline - intentional elbows to head are medium due to potential for harm (begs the question why Grimes was low?) Anyway, does this mean the Tribunal (a) don’t support the guideline? (B) decided impact was to the shoulder and not the head so this clause could not apply; (c) determined the action was careless as there was no intent to strike the head; or (d) a combination of these aka “the vibe of the thing”. Is there a formal decision in writing! Under any circumstance I think Christian is entitled to an explanation. An apology from those who belittled his interpretation (that would be me) etc../

Christian had that option via 3.2.A: Any Other Act of Serious Misconduct which the MRO Considers Appropriate to Refer to the Tribunal He mustn't have considered it serious misconduct or appropriate to refer. If he had his time again...?

I'm not going to even bother digging out the crayons to draw this out for you again. We should be thankful there are people - including myself - that have a far greater level of intelligence than you. I look forward to your defence when you try robbing a bank. "Your worship. You can't read my mind. I intended to only jokingly rob the bank"! Fool.

Don't shoot him/her. it's all there at p.6... https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

My point is still clear. Or did you think that I meant for this incident only? I thought it was pretty clear. Or maybe you're just arguing for the sake of it, like people like to do on the internet. I presume it's the latter. Watch the vision - he deliberately whacked him. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

I don't think a victim's testimony is valid in the AFL because they don't want to be seen as dobbing in another player.

Yeah great, but the evidence presented suggests that he didn't deliberately hit him in the head, so what's your point?

Astonishing. So it's ok to whack a bloke off the ball, as long as you don't hurt him? The lawyers have successfully blurred the lines. It should be as simple as this - you deliberately hit a player in the head you get 2 weeks minimum. No ifs, no buts, no consideration for not hurting him.

Your examples involve unlawful use of firearms and robbery Spruce, both of which are criminal offences that carry heavy sanctions regardless of results. Both are irrelevant. Slane's example of theft of $1 vs $1 million without method specified is actually a fair more relevant example. We are talking about a physical act of aggression outside of the rules on a field where numerous physical acts of aggression are permitted within the rules. A better example would be an employee using a corporate credit card for expenses outside of regulation, where he has authority to spend company funds but has used them for purposes not allowed by the company. In that sense the amount of money would be very relevant as to determining the punishment.

Nice Reductio Ad Absurdum argument there Anon. You also referenced the Eggshell Skull Rule which is practiced in Australian Law and AFL which actually helps Dusty's case ie the penalty is proportional to the outcome of the act eg if you king-hit someone and they die you get will get judged on that fact and not the intention. Kennedy was not concussed and not hurt, therefore the penalty is less. Good to see you in Dusty's corner Anon. From the report: "Kennedy stated he didn’t feel any pain as a result of the strike which was enough for the panel to downgrade the strike and half Martin’s original suspension."

Is it more pathetic than your toe-shooting example or do you reckon it's about par for the course? I think we should be thankful that we have mind-readers such as yourself who have such a firm grasp of what other people 'intend' to do. As it stands the rest of us will just have to make do with exercising our common sense and try to make the punishment fix the crime.

That's honestly such a pathetic example. If i unsuccessfully tried to rob a bank, do I then walk free because I only ended up walking away with $1? You haven't a clue about the concept of 'intent'.

The AFL has no control over the Tribunal. It’s independent. Ha ha ha...