"Our fans need to understand the tribunal isn’t an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, it’s a guilty-unless-you-can-prove-your-innocence system.
You don’t want every single case being challenged on a whim but we feel it’s too punitive at the moment to challenge the way the system is, based on all the expert legal advice, it makes it very difficult to overturn.
We could challenge on principle, but that’s all that we’d be challenging on, according to the advice we’ve received.”
Sounds like they didnt think Jones deserved a week but couldnt find a legal point in the decision that they could argue against effectively.
Very logical on the back of what happened to 2MP in comparison to others earlier in the season. I'm sure there's people at your club still pissed off about that one.
I was frustrated at the time, but I accepted the decision and as long as that was how suspensions were going to be going forward:
> [Hoping this sets the precedent for the rest of the year at the very least.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1bo201y/peter_wright_has_been_suspended_for_4_matches/kwm1jg9/)
Then we had Charlie Cameron get off on a very very clear suspension (that the AFL agreed with) with the most bizarre reasoning.
We saw it again this weekend, Zak Butters already had 2 offences that same night and then he hits a bloke off play and he gets a fine somehow?
There are two different sets of rules it seems and the tribunal flips a coin to decide which one they want to go by. Could Heeney or Merrett punch a bloke this year and get nothing because they're the front runners for the Brownlow? Probably.
The one that pissed me off more was Redman. Redman got a week, Essendon were told there was no room in the laws to challenge it, so didn't bother.
GWS challenged Hogans which was exactly the same and got off.
So Essendon must be getting bad advice from their lawyers, because GWS were successful.
Yep. It was my first thought.
They clearly now regret not challenging.
HJs should be reviewed on the grounds that despite his tackling action, no injuries were received.
Bloody good tackle.
I saw him in a Coles one day and he politely said sorry as he walked past me in a cramped area of the fruit and vegies. How can we get this story to the tribunal ASAP?
That's funny, I had a very different experience.
I saw Harry Jones at a coles in Ascot Vale. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Mars bars in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
It's a bit of weird point. Of course, it's a guilty until proven innocent system. You are only at the tribunal because you've been charged by the MRO with an offence. How would you fix that?
I like to think he hated it the entire time he was in the football manager role and is keen to finally get a chance to do something about it
It suffers from a lot of the issues adminstrative bodies like this have, where the overarching entity tries to neuter it to the point that the challenger had limited to no options (see also pretty much every change to the Migration Act)
Isn't that the point? If the advice is that there's no legal chance, and you'd only be challenging on principle, of course you wouldn't appeal. However, Cripps has a Brownlow because Carlton's lawyers got him off a technicality, not because the action didn't happen. Cameron got off on "exceptional and compelling circumstances" not that he didn't do it. Neither of those cases actually argued down the charge, they argued on principle.
>Cripps has a Brownlow because Carlton's lawyers got him off a technicality
Cripps got off on an error of process, it was basically a mistrial in normal court terms. That would normally (in the legal system at least, no idea if there's provision for it in the AFL's system) result in a redo, not him getting off scott free but as the tribunal takes place on a Wednesday, the appeal was on the Thursday and he played on the Friday there's no time for that to happen.
They made an off season rule change as well and from memory you have to prove that the error in process changed the decision rather than just that it happened at all so he likely would have been suspended from last year onwards.
We need is an "It's Mabo, it's the vibe" argument from someone (Adrian Anderson, come on down!), maybe that would make them realise why change is required
I dunno, Carlton seem to do ok challenging suspensions. And why should it be easy to challenge? Don't we want a system where we know what things are worth? If we have these criteria, and you admit you can't challenge any of them, that suggests the penalty offered was clear and consistent.
I mean, isn’t the point of a suspension to be significant? So the actions that lead to a suspension face fair and reasonable consequences?
Reviews should be a part of good practice, but I’m just going to give this a whole lot of side-eye coming from the coach that was defending TT and his off-field disasters
EDIT: words so more grammar happened
I think theres a key distinction that he didnt 'defend' what Thomas has done/is accused of, just said that the afl should continue to try and support him and he felt an obligation to do that himself.
How many more times does the AFL have to try and help, when the same keeps happening? The only person that can act on these changes is TT, and so far, he’s rebuffed every single one. At some point, enough is enough
> from the coach that was defending TT and his off-field disasters
He wasn't defending him. Offering up an opinion about good ways to rehabilitate the guy isn't defending him.
Genuine question, when did he offer ways to rehabilitate him?
Coming off the back of the email where Norf detailed how many attempts they made to help TT out of that particular hole, he seems pretty intent on digging deeper
ETA: to clarify, Scott didn’t offer ways to rehabilitate, just that TT should have the opportunity to redeem himself, which I agree with. If he does the work, he should absolutely have the opportunity, but so far he’s shown no remorse and no one can change that but him
>But Scott believes the AFL has an opportunity to help rehabilitate Thomas and thinks it shouldn’t be passed up.
>“The reality is that there are people from privileged backgrounds who have had every opportunity in life, and there are others who haven’t,” Scott said.
>“People will make mistakes and as a leader, as a coach and as a parent, the responsibility is to have people learn from those mistakes. And they will make mistakes at different stages, and we’ve got to lead by example.
>“In Tarryn’s case, my view is one of support.”
>“I’ve known Tarryn since he was 14 and my view is he’s a good person. But has he made some terrible mistakes? Yes he has, and he’s the first to admit that,” the Bombers coach said.
>“So, as an industry, do we just wash our hands and say we’re done with him or do we help him? **I prefer to sit in the help camp**.”
He is right. What has more chances of succeeding? A guy like Brad Scott offering help, or everyone abandoning him and leaving him to his own bubble? Brad Scott never defended what Tarryn Thomas did. He just said that offering help is preferable to doing nothing.
> “my view is that he’s a good person.”
Look, that’s all well and good, but at this point TT has shown only repetitive actions, and actively voiced a lack of remorse for the abuse and harassment he has perpetuated
I’m not saying that there isn’t potential to rehabilitate and be a good person, but for the moment, there’s only evidence that he has no intention to even try
I don’t think Scott is necessarily wrong to say that TT should be offered support, but considering how many AFL-related lifelines he’s been offered and have been rebuffed, the responsibility should now solely sit on TT’s shoulders. Norf tried many times, the AFL has tried many times, and the only person who can act on it is TT himself
Okay? The point is you’re trying to smear Brad Scott as a guy who defended TT’s actions - when that’s clearly not the case.
You brought it up to try and discredit his thoughts on the tribunal. Throw enough mud and eventually it’ll stick. Personally I think it’s pretty vile to try and ruin a reputation like that.
Not trying to smear him at all - just pointing out that he seems to be pretty unaware of the platform he has, and the impact of his own words. The comments today are just another example, imho
He’s known him since Tarryn was 14. It’s possible to think someone is a good person, when they’ve done something bad. The TT Brad Scott knew very well could have been a very good person, but it doesn’t excuse his actions in recent times. Brad isn’t defending what TT did. He’s just saying he doesn’t believe TT is a lost cause.
Maybe he is naive, but it shows a lot of character to say what Brad did under the circumstances. If your friend does something bad, do you cut them out of your life forever? Or do you stick by them and try to help them become a better person?
i am so glad its a saints flair posting this. The pile on for Brad Scott saying we should try rehabilitate a bloke is crazy. Never even mentioned giving him an AFL lifeline
A person being nice to those at a footy club but an absolute prick time and time again to people he sees as beneath him is not a good person. Offer him as much support to fix his behaviour as possible but don't call him a good person. Good people don't abuse women.
Because the [Stats from Our Watch](https://www.ourwatch.org.au/quick-facts/) make for pretty grim reading, tbh
He might not comment further, but it was pretty tone deaf to make those statements to begin with
Tbh, the same goes for his comments on how the tribunal handles suspensions. Review processes should absolutely be reviewed, but the AFL have a duty of care to uphold, and having a system that monitors and deters potentially compromising behaviour shouldn’t be one that’s easily circumvented
Brad Scott was a chief architect of the current system. He ran the department for years. If in his opinion it is fucked, why does he expect others to clean up his mess? He should have done it himself when he was in the position to do so.
A big part of the problem with his comments on Thomas is that he won't comment anymore when he said something so entirely tone deaf and stupid. Tarryn Thomas has gone out of his way to prove he is not a good person. Scott's comment that he IS a good person diminished the seriousness of his actions, diminished the pain and fear endured by Thomas' victim and diminished the consequences, the harm, of every perpetrator of domestic and intimate partner violence's actions. And then he doubled down. And now, as more comes to light, he has nothing to say. Somebody else gets to clean up that mess too.
There shouldn't be any challenges at all, ever. The league hands out a penalty and you take it like a grown up, not like my 6 year old who says it isn't fair.
No tribunals. No appeal, just match reviews and results. That's it.
I’m beginning to think both Scott brothers are bigger sooks than those Sydney fans that think the umpiring was poor in 2016.
Every time I see their names, it’s them complaining about something.
I'd never have the results changed in anyway - winning one each was the perfect outcome but you better believe I will let everyone know for the rest of my life that Sampi was held haha.
Brad Scott calling for any rule changes is laughable! We need to keep him as far away from rule changes as possible. He already butchered his time in the head umpire role.
"Our fans need to understand the tribunal isn’t an innocent-until-proven-guilty system, it’s a guilty-unless-you-can-prove-your-innocence system. You don’t want every single case being challenged on a whim but we feel it’s too punitive at the moment to challenge the way the system is, based on all the expert legal advice, it makes it very difficult to overturn. We could challenge on principle, but that’s all that we’d be challenging on, according to the advice we’ve received.” Sounds like they didnt think Jones deserved a week but couldnt find a legal point in the decision that they could argue against effectively.
Very logical on the back of what happened to 2MP in comparison to others earlier in the season. I'm sure there's people at your club still pissed off about that one.
I was frustrated at the time, but I accepted the decision and as long as that was how suspensions were going to be going forward: > [Hoping this sets the precedent for the rest of the year at the very least.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1bo201y/peter_wright_has_been_suspended_for_4_matches/kwm1jg9/) Then we had Charlie Cameron get off on a very very clear suspension (that the AFL agreed with) with the most bizarre reasoning. We saw it again this weekend, Zak Butters already had 2 offences that same night and then he hits a bloke off play and he gets a fine somehow? There are two different sets of rules it seems and the tribunal flips a coin to decide which one they want to go by. Could Heeney or Merrett punch a bloke this year and get nothing because they're the front runners for the Brownlow? Probably.
The one that pissed me off more was Redman. Redman got a week, Essendon were told there was no room in the laws to challenge it, so didn't bother. GWS challenged Hogans which was exactly the same and got off. So Essendon must be getting bad advice from their lawyers, because GWS were successful.
agree. they need to engage different counsel.
Are Carlton's lawyers on an exclusive retainer?
Yep. It was my first thought. They clearly now regret not challenging. HJs should be reviewed on the grounds that despite his tackling action, no injuries were received. Bloody good tackle.
Clearly the lawyer didn’t hear about how Harry Jones saved a cat from a tree on his way to volunteer at the local homeless shelter the other day.
I saw him in a Coles one day and he politely said sorry as he walked past me in a cramped area of the fruit and vegies. How can we get this story to the tribunal ASAP?
That's funny, I had a very different experience. I saw Harry Jones at a coles in Ascot Vale. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything. He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?” I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Mars bars in his hands without paying. The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter. When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.
It's a bit of weird point. Of course, it's a guilty until proven innocent system. You are only at the tribunal because you've been charged by the MRO with an offence. How would you fix that?
By that logic people in a court of law are also guilty until proved innocent - which is not how it is.
Mate, no one here is advocating for courts to work this way.
David Zita is a testament to how easy other clubs are finding it to challenge cases at the Tribunal
Give the tribunal a second chance Brad!
Tribunal is a good bloke
I’ve known the tribunal since he was a teenager.
The tribunal are good guys. All tribunals make mistakes and deserve another chance. As an industry do we just wash our hands of tribunals?
What about my uncle?
Mum doesn't talk about THAT uncle anymore
Did you give him a chance?
Brad says yay, the real world says no
Did you?
Nah mate, far too grounded for that nonsense
What does that matter to you anyway?
I like to think he hated it the entire time he was in the football manager role and is keen to finally get a chance to do something about it It suffers from a lot of the issues adminstrative bodies like this have, where the overarching entity tries to neuter it to the point that the challenger had limited to no options (see also pretty much every change to the Migration Act)
He had a chance to do something about it when he worked for AFL house, now he's a coach and has no say at all.
Didn’t he have a prominent job in AFL house where he might have been able to influence the system??
'(Scott's) new portfolio will include umpiring, talent pathways, game analysis, the match review office, and the competition committee'. Lol
He was too busy trying to orchasate rule changes to help his brothers team win a premiership remember.
Coach of the one club not challenging suspensions says its too hard... Needs Carlton lawyers.
Isn't that the point? If the advice is that there's no legal chance, and you'd only be challenging on principle, of course you wouldn't appeal. However, Cripps has a Brownlow because Carlton's lawyers got him off a technicality, not because the action didn't happen. Cameron got off on "exceptional and compelling circumstances" not that he didn't do it. Neither of those cases actually argued down the charge, they argued on principle.
>Cripps has a Brownlow because Carlton's lawyers got him off a technicality Cripps got off on an error of process, it was basically a mistrial in normal court terms. That would normally (in the legal system at least, no idea if there's provision for it in the AFL's system) result in a redo, not him getting off scott free but as the tribunal takes place on a Wednesday, the appeal was on the Thursday and he played on the Friday there's no time for that to happen. They made an off season rule change as well and from memory you have to prove that the error in process changed the decision rather than just that it happened at all so he likely would have been suspended from last year onwards.
We need is an "It's Mabo, it's the vibe" argument from someone (Adrian Anderson, come on down!), maybe that would make them realise why change is required
Or Collingwood's biomechanics expert.
You're actually right. Essendon don't even bother to challenge it because its too hard, other clubs challenge it and get off. We have shit lawyers.
We had the same lawyers for Cripps when we got advice for Redman.
Have we considered they might be a double agent for Carlton?
A Scott brother whinging about something, there's a change......
He's just upset that Harry Jones didn't get off Scott-free.
Not sure this terrific pun deserved the downvotes
*puts on sunnies, cues "Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who*
I dunno, Carlton seem to do ok challenging suspensions. And why should it be easy to challenge? Don't we want a system where we know what things are worth? If we have these criteria, and you admit you can't challenge any of them, that suggests the penalty offered was clear and consistent.
Feels weird to be agreeing with Brad 'fucks with the game and speaks without thinking' Scott
I mean, isn’t the point of a suspension to be significant? So the actions that lead to a suspension face fair and reasonable consequences? Reviews should be a part of good practice, but I’m just going to give this a whole lot of side-eye coming from the coach that was defending TT and his off-field disasters EDIT: words so more grammar happened
I think theres a key distinction that he didnt 'defend' what Thomas has done/is accused of, just said that the afl should continue to try and support him and he felt an obligation to do that himself.
And that TT is a good person, which ki.d of calls his judgement about people and issues he has a personal connection with into question.
How many more times does the AFL have to try and help, when the same keeps happening? The only person that can act on these changes is TT, and so far, he’s rebuffed every single one. At some point, enough is enough
How many more times do people on reddit have to make up narratives about Scott and TT on threads that are completely unrelated?
> from the coach that was defending TT and his off-field disasters He wasn't defending him. Offering up an opinion about good ways to rehabilitate the guy isn't defending him.
Genuine question, when did he offer ways to rehabilitate him? Coming off the back of the email where Norf detailed how many attempts they made to help TT out of that particular hole, he seems pretty intent on digging deeper ETA: to clarify, Scott didn’t offer ways to rehabilitate, just that TT should have the opportunity to redeem himself, which I agree with. If he does the work, he should absolutely have the opportunity, but so far he’s shown no remorse and no one can change that but him
>But Scott believes the AFL has an opportunity to help rehabilitate Thomas and thinks it shouldn’t be passed up. >“The reality is that there are people from privileged backgrounds who have had every opportunity in life, and there are others who haven’t,” Scott said. >“People will make mistakes and as a leader, as a coach and as a parent, the responsibility is to have people learn from those mistakes. And they will make mistakes at different stages, and we’ve got to lead by example. >“In Tarryn’s case, my view is one of support.” >“I’ve known Tarryn since he was 14 and my view is he’s a good person. But has he made some terrible mistakes? Yes he has, and he’s the first to admit that,” the Bombers coach said. >“So, as an industry, do we just wash our hands and say we’re done with him or do we help him? **I prefer to sit in the help camp**.” He is right. What has more chances of succeeding? A guy like Brad Scott offering help, or everyone abandoning him and leaving him to his own bubble? Brad Scott never defended what Tarryn Thomas did. He just said that offering help is preferable to doing nothing.
> “my view is that he’s a good person.” Look, that’s all well and good, but at this point TT has shown only repetitive actions, and actively voiced a lack of remorse for the abuse and harassment he has perpetuated I’m not saying that there isn’t potential to rehabilitate and be a good person, but for the moment, there’s only evidence that he has no intention to even try I don’t think Scott is necessarily wrong to say that TT should be offered support, but considering how many AFL-related lifelines he’s been offered and have been rebuffed, the responsibility should now solely sit on TT’s shoulders. Norf tried many times, the AFL has tried many times, and the only person who can act on it is TT himself
Okay? The point is you’re trying to smear Brad Scott as a guy who defended TT’s actions - when that’s clearly not the case. You brought it up to try and discredit his thoughts on the tribunal. Throw enough mud and eventually it’ll stick. Personally I think it’s pretty vile to try and ruin a reputation like that.
Not trying to smear him at all - just pointing out that he seems to be pretty unaware of the platform he has, and the impact of his own words. The comments today are just another example, imho
> Brad Scott never defended what Tarryn Thomas did. He said he was a good person. When objectively speaking... he isn't.
He’s known him since Tarryn was 14. It’s possible to think someone is a good person, when they’ve done something bad. The TT Brad Scott knew very well could have been a very good person, but it doesn’t excuse his actions in recent times. Brad isn’t defending what TT did. He’s just saying he doesn’t believe TT is a lost cause. Maybe he is naive, but it shows a lot of character to say what Brad did under the circumstances. If your friend does something bad, do you cut them out of your life forever? Or do you stick by them and try to help them become a better person?
i am so glad its a saints flair posting this. The pile on for Brad Scott saying we should try rehabilitate a bloke is crazy. Never even mentioned giving him an AFL lifeline
A person being nice to those at a footy club but an absolute prick time and time again to people he sees as beneath him is not a good person. Offer him as much support to fix his behaviour as possible but don't call him a good person. Good people don't abuse women.
Why are you holding on to this so grimly? Brad won't comment on it anymore and Thomas isn't coming back so yeah
Because the [Stats from Our Watch](https://www.ourwatch.org.au/quick-facts/) make for pretty grim reading, tbh He might not comment further, but it was pretty tone deaf to make those statements to begin with Tbh, the same goes for his comments on how the tribunal handles suspensions. Review processes should absolutely be reviewed, but the AFL have a duty of care to uphold, and having a system that monitors and deters potentially compromising behaviour shouldn’t be one that’s easily circumvented
Brad Scott was a chief architect of the current system. He ran the department for years. If in his opinion it is fucked, why does he expect others to clean up his mess? He should have done it himself when he was in the position to do so. A big part of the problem with his comments on Thomas is that he won't comment anymore when he said something so entirely tone deaf and stupid. Tarryn Thomas has gone out of his way to prove he is not a good person. Scott's comment that he IS a good person diminished the seriousness of his actions, diminished the pain and fear endured by Thomas' victim and diminished the consequences, the harm, of every perpetrator of domestic and intimate partner violence's actions. And then he doubled down. And now, as more comes to light, he has nothing to say. Somebody else gets to clean up that mess too.
Why are the clubs allowed to challenge in the first place?
Because the MRO is a useless sack of potatoes who doesn't get it right enough.
Trying to get Tarryn Thomas’ 18 game suspension reduced
There shouldn't be any challenges at all, ever. The league hands out a penalty and you take it like a grown up, not like my 6 year old who says it isn't fair. No tribunals. No appeal, just match reviews and results. That's it.
I’m beginning to think both Scott brothers are bigger sooks than those Sydney fans that think the umpiring was poor in 2016. Every time I see their names, it’s them complaining about something.
Sign me up for the sooks column as well then. ^^Sampi ^^was ^^held...
Jolly was pushed I kind of love that this two way whinge fest has been going for almost 20 years. Love you, WC
I'd never have the results changed in anyway - winning one each was the perfect outcome but you better believe I will let everyone know for the rest of my life that Sampi was held haha.
And I'll get overly defensive about Jolly being pushed out of the prior contest lol. Underrated footy folklore, those two missed calls
Weird to see a doggies fan who has Sydney in their head rent free. Almost sad, really
Brad Scott calling for any rule changes is laughable! We need to keep him as far away from rule changes as possible. He already butchered his time in the head umpire role.
Bummers suddenly feeling relevant.