The Toby Greene saga

[Woods]

[Kosh]

I don't care about T Greene. Anything that may help us is welcome. The more unjust the better. Having said that, T Greene's real crime was making a complete fool of Kim-Jong Gil and his Brunton Ave Politburo. He was always going to get rogered after being given a free pass last week, then crapping on the Supreme Leader's apparatchiks. I suspect that if you read the charge sheet carefully, there will be a line item regarding an insufficiently enthusiastic following of Juche Principals.

a) Principles, not principals
b) The regime of Gil resembles far more that of Donald Trump's than it does that of Kim Jong. Trump is based on real estate speculation, profits from casinos, profits from gambling...need I go on.

Thanks for picking up the typo MTTM.

[David]

Hey, I’m sure North Korea has plenty of Juche principals.

[BazBoy]

Gee two weeks for the Tomahawk would have been another star in possie

[colin_wood]

Even if Greene gets off it must be mentally exhausting doing 2 visits to the tribunal in Melb in a week ???

[K]

Giants to argue tribunal acted unreasonably on Greene

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/gia ... 52sqf.html

"The hearing will essentially be a fresh set of eyes looking at the same case. New evidence can only be introduced if the Giants and Anderson can prove that it could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the tribunal hearing.

There are four grounds on which you can appeal and the Greene camp will concentrate on two: that the decision of the tribunal was so unreasonable that it could not have come to that decision given the evidence before it; and that the classification of the offence by the tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The Giants are expected to argue that the classification of Greene's actions on Brisbane Lion Lachie Neale as intentional was excessive and they should be judged as careless.

The other two grounds won’t help GWS. There was no error of law and it’s unlikely that a one-match sanction could be viewed as “manifestly excessive or inadequate”."

"Grounds for appeal against AFL Tribunal decision
Error of law.
That the decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
Classification of offence manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Sanction imposed manifestly excessive or inadequate."

[Magpietothemax]

Giants to argue tribunal acted unreasonably on Greene

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/gia ... 52sqf.html

"The hearing will essentially be a fresh set of eyes looking at the same case. New evidence can only be introduced if the Giants and Anderson can prove that it could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the tribunal hearing.

]

Well, let's hope that the fresh set of eyes haven't been gouged before the hearing.

[Streak]

The Giants are expected to argue that the classification of Greene's actions on Brisbane Lion Lachie Neale as intentional was excessive and they should be judged as careless.

The other two grounds won’t help GWS. There was no error of law and it’s unlikely that a one-match sanction could be viewed as “manifestly excessive or inadequate”."

The arguments sound like losers. If you engage in unintentional, infringing behavior one time, I could see careless. If you engage in careless behavior repeatedly, it's hard to argue it's careless any longer; because you know you're susceptible to such careless behavior, so you have to take extra care. If you choose not to take extra care, it crosses the line into intentional.

One match doesn't sound manifestly excessive, unless they're arguing that the ban for a prelim is in itself excessive. But that would be tantamount to arguing that an eye-gouge in an elimination final is not as bad as an eye-gouge during the home and away season. Doesn't wash.

[think positive]

I agree, all they have to say is he had his chance last week, and we don’t want him blinding someone this week.

[Damien]

New tribunal members is in his favour but the odds are still in favour of being upheld. If he gets off it’d be a big boost for them but it’s already been a massive distraction surely.

[Kill for Collingwood]

Taylor Adams on Fox last night said he and Toby are good mates and he hopes he doesn't miss out on a prelim.

[Raw Hammer]

Taylor Adams on Fox last night said he and Toby are good mates and he hopes he doesn't miss out on a prelim.

Keep your mouth shut, Taylor.

[K]

Again, the disease of Pies players being over-exposed in the media in PF or GF week.

[K]

"The Giants are expected to argue that the classification of Greene's actions on Brisbane Lion Lachie Neale as intentional was excessive and they should be judged as careless.

The other two grounds won’t help GWS. There was no error of law and it’s unlikely that a one-match sanction could be viewed as “manifestly excessive or inadequate”."

The arguments sound like losers. If you engage in unintentional, infringing behavior one time, I could see careless. If you engage in careless behavior repeatedly, it's hard to argue it's careless any longer; because you know you're susceptible to such careless behavior, so you have to take extra care. If you choose not to take extra care, it crosses the line into intentional.

One match doesn't sound manifestly excessive, unless they're arguing that the ban for a prelim is in itself excessive. But that would be tantamount to arguing that an eye-gouge in an elimination final is not as bad as an eye-gouge during the home and away season. Doesn't wash.

Well, the video on that twitter post, which mainstream media look like they are still refusing to show, doesn't support it being careless. He's moving his fingers in a plucking motion.

[K]

https://www.afl.com.au/video/2019-09-19 ... by-cleared

This is disgraceful drivel.

And the media bang on about it being "fleeting". How can a scraping or plucking motion be anything other than fleeting? The only way to make it go on a long time is to eye-gouge multiple times.