Supreme Court Injunction

Remove this Banner Ad

asanque

asanque

Premium Platinum
Veteran Super Coach Elite BeanCoiNFT Investor SuperCoach Leagues Winners - SuperCoach Elite Div.1
Jan 7, 2008
4,871
3,074
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I have just e-mailed the hawks strongly urging them to consider a Supreme Court Injunction (and offering assistance).

At the moment, from reports on the Footy Show, it is 50/50 to be decided tomorrow morning.

hawka@hawthornfc.com.au

Please let me know if you have any other e-mail addresses (i.e. Jeff Kennett) to e-mail the relevant personnel.

I strongly urge all Hawthorn supporters who believe that Lance Franklin's suspension was an indictment on the AFL, to e-mail Hawthorn and let them know your support for a Supreme Court Injunction.

I would not advocate this path unless I thought we had a reasonable prospect of success in future court action.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Salty Malty said:
I feel Buddy has been hard done by, but them's the rules now, so players are just going to have to live with them.

Just cop the umpire's decision now and move on.
Click to expand...


Let's not cop anything unless it's fair. Just because it's the umpires decision and the decision of the tribunal doesn't mean it's fair. Sometimes you need to fight the powers that be to get justice. Go for it Hawks, fight the good fight for greater good of the game.
 
ABSOLUTLY RIDICULOUS bloody AFL, im a saints supporter i would love to email the hawks but i doubt there's any point the club will do what they want anyway. But the decision was fricken ridiculous im going to the game and it would bring abigger crowd and so much better if buddy is playing. Haks take the decision to the Supreme Court.
 
I would love to see Hawthorn to take the AFL to court and make life really difficult for them during such an important time of year. What specific point of law would we take them to court on though?
 
tim_saints said:
ABSOLUTLY RIDICULOUS bloody AFL, im a saints supporter i would love to email the hawks but i doubt there's any point the club will do what they want anyway. But the decision was fricken ridiculous im going to the game and it would bring abigger crowd and so much better if buddy is playing. Haks take the decision to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Send an email as a concerned AFL fan
 
Look, I agree that the Buddy decision offends most of us who don't want to see the hip & shoulder gone from the game, but it must be realised that the AFL changed the Laws of the Game after the Maxwell decision earlier in the year. Under the Laws as they are now (and as crap as they are now), what Buddy did was against the law, hence the Tribual and the Appeals Board had no option but to confirm he was guilty.

You can keep railing against the decision as much as you like, but the fact is Dimmy & Co didn't like being made to look silly when Maxwell was successful earlier in the season, so they changed the rules to make sure there would be no repeat.

Just cop the ump's decision.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Salty Malty said:
Look, I agree that the Buddy decision offends most of us who don't want to see the hip & shoulder gone from the game, but it must be realised that the AFL changed the Laws of the Game after the Maxwell decision earlier in the year. Under the Laws as they are now (and as crap as they are now), what Buddy did was against the law, hence the Tribual and the Appeals Board had no option but to confirm he was guilty.

You can keep railing against the decision as much as you like, but the fact is Dimmy & Co didn't like being made to look silly when Maxwell was successful earlier in the season, so they changed the rules to make sure there would be no repeat.

Just cop the ump's decision.
Click to expand...


So the Hawks should pay the price because "Dimmy & Co didn't like to be made to look silly?"

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. How can you support that and urge other people to accept it? Have you ever stood up to anyone? Or do you always cop it on the chin?
 
Here is what I sent Jeff -

As a proud long serving member of the Hawthorn football club and a supporter of our great game in general I wanted to express my absolute disgust in the outome of the afl tribunal process. It seems that the afl do not wish the game to continue on in the proud tradition and intention in which it was developed.

Being a teacher I totally understand the need for the head to be sacrosanct in order to protect the young players developing in our game as well as the professionals that provide the spectacle we enjoy each week, however for the afl to have rules in which a player is penalised for playing the game to the best outcome of their club is to ruin the original intention of the game.

To penalise a player for making a decision which is within the rules, such as bumping another player and then determining that this was not the appropriate action for the player to take is contradictory. Determining that this can be done in the split second in the heat of the contest displays an ignorance for the intensity of the game in its current state.

Contrary to media conjecture, I would love Buddy to play this week, not because we need him to make the finals but because this rule and its interpretation are clearly wrong. It should not be about the last game of the season or about making finals, it is about the correct adjudication.

I trust that yourself, together with the board will ultimately make what you feel is the best decision for the club going forward and also for the greater good of the afl.
 
Footbrawler said:
So the Hawks should pay the price because "Dimmy & Co didn't like to be made to look silly?"

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. How can you support that and urge other people to accept it? Have you ever stood up to anyone? Or do you always cop it on the chin?
Click to expand...
Just giving my view, swan-boy. And I wasn't presenting an argument, just stating the facts as I see them. I've stood up to plenty (and I'll bet a lot tougher than you, internet warrior), but what's that got to do with the issue we're discussing?
 
My e-mail to Jeff:

['Dear Jeff

As a loyal hawthorn member, I strongly support a Supreme Court injunction against Lance Franklin's suspension.

I also agree entirely with your statement issued to the Footy Show tonight.

I believe the amended rule by the AFL is open to being overturned by a court of law.

In particular, the aspect of "reasonableness" being irrelevant (as per the amended rule) is a key issue that needs to be addressed.

Happy to support in any way necessary (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) including monetary.

Lets stop the AFL destroying the game we love.

Best Regards']

<x's where confidential>
 
Only one problem mate, the umpire's decision was to let play proceed.

More than happy to go with that.
 
on monday the MRP found him guilty.
on tuesday the tribunal found him guilty.
on thursday the appeals board found him guilty.

3 different processes have found him guilty under this rule this week.

i think hawthorn have given it their best shot and have been given two opportunities to prove his innocence since the MRP decision. It will tarnish the clubs reputation to take out an injunction with a stay of proceedings etc.

If you think this rule is against the spirit of the game (maybe it is...) then keep in mind not accepting the tribunal decisions and taking out injunctions etc is also against the spirit of the game.

I don't think its doing either side any favours right now - they've basically got one day to plan their strategies (hawthorn forwardline, essendon defence) and its still up in the air if he will be able to play. Ridiculous situation.
 
efcboy said:
on monday the MRP found him guilty.
on tuesday the tribunal found him guilty.
on thursday the appeals board found him guilty.

3 different processes have found him guilty under this rule this week.

i think hawthorn have given it their best shot and have been given two opportunities to prove his innocence since the MRP decision. It will tarnish the clubs reputation to take out an injunction with a stay of proceedings etc.

If you think this rule is against the spirit of the game (maybe it is...) then keep in mind not accepting the tribunal decisions and taking out injunctions etc is also against the spirit of the game.

I don't think its doing either side any favours right now - they've basically got one day to plan their strategies (hawthorn forwardline, essendon defence) and its still up in the air if he will be able to play. Ridiculous situation.
Click to expand...

They found him guilty based on one 'amended rule' that did not pass the Laws Committee and is clearly ridiculous.

None of the above have the jurisdiction to overrule an AFL rule.
The courts do.

End of story.
 
efcboy said:
I don't think its doing either side any favours right now - they've basically got one day to plan their strategies (hawthorn forwardline, essendon defence) and its still up in the air if he will be able to play. Ridiculous situation.
Click to expand...


Sounds like your scared if Buddy plays
 
Mervyn Beasley said:
he's got my email
for the good of footy it has to be done
Click to expand...

for the good of footy....lol

At least be honest about it if it was an Essendon player or a player from any other club than your own you might think it was wrong but would you be up in arms and emailing our club president or any other clubs?

Of course you wouldn't. Call it what it is, you want him to play so you can win, nothing wrong with that, but "for the good of football" rofl.

Has there been a successful injunction or court action against a tribunal decision since the appeals tribunal has been in?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Supreme Court Injunction

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top