Andrew Collins to face tribunal

[Strawb]

No Comment

[dedja]

[Strawb]

how did the league teams boys get on this site. we got lou, jack and bobby

[nickname]

Nick, I will put it in lay terms for you then.

Coaches, players or umpires can not comment in the media about tribunal incidents, at any level of footy, until after they have been heard and resolved at the tribunal.

This has been the case as long as I can remember. By your own admission, this is clearly what Collins has done and is therefore gulity of such an offence.

What penalty he subsequently receives is another matter.

I can't make it any clearer than I already have ML - I understand sub judice and I understand the business about making comments prior to a hearing but that is not what he's been charged with. If it was, there would be no argument about it, because he clearly has commented on it. They wouldn't need a hearing, they'd just impose a fine or penalty. But he's been charged with something different, as spelt out in my previous post.

[MagareyLegend]

Ok I see your point but I think you will find that SANFL Regulation 15.1.3 (below) covers the sub judice bit where it states "comments made in any publication etc ...... found to be prejudicial to the League" - but I may be wrong.

Regulation 15.1.3 relates to comments made in any publication (whether written, televised or broadcast) which are found to be detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League.

[matt1]

Nick, I will put it in lay terms for you then.

Coaches, players or umpires can not comment in the media about tribunal incidents, at any level of footy, until after they have been heard and resolved at the tribunal.

This has been the case as long as I can remember. By your own admission, this is clearly what Collins has done and is therefore gulity of such an offence.

What penalty he subsequently receives is another matter.

I can't make it any clearer than I already have ML - I understand sub judice and I understand the business about making comments prior to a hearing but that is not what he's been charged with. If it was, there would be no argument about it, because he clearly has commented on it. They wouldn't need a hearing, they'd just impose a fine or penalty. But he's been charged with something different, as spelt out in my previous post.

Think you'll find the SANFL contacted its own lawyers to make sure that the charge being laid was the correct one under that particular part of the SANFL constitution before charging him with it... Give them a bit of credit, I'm tipping they know what clauses cover what in their OWN constitution.

[nickname]

I'm not saying they've charged him under the wrong section, I'm just saying they've charged him with something other than the 'sub judice' offence, according to the wording in The Advertiser article. Essentially he's been charged with bringing the game into disrepute, not prejudicing a tribunal hearing according to that wording.

[Grahaml]

They've laid a charge in relation to his comments not allowing the tribunal to be the judge of the legality of an incident. Not hard to understand. Whether they technically call it sub judice or just label it disrepute means nothing. They allege he possibly interfered with the process and he will duly get punished by way of reprimand or small fine at worst IMHO.

And whether or not people think commissioners should read the paper they aught to be able to without reading about some comments from a coach relating to an incident. Or perhaps someone they talk to brings it up. Either way, their first impression is Shirley is in trouble. I personally have not seen the incident, but can say I fully expect him to be suspended, based on the talk. People like the idea of tribunal members not basing their findings on anything but facts? The easiest way to ensure that is to try to show them ONLY the facts, and not comments by people not involved in the process.

And Bayman, you are an idiot. You're trying to say that wanting to have an uncompromised legal process is akin to living in a repressive communist regime? Do you know anything at all? The sort of society you are trying to claim this makes up part of would allow anyone and everyone to pass judgement without knowing the facts. Your willingness to allow anyone to say whatever they like indicates you'd be happy to let the mob decide his fate. "The truth" in this matter is up to the trinunal to decide, not you. Thank goodness.

[Sojourner]

Could Collins be suspended from coaching for a week or so as a result? Has the SANFL ever suspended a coach for game time before?

[Harry the Horse]

I doubt it.
A Jarman and the Weed have both been reported in last few years and got minimal fines.
SANFL tribunal not known for playing it tough .. I'd expect maybe a $1000 fine.

[nickname]

They've laid a charge in relation to his comments not allowing the tribunal to be the judge of the legality of an incident. Not hard to understand. Whether they technically call it sub judice or just label it disrepute means nothing. They allege he possibly interfered with the process and he will duly get punished by way of reprimand or small fine at worst IMHO.

Graham what are you basing that assertion on?
I'm basing mine on the wording, as reported in the paper, of the charge: "making comments which are detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League." You may be right, but if you are it's an extremely broad interpretation of that charge for it to cover 'not allowing the tribunal to be the judge of the legality of an incident'.
And I still say that to find what Collins said was so 'detrimental' or 'prejudicial' would be absurd.

[dedja]

OK, OK we've had enough of these legal arguments ... The SANFL have brought in the big guns to sort it all out:

[MagareyLegend]

They've laid a charge in relation to his comments not allowing the tribunal to be the judge of the legality of an incident. Not hard to understand. Whether they technically call it sub judice or just label it disrepute means nothing. They allege he possibly interfered with the process and he will duly get punished by way of reprimand or small fine at worst IMHO.

Graham what are you basing that assertion on?
I'm basing mine on the wording, as reported in the paper, of the charge: "making comments which are detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League." You may be right, but if you are it's an extremely broad interpretation of that charge for it to cover 'not allowing the tribunal to be the judge of the legality of an incident'.
And I still say that to find what Collins said was so 'detrimental' or 'prejudicial' would be absurd.

nn - let it go

[redandblack]

It's a bit hard to let it go when his argument is totally correct.

[MagareyLegend]

Totally correct or just correct? Again wrong terminlogy.
There are no degrees of correctness - you are either correct or you are not.
Come on r&b you are as bad as your coach.

Collins allegedly spoke when he should not have because the topic was sub judice at the time he spoke about it so he has allegedly therefore made comments which are detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League. There, happy now?

(Look if he is half smart even he would realise, when he has it all explained to him, that he should not have spoken about that subject at that time - and if he continues to behave in such a manner he WILL get suspended).

[redandblack]

Well, I'm glad you spotted that. You are correct.

May I politely point out that, in your phrase, 'the wrong terminlogy' (sic), your spelling is incorrect and you may have been better to point out that it was a tautology, rather than the wrong terminology.

You're as bad as me and my coach, ML.

[MagareyLegend]

but at least you have now stopped defending your coach

[redandblack]

but at least you have now stopped defending your coach

That was my first contribution to this subject, ML, so your argument that I've stopped defending my coach is not only incorrect, but also not supported by any evidence.

I support nickname's reasoning, as it is accurate in every detail, despite others trying to extend his argument to suit their own purposes.

I'd also suggest that the course you chose to correct another poster's grammar is unwise, but I'm happy to continue that game if you wish

[MagareyLegend]

Silly old Collo knows he spoke out of line - give him a slap on the wrist and admit he was not "totally correct" in what he said/did and move on.

PS poor form r&b to try and cover your own grammatical error by sifting through your critics criticism (raised in jest incidentally) with a "fine tooth comb" - I was going to let you off with this but it was you who persisted - live and learn

[redandblack]

Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you're allowed to dish it out, but it's poor form to respond in kind.

Toughen up, ML.