SA Footy

West Adelaide coach Andrew Collins will front the SANFL tribunal tomorrow night, Tuesday May 19, for an alleged breach of Regulation 15.1.3, relating to comments made in local media relating to the Robert Shirley/Ben Fisher incident in the West Adelaide v Woodville/West Torrens game on Saturday at City Mazda Stadium.

I assume the rule he broke was the one about getting publicity for the SANFL? It seems they don't encourage that down at AAMI stadium anymore...

He said something about the tackle and report when it hadn't gone before the tribunial yet. He just had to say no comment about it and he would have been fine. Talk about it behind closed doors, but not in the papers or radio.

You are pretty much right Smac.

Although i agree with what he said he shouldn't be saying what he did say before the tribunal makes a finding one way or the other.

It should only be a slap on the wrist and told that next time it will cost you 5k.

They will probably deal with Mr Collins a lot more harshly than Mr Shirley.

It seems we have moved one step closer to being AFL-SA! The SANFL gets very little media attention as it is, without trying to gag the coaches from giving their opinions. Oh Dear!

Dog-boy wrote:They will probably deal with Mr Collins a lot more harshly than Mr Shirley.

Shirley will probly get a holiday and Collins a slap on the wrist

Collins would have known he was going to get into trouble but was probably so disappointed with the incident that he doesn't care.

Shirley, may be play on.

Collins a fine.

The main issue would be that Collins' comments about the Shirley incident could prejudice the tribunal. It's why AdelaideNow doesn't allow comments on legal stories - last thing they want is a contempt of court charge.

Well that would presume that Tribunal members read The Advertiser and that they are susceptible to the comments of a coach. Both scenarios are fairly disturbing.

nickname wrote:Well that would presume that Tribunal members read The Advertiser and that they are susceptible to the comments of a coach. Both scenarios are fairly disturbing.

Here, here, commissioners are supposed to base their judgements on the facts presented before them, not on media reports.

Andy isn't the first coach to face the Tribunal and Probly wont be the last

how could collins be fined, sanctioned & the like for TELLING THE TRUTH ? ....OH SORRY COMRADE I THOUGHT I WAS IN AUSTRALIA

Bayman (& others) - it is called sub judice and is one of the key principles upon which the laws of our land are based.

I must admit when I read his comments I thought ignorance at best - dumb at worst. Unfortunately for him though ignorance (or dumbness) is no excuse for the law.

sub judice

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

Therefore, what he has done is, he has practically ensured that Shirley has to get off.

MagareyLegend wrote:Bayman (& others) - it is called sub judice and is one of the key principles upon which the laws of our land are based.

I must admit when I read his comments I thought ignorance at best - dumb at worst. Unfortunately for him though ignorance (or dumbness) is no excuse for the law.

sub judice

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

Therefore, what he has done is, he has practically ensured that Shirley has to get off.

Jeez, that post brought back some bad memories ... when I was at uni all those years ago, I used to share a house with 2 law students and they spoke like that all the time.

bayman wrote:how could collins be fined, sanctioned & the like for TELLING THE TRUTH ? ....OH SORRY COMRADE I THOUGHT I WAS IN AUSTRALIA

In the words of Jack Nicholson, most people "can't handle the truth". Talking BS is a much easier skill for most to master and comprehend.

MagareyLegend wrote:Bayman (& others) - it is called sub judice and is one of the key principles upon which the laws of our land are based.

I must admit when I read his comments I thought ignorance at best - dumb at worst. Unfortunately for him though ignorance (or dumbness) is no excuse for the law.

sub judice

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

Therefore, what he has done is, he has practically ensured that Shirley has to get off.

ML, Collins hasn't been reported for making 'sub judice' style comments. He's been reported for "making comments which are detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League." In my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that his comments ("I thought it was an unnecessary act"; "It was dangerous wasn't it?") meet those criteria. The tackle itself did but Collins' measured comments didn't. The charge should be thrown out within 5 minutes.

If he said nothing about it he wouldn't have to go would he.

nickname wrote:

MagareyLegend wrote:Bayman (& others) - it is called sub judice and is one of the key principles upon which the laws of our land are based.

I must admit when I read his comments I thought ignorance at best - dumb at worst. Unfortunately for him though ignorance (or dumbness) is no excuse for the law.

sub judice

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

Therefore, what he has done is, he has practically ensured that Shirley has to get off.

ML, Collins hasn't been reported for making 'sub judice' style comments. He's been reported for "making comments which are detrimental or prejudicial to the welfare, image, spirit or best interests of the League." In my opinion it's ludicrous to suggest that his comments ("I thought it was an unnecessary act"; "It was dangerous wasn't it?") meet those criteria. The tackle itself did but Collins' measured comments didn't. The charge should be thrown out within 5 minutes.

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.