Do people understand the tribunal system?

I know exactly what you're saying and agree with you, the tribunal made the right decision but the whole system is BS, they should go back to the days of judging every charge on it's merit, the points system is garbage, it's unfair and lesser offences some how get more weeks than some serious offences.

It's an injustice Franklin gets weeks, but understandable why he is reported, they are following procedure and coming up with 2 weeks, if it was judged purely on what took place and no points involved, he would of been let off.

the system is bad because the context of the situation isnt taken into account with a points system, plus the definiton of wats negligent or wreckelss are very grey. However buddy deserved what he got. I've played state footy (played with some guys that were drafted this year) so i'd like to think i have some experience, so i just dont understand why players bump in the situations like buddy was in and quite a few others. Naturally for me atleast tackling is what always comes first because u stop the player plus u could get a free.

The whole current tribunal system is not with the spirit of the game.

Hawthorn supporters can blame Collingwood for Buddies suspension.

After the Nick Maxwell decision the AFL changed that rule.

There is far to much inconsistency in the report and punishment processes.

Harold we may have another injured forward at the Crows. I'm not sure who but chanel 10 are going to show it in the sports report in a couple of minutes.

a) So whilst 'different' enemy combatants make that declare, the government can reject it. elementary. you are able to't argue against one team of human beings being tried in civilian courts with the help of claiming that a distinctive team of human beings will, till you are able to incredibly make some causal connection. you are able to't. b) No they gained't. See? i can make unsupported assertions to boot. c) 'Non enemy combatants' already have get right of entry to to the U. S. gadget. Why does no longer they? d) Rights to government programmes are no longer 'constitutional rights'. The rights that incredibly are entrenched interior the U. S. shape already word to non-electorate, and constantly have. once you're quite a criminal expert, how are you able to heavily make those ridiculous arguments? Take your 2nd element, to illustrate. you need to be attentive to that in spite of what enemy combatants might declare, a regulation can purely be held to be unconstitutional with the help of the perfect courtroom. If the regulation is constitutional, the perfect courtroom might probably locate it to be so, and the regulation might stand. the form you describe the yank criminal gadget, that's as though everybody can thoroughly exchange the policies in simple terms with the help of 'claiming' that they might. how are you able to write such nonsense? You supply no logical foundation for suggesting that any of those issues might take place, and a lot of of them are impossible or ridiculous besides.

the tribunal makes the most bullsh!t decisions i have ever seen

Wow thanks for explaining all of it XD

and yeah! i agree = the law is stupid & buddy should be aloud to play!

stupid tribunal!

The majority of the decisions this year have been utter crap. I agree.

AFTER WHAT HAPPEND WITH BUUDY (LANCE) THE TRIBUNAL IS F$#*@& IT SHOULD OF NOT BEEN EVEN LOOKED AT!!!