AFL MRO/Tribunal explainer twitter:So - cliff notes: (1) the tribunal erred in finding Cripps “bumped”
-Cripps never gave evidence that he bumped
-AFL counsel never put to him that he “bumped” (to get his response)
-The video in itself doesn’t demonstrate he adopted a “classic bumping pose” as found
-Cripps wasn’t afforded natural justice as he nor his Counsel could provide submissions on it (essentially it came out of the blue in the reasons)
-The reasons don’t outline a sufficient evidentiary basis the tribunal relied on in arriving at the conclusion he “bumped”
-Not affording natural justice is an “error of law” - (so that ground is made out)
-Given the evidence before them, no reasonable tribunal acting reasonably could’ve concluded Cripps “bumped” (so the second ground is made out)
(2) Directions to the jury
-Given the above, a direction was required to be given to the jury as to the (lack of) evidence of a “bump” and how they were to determine the issue
-W/o that direction Cripps again wasn’t afforded natural justice, which was again an “error of law”
https://twitter.com/AFLTribunalexpl/status/1557729498766127104----------------------------------------------------------
Long explanation:Here we go (it’s a very long one):
"The AFL tribunal last Tuesday night concluded that the appellant had engaged in rough conduct contrary to the regulations.
"The regulation sets out the charge of rough conduct in the context of bumping.
"It states that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping [of] an opponent whether reasonably or unreasonably the player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body, an opponent's head or neck.
"This intentional such conduct will be deemed to be careless unless this the player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way, or the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.
"As it's clear the purpose of the rule echoes the overarching law. Speaking to reduce risk as far as practicable.
"The tribunal found and set out in it's reasons that both players, that is Mr. Cripps and Mr. Ah Chee, had eyes for the ball and that both players had contested the ball.
"The Tribunal nevertheless found that the acts by Mr. Cripps fell within the phrase 'in the bumping of an opponent'.
"Unable to conclude that the evidence before the tribunal is sufficient to form this view. Certainly the reasons given by the tribunal do not explain what evidence was relied upon for that view.
"In support of its conclusion, the Tribunal stated that Mr. Cripps turned his body into 'classic thumping position when seeking to take possession'.
"Suggestion or these words were never put to Mr. Cripps in cross-exam or were counselled to Cripps given the opportunity to make submissions in respect to such a description of Mr Cripps' behaviour.
"The first time the phrase was used was in the reasoning cited by the Tribunal.
"Likewise, the Tribunal made a finding that with both feet off the ground. Mr. Cripps bumped Mr. Ah Chee at high speed, that he leapt into the contest.
"His evidence was that at all times he had his eye on the ball and that his intention was to take possession of the ball in an aerial contest and that he did not see Mr. Ah Chee also launch for the ball.
"In cross examination it was never put to Mr. Cripps that he 'bumped', nor was it put to him that his action was not prudent, but an unreasonable speed.
"Brief reasons provided by the Tribunal do not amplify why Mr. Cripps' evidence was apparently disregarded. Reasons failed to explain the basis upon which it was concluded by the Tribunal that he turned his body into a classic bumping position.
"We are unable to conclude on the basis of these videos or the vision in those videos that Mr. Cripps did turn his body into a classic bump position.
"…the video confirms the statement in the ruling that both players had eyes for the ball , and that both contested the ball.
"Indeed, our conclusion was that the video did not reveal a bump, neither it set out a contest for the ball which resulted in a collision.
"Such circumstances, and take into account that such findings that were made by the Tribunal, were not put to Mr. Cripps.
"We consider that the finding was unreasonable and did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness.
"The case that in our view warranted directions to the jury members no directions were given.
"There were clear difficulties in this case, arising from the evidence and from the submissions made, and in one aspect, from questions prompted from the Chair.
"Consider that there is weight in the submission that is asked on behalf of Mr. Cripps that those matters required to be the subject of appropriate directions to the jury so as to record Mr. Cripps procedural fairness
"Furthermore, those directions, had they been given would assist this board in understanding the basis upon which the conclusions which were reached by the tribunal.
"Consider that the failure to accord procedural fairness referred to above announced an error of law and in respect of rounds 20.2a, we found round made out.
"Further, because we are unable to identify the evidentiary basis of the finding that the actions of Mr. Cripps were in the bumping of an opponent, we conclude that the findings of the jury was under unreasonable in the terms of regulation 20.2b.
"They are our findings. Thank you to my fellow board members and thank you for the AFL staff for putting this together in quite difficult circs."
https://twitter.com/AFLTribunalexpl/status/1557721926478737408
