TOPIC:

Can anyone explain why proper due process was not followed at the WAAFL Tribunal for players this week?

Swan Athletic players reported for striking were told they would not be giving their version of events. This after the TA's players rightfully told their full version of events.

No one for one minute is arguing a suspension was not in order, but the usual 1 week for a red card was increased to 3 weeks for both players. When Athletic talked about instigation the umpire decided to somehow tell the exact same story as TA's players/staff.

Big Bird, not saying at all TA's have done anything wrong but this is a farce that the proper tribunal process was not followed and it smells a lot of pre determined decision making here with the chairman increasing suspensions without letting due process and the defendent tell their story. This should be investigated and I hope Swan Athletic and Swan Districts (both players listed there) take this up with the Commission or WAAFL

Not sure where you got the idea Macattack that a red card is only 1 week? After reading your previous post on this matter, you said that the player was sent off for striking. That's a 2 week minimum I believe. Then the severity would be taken into account and it then would be determined that 3 weeks was a just result. If you were only offered 1 week for striking, then everyone would go out and do it.

Thanks for clarifying that MM - that wasnt to issue in my post, but thanks for pointing it out, I wasnt too sure, things have changed a lot since I played but getting a fair hearing is a fair issue to raise?

Mac Attack, 100% agree they should be given the chance to have their side of the story heard. Even considering it seems they were relatively unprovoked attacks. Pretty poor from whoever is holding the hearings!!

Just to clarify, I am not involved with Trinity as I assume that is why you mentioned my name.

As MM stated,a striking report is minimum 2 weeks unless 1 of 2 things happen. That being 1-the players wish to challenge and or 2-the umpires deem it to be more serious than a 2 week offence and is referred to the tribunal. If either happens then all 3 parties should have the right to state a case. The matter at hand sets a dangerous precident. That being said,your pretty lucky to get 3 weeks for knocking someone's teeth out

Sounds like a Hills Footy tribunal.

this is the same tribunal that found a Nollamara player not guilty for making contact with an umpire earlier in the year, despite both field umpires testifying that significant contact was made. In the absence of video evidence, how can the independent evidence of two umpires be rejected on the word of the alleged player


The tribunal always have been, and always will be clowns.

Quite often they dont have to prove intent if it goes to the tribunal, they just need to prove it happens.

This isnt the first time the tribunal has done this, they are making the statement, take the two on offer, if you come to us your already guilty and will get longer.

At our club we had a player investigated recently re an issue on the field. The ump our player and the said player from the other club all agree there was contact made, no one hung the guy who made the contact, and the ump made it clear he thought a free kick was warrented.

Our player still got three weeks suspension and the decision by the tribunal was its your duty to not make contact or actions that constitute a reportable offence. The tribunal told the said player "to continue to play in the same manner he always has," the player had never been suspended in over 200 league games, yet got found guilty by the tribunal and told there has to be a consequenses for your actions.

Ill make the statement going to the tribunal costs you more than taking the offer from the umps on the day.

MacAttack wrote: Can anyone explain why proper due process was not followed at the WAAFL Tribunal for players this week?

Swan Athletic players reported for striking were told they would not be giving their version of events. This after the TA's players rightfully told their full version of events.

No one for one minute is arguing a suspension was not in order, but the usual 1 week for a red card was increased to 3 weeks for both players. When Athletic talked about instigation the umpire decided to somehow tell the exact same story as TA's players/staff.

Big Bird, not saying at all TA's have done anything wrong but this is a farce that the proper tribunal process was not followed and it smells a lot of pre determined decision making here with the chairman increasing suspensions without letting due process and the defendent tell their story. This should be investigated and I hope Swan Athletic and Swan Districts (both players listed there) take this up with the Commission or WAAFL

Seems to be an unusual hearing at the tribunal if you're right MacAttack.
Firstly the umpires give their version of events of the report before the opposition player is asked to give their version of events, not after. Also the only one from Swan Ath that would have been able to speak about what instigated the incident would have been the player as part of their own defence against the report. The club representative from Swan Ath that would have accompanied the reported player is only allowed to give a character reference for the player and wouldn't have been given the opportunity to comment on the reported incident.

Always up against it when you challenge the report at the tribunal and might have been lucky not to get more weeks based on what some have said on here about it.

The WAAFL tribunal is a law unto itself. In my experience they will try and find a way not to have a hearing and will negotiate with the player charged.

Red Legs it is standard procedure for the prosecution to present their case first which includes the umpires and the player who was struck. Then the defence normally has the option to provide any evidence or mitigating circumstances. In most cases the tribunal does follow this process. If they didnt they would be opening themselves up to severe criticism!!