Tribunal Results and Discussions

Totally agree redandblack, well said...

I differ a little from others on this one.

It's not like Luke Jericho was hiding behind an internet pseudonym and then tabling his thoughts on Chris Kane. It was from a clearly identifiable account that Jericho was maintaining, so it was clearly from him and could be traced as such. He said something on a forum that was probably very similar to what would have been said between the players if they were both on the field.

If Luke Jericho brought the game into disrepute, then we may as well say, so did the 20+ players who wrestled and had a melee as a result of the original incident, which was broadcast on TV and then replayed on commercial networks that night. The players on the field were flying the flag for their cause. Jericho did the same, albeit in a different medium.

I'm not overly comfortable with this case even making it to the tribunal, although understand some of the points of view on this.

Hopefully this doesn't result in me being sanctioned by the SANFL, although I doubt they will be that concerned about what I say

I tend to agree CK. It falls into the same category as the ban on coaches criticising umpires. I understand why the ban is there but it doesn't sit comfortably with me.
In boxing, this sort of comment before a big bout is called promotion.

But let's say Kane went to sue Jericho for defamation, it'd reflect poorly on the SANFL because it occurred between two of their players. It'd be highly embarrassing for the competition, and I have no doubt the media would have some influence in the public perception of Jericho, Kane, the two respective clubs and the league.

I'm all for players and coaches' comments on the game, umpiring etc but as long as it's not a personal, vindictive attack. And as I stated before, if Jericho had any guts, then he would go to a newspaper and a TV station and make those comments on air or in print, not hiding behind his mobile phone.

And to further add, if Jericho or any other public footballer could get away with this, then personal attacks and bullying on social media would increase ten-fold. Not something I want in a world that already has lost the meaning of respect.

howthewestwaswon wrote:
I'm all for players and coaches' comments on the game, umpiring etc but as long as it's not a personal, vindictive attack. And as I stated before, if Jericho had any guts, then he would go to a newspaper and a TV station and make those comments on air or in print, not hiding behind his mobile phone.

What's the difference between tweeting it or going to print with it? It obviously got similar coverage, and I don't see how he's hiding when it's clear to all he's the one tweeting.

I'm also not sure that what Jericho tweeted was defamatory either. It was an opinion on the incident, and while one word of it could be argued as being a strong opinion, its also fair to say that what Kane did was outside of the rules.

As I've said, it's hardly the crime of the century, but given the problems many AFL players have had with twitter, it seems sensible to me to make players aware that they should be careful about what they put out in social media.

I'm generally not one for too many restrictions and I'm definitely not one to rely on the 'thin end of the wedge' type of argument, but where would you draw the line here.

Luke tweeted that Kane was a 'hack' who should be playing in the country. Apart from pre-judging the tribunal decision, he tweeted it with a 'dirty hack' hashtag.

I understand his anger, but I don't think it'as a case of restricting so-called 'free speech', but just a sensible move to cool things down and leave it to the Tribunal to sort out.

Which they did.

FRom his later tweets, I think Luke knew he shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Flag No.9 wrote:

howthewestwaswon wrote:
I'm all for players and coaches' comments on the game, umpiring etc but as long as it's not a personal, vindictive attack. And as I stated before, if Jericho had any guts, then he would go to a newspaper and a TV station and make those comments on air or in print, not hiding behind his mobile phone.

What's the difference between tweeting it or going to print with it? It obviously got similar coverage, and I don't see how he's hiding when it's clear to all he's the one tweeting.

Like I've been saying all along, it's very easy to hide behind a phone or computer and make accusations or say something about others, regardless of the coverage. People think they can twitter or facebook something and get away with it, despite it being very 'public' (despite certain so-called security things you can do). But I now understand some people clearly don't understand that point.

Calling another player a ''hack who belongs in a country league", IMO refers somewhat to the recent jaw-breaking incidents in some of our country leagues this past month or so. It's disrespectful to the SANFL, these other country leagues and anyone who plays country footy. I have played country footy for some years now, and let me tell you, I'm not a bl**dy hack!

Would you tweet about someone at work if they were pissing you off?? I bet you no. Why? These days you might lose your job. Jericho's job as an SANFL footballer is to represent the league and his club in the best possible manner and stop setting stupid examples of behaviour to the public. If he chooses to go against this, then I agree with the SANFL about bringing the game into disrepute.

But you'd respect him more if he'd made these comments in a more public forum like print, TV or radio?
And if, as you say, twitter is very public, how has he hidden?

No I wouldn't respect him either way.

Social media is one of these interesting things where some people that use them think they can state whatever they like, but rarely are they made aware of the potential consequences of doing so. In a way, because it's their 'private' account and they have connected with their "friends", these people believe their twitter or facebook is private amongst the people they know or think they control. People tweet things and then don't think their accountable for it until someone else points out their actions to them.

If Jericho went to one of the Advertiser reporters and said 'look, I want to state publicly in your rag that Kane is a hack who should being playing in one of those country leagues down south', I think he'd be told that it might not be the best idea, but that's because there are people who control the papers. Social media is not really controlled by anyone, therefore the SANFL, AFL, NRL, NBL etc have had to step in and say 'they're not acceptable comments to post' because PROFESSIONAL/SEMI-PROS NOW HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SHOW THE SHEEP IN OUR SOCIETY WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR!!

If this was Shane Warne, you'd be reading 4 pages of this saga in the sport section and maybe a couple of pages in the front for sure. Just because Jericho is playing SANFL, doesn't mean he gets to hide from public scrutiny.

Hang on folks.
A little perspective please.

Luke Jericho isn’t the guilty party who assaulted a player recklessly/illegally causing a concussion with the possibility of neck/spinal cord damage and having been found utterly guilty of same, received a 4 game suspension from the league.

Unless I’m gravely mistaken, all Luke has done in a moment of frustrated anger, is voice his opinion over Mr. Kane’s very dangerous indiscretion. As have thousands of others who respect fair play and the rules of the game, on this medium and others, to various degrees of vitriol.

Personally, I have no time nor inclination for all these ‘so-called’ social networks, perhaps they're more trouble than they're worth. But any claim of Luke showing cowardice or hiding behind a keyboard is laughable in the extreme. On the contrary, he has gone public for the world to see, including the guilty party and knowing full well that he will be backing up his assertions the next time they meet, on the field, face to face, like the gutsy man he is !

I know a few blokes who wish Luke had shown even greater courage by going a good deal further with his description of the perpetrator and his act. Fortunately, Luke Jericho showed a degree of self control and restraint that serves as a damned good lesson for the truly guilty person who has caused all this.

Don’t shoot The Messenger ….. it’s already a dead paper.

Luv,
Sabre.

i think Kane is a little stiff in all of this & i'll explain why

there is no doubt Kane lined up Gallagher to hit him hard & it'd be fair to say he looked at Gallagher rather than completely at the ball, however this is the part where i think Kane was a bit stiff, Gallagher turned a moment before Kane made impact & collected his head rather than his body

was it deliberate ?...........yes to hit him

was it a deliberate hit to the head ?.........no i don't believe it was

was it a stupid act in the first place ?......in this day & age absolutely yes

if i were adjudicating, i think 2 or 3 weeks at worst would be what i'd have penalised Kane


btw who cares what Jericho says, he should be entitled to his opinion (rightly or wrongly) just like everyone else & not be sanctioned to front the tribunal

I'll bet if you asked every league coach if he'd want his players commenting on the opposition, they would be 100% united against it.

Should we also have 20 or 30 players tweeting their opinions as to how many weeks an opposition player should get before the Tribunal hears the case?

Bayman, I tend to agree with you about the incident.

Sabre, I don't think anyone is strongly criticising Jericho for his tweet, just debating whether players should be allowed to do it.

As it happens, I follow Luke on twitter, understood why he did it in the heat of the moment, but knew it wouldn't stop there.

4 weeks for Kane, Luke told not to do it again, fair result all round, IMO.

R&B - the voice of reason!

I agree, a fair result for all parties concerned. Just trying to defend the SANFL stance on tweeting.

First time I've been called that, HTWWW

Some very disappointing attitudes and comments in this thread.
Surprising and very sad to see. I expected better.

One aspect of the actual incident that I haven't heard mentioned is that Gallagher was going for a mark. That makes it a bit different to a collision in general play; the player going for a mark has always been sacrosanct.

I think it's been a top quality discussion, Sabre.

It's OK Sabre. I've already posted about some of you Jericho defenders on my facebook page. Now the people in my world and a little beyond know what I truly think about some posters here, especially the ones that disagree with me.

redandblack wrote:I think it's been a top quality discussion, Sabre.

i agree with r&b, Sabre could you explain what comments irritate you & perhaps who ever posted them could explain to you what they meant

I haven't received a PM yet...

James Gowans cleared of a striking charge, Michael Clinch gets 2 matches for striking courtesy of the tribunal

Bit of a loss for North.