Baker-Farmer precedent: Camporeale-Holland

[Riewoldting]

Posted in other thread, thought it deserved its own:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 19845.html

Accidental? Evidently

By Karen Lyon, Lyall Johnson
July 30 2003

Collingwood's Brodie Holland sports plaster on his nose, which was broken in an incident with Carlton's Scott Camporeale on Sunday.

The incidents that forced Collingwood tagger Brodie Holland and Carlton veteran Mick Martyn from the field under the blood rule on Sunday have been deemed accidental.

After two days of interviews, the AFL's investigations officer, John Coburn, found "insufficient evidence" to lay a charge against Carlton midfielder Scott Camporeale over his involvement in a second-quarter incident that forced Holland, his tagger, from the field with a broken nose.

Coburn also found contact between Magpie forward Anthony Rocca and Martyn, which left the Blue bandaged and nursing a swollen eye, was accidental.

And in further good news for the clubs, no reports were laid over an altercation involving several players that occurred after the Camporeale-Holland clash.

Coburn found that contact was made to Martyn's eye by "some part" of Rocca's body "while the pair were engaged in a 'push and shove'."

Rocca denied any knowledge of the contact and Martyn said he was falling towards his opponent when the contact was made but could not say how.

On the Holland incident, after which Collingwood captain Nathan Buckley ran in to remonstrate with Camporeale, Coburn said the Carlton player had stopped suddenly, causing Holland to run into the back of his head.

In his findings, Coburn said: "Camporeale was trying to break his tag by running and then stopping, and then running again."

He said no player interviewed had contradicted Camporeale and took into account the fact that no Collingwood player "immediately" remonstrated with Camporeale afterwards.

AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou backed the findings.

"Buckley went to Brodie Holland and said, 'What happened?' And he said, 'It was Camporeale' . . . On reflection, after Brodie Holland had gathered his thoughts, he has agreed that he has run into the back of Scott Camporeale," Demetriou said on 3AW last night. "It is an unfortunate incident. There wasn't anyone else who saw it but the proper process has been conducted and we haven't just interviewed the two players concerned, we have interviewed several players from both teams and they have all verified the same story."

Coburn also found that none of the players had engaged in a melee. "It was noted there was not a level of grappling and struggling between players the tribunal would normally associate with a melee charge," he said. Under AFL rules, at least three players must grapple in order for their to be a melee.

Coburn interviewed umpires, players and officials of both clubs. There was limited video footage of the incidents, Channel Nine having fewer cameras than usual at the game because of the reconstruction of the MCG.

Last night, both Carlton and Collingwood were happy with the results of the investigation.

"We are very happy. It has been thoroughly investigated, they spoke to various players and found that there was no case to answer," Collingwood's chief executive Greg Swann said.

"In Brodie's incident, he legitimately didn't know what happened. He knew he got whacked and broke his nose, but he said one minute he was standing there and the ball is sort of on the other side and he was behind Camporeale and the next minute he's on the deck.

"But he didn't know how, whether it was a backhander, a shoulder, an elbow, a fist, he didn't know."

Carlton spokesman Ian Coutts said: "We'll just follow the umpire's decision."

*********



Rough conduct is also an offence, as set out in Law 19.3.3(g)(vii):

" ... intentionally, recklessly or negligently ... engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable ...".

The wording of the law indicates that it contemplates circumstances in which intentional, reckless or negligent rough conduct against an opponent is nevertheless "reasonable".

There are a number of situations in which the ordinary, reasonable person would nevertheless intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in play which is "rough", yet remains reasonable. For example:

- backing into a pack to take a mark and making contact with the front side of an opponent
- diving across an opponent's leg to lay a smother
- tackling an opponent and throwing him forcefully to the ground.

These are reasonable actions because the primary intention of the player is to gain a competitive advantage over his opponent, not to cause injury.

Another way in which players attempt to gain a competitive advantage is by breaking a tag. One of the best ways in which to break a tag (where the tagging player is playing very close) is to run, stop, run off, stop, run off, stop, and so on. This breaks the tagging player's rhythm and concentration and forces an interruption to their gait, which can be enough for the tagged player to break free and win a possession unimpeded.

A foreseeable consequence of such a tactic is that the tagging player might collide with the tagged player. However, this does not make the tactic any less reasonable. It is an entirely legitimate method of breaking a tag.

What is far less foreseeable is the consequence of the tagging player colliding with the tagged player in circumstances where the tagger is so reckless or negligent as to his own safety that he collides with the tagged player with enough force to cause himself serious injury.

In those circumstances, it might be arguable that the tagged player's "stop-start" tactic is rough play. Although this argument can be made out, the tagged player has a ready defence under Law 19.3.3(g)(vii); that is, the rough conduct was "reasonable" in the circumstances.

For those of you with short memories, there is a precedent. In a 2003 case almost identical on its facts, Brodie Holland broke his nose in a similar incident. No report was laid on the day and Holland could not remember what had caused the injury. An investigation by the AFL revealed that Scott Camporeale had stopped suddenly and there had been a clash of heads.

In finding that there was insufficient evidence to lay a charge against Camporeale, investigations officer John Coburn said that no player interviewed had contradicted Camporeale and took into account the fact that no Collingwood player "immediately" remonstrated with Camporeale afterwards.

Interestingly, Demetriou backed Coburn's findings:

"Buckley went to Brodie Holland and said, 'What happened?' And he said, 'It was Camporeale' . . . On reflection, after Brodie Holland had gathered his thoughts, he has agreed that he has run into the back of Scott Camporeale," Demetriou said on 3AW. "It is an unfortunate incident. There wasn't anyone else who saw it but the proper process has been conducted and we haven't just interviewed the two players concerned, we have interviewed several players from both teams and they have all verified the same story."

Coburn interviewed umpires, players and officials of both clubs. There was limited video footage of the incidents, Channel Nine having fewer cameras than usual at the game because of the reconstruction of the MCG.

And both clubs were happy with the result of the investigation:

"We are very happy. It has been thoroughly investigated, they spoke to various players and found that there was no case to answer," Collingwood's chief executive Greg Swann said.

Remember, this was the chief executive of the club whose player's nose had been broken. "Very happy", he was.

"In Brodie's incident, he legitimately didn't know what happened. He knew he got whacked and broke his nose, but he said one minute he was standing there and the ball is sort of on the other side and he was behind Camporeale and the next minute he's on the deck.

"But he didn't know how, whether it was a backhander, a shoulder, an elbow, a fist, he didn't know."

Carlton spokesman Ian Coutts said: "We'll just follow the umpire's decision."

Absolutely no way in the world Baker can go over this. None at all.

[JeffDunne]

And the Sandilands/Seaby case?

Of course Seaby didn't have to front the tribunal for breaking someone's jaw - he plays for the Eagles.

[saintsRrising]

Well argued......


But why do I feel very nervous still?????

[Riewoldting]

Just heard on the radio that Baker's case had been referred directly to the tribunal - he had not been given an opportunity to enter an early plea.

Don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Players are generally given a chance to enter an early plea where the evidence against them is compelling (i.e. video evidence) and the Tribunal is prepared to reward them for saving the formality of it going to a hearing when it's pretty much said and done.

So no opportunity for an early plea suggests the evidence is less than compelling (no nasty surprises).

On the other hand, if Baker is found guilty on the evidence of some old codger who likes to wear a purple tracksuit on the weekends, he will have no choice but to accept the six weeks handed down (12 if the club appeals ).

[saintsrus]

the word precedent has been deleted from the Tribunal dictionary