|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 19, 2012 15:18:24 GMT 10
With the number of players being ejected and facing the tribunal this year skyrocketting (already more players this year have fronted the tribunal than all of last season... another issue for another time), I'm sure many of you are aware of this, but for those lucky enough to avoid the "Macca-brigade" of sterner umpires...
Are you aware, as of last season, if you're reported and a punishment is handed down by the tribunal, or if you decide to front the tribunal, you are no longer provided with a written copy of the umpire's report.
In fact, if you're offered a penalty without fronting the tribunal, you will never see or hear what is written in that report. At the tribunal, the best you can hope for is to hear it read through one time, by the reporting umpire. No matter how many times, or on what basis you request it, you do not have the right to see a written copy of the report.
Are you also aware, that when you agree to any penalty handed down by the tribunal, you're accepting as the complete truth everything written in that report, without ever being permitted to actually read what is written.
Through several discussions, I have been told this change was pushed by the umpires who felt players were using the written reports to argue against the report at the tribunal... I was told this word-for-word. When pushed on this point, I was told that I took this statement out of context and was twisting it to make it sound bad.
The minutes from the P&S meeting when the change was introduced clearly state the clubs were concerned about players not having a chance to adequately defend themselves if they couldn't access the report.
The following statement was taken directly from the minutes:
"BH (Brett Hidson) advised that the procedures are a clarification of what the By-law says and it has been expanded out to include club umpires.
It was agreed that when a penalty is given, BV should provide information as to what the penalty is based on."
From personal experience, this "information" does not include the report.
Did you also know, the Australian Sports Commission recommends as a basis for following the principles of natural justice in a sports tribunal:
"The person accused should receive a written notice clearly outlining the allegation/s in sufficient detail so as to allow the person to properly prepare and respond. The notification should outline the rule, regulation or policy they have allegedly breached, and any possible penalty that may be imposed."
I have raised my objection to the process several times this season and yet it still was left off the Summer League committee's agenda of recommendation that have been sent to clubs to vote on. I have reminded the league today of my objection and highlighted to them the Australian Sports Commission's position on natural justice for players. If you believe the current process is wrong, please speak with you club administration and ask them to contact Baseball Victoria with their objection.
As for Geelong Baycats players, they are now all being advised in the case of being reported they are not to accept any penalty without first fronting the tribunal and hearing what is written in the report. I suggest all other players hoping to receive at least a semblance of natural justice do the same.
Sorry for the length...
|
|
|
|
Post by Journeyman on Jan 19, 2012 16:13:28 GMT 10
How can BV justify this, surely anyone reported has the right to know why they were and the circumstances of the report.
It doesn't make any sense, especially with the ASC ruling.
There is no way anyone can defend themselves without being able to read a copy of the charge, and being able to prepare a defence.
|
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Jan 19, 2012 17:03:09 GMT 10
I agree that players should be given a copy of the report inasmuch as the breaches of conduct are tick the box,including the severity. The problem with giving players the umpires extended description of the circumstances is that some (not all) players can then cook up a defence including so called witnesses that are then sprung on the umpire at the tribunal.To be totally FAIR both umpires report and players defence should be seen by BOTH parties prior to a tribunal appearance.In that way both parties start on an equal footing.
I do agree that the current method is not fair but needs a greater modification that just showing the reported player the umpires report.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldracer on Jan 19, 2012 17:53:43 GMT 10
I agree that players should be given a copy of the report inasmuch as the breaches of conduct are tick the box,including the severity. The problem with giving players the umpires extended description of the circumstances is that some (not all) players can then cook up a defence including so called witnesses that are then sprung on the umpire at the tribunal.To be totally FAIR both umpires report and players defence should be seen by BOTH parties prior to a tribunal appearance.In that way both parties start on an equal footing. I do agree that the current method is not fair but needs a greater modification that just showing the reported player the umpires report. by natural extension, I get booked for talking on my phone, I disagree, I take it to court and have all that time to stump up as many witnesses as I like, whats the difference and the judicial system has been in place for a bloody long time. It just might, might I say, make the blue that wants to make a case out of something really think twice about whether he wants to go through the process because at the moment they can press any charge almost without fear of recrimination. the umpire writes the report, the player has a copy....now that's an even footing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Chardy on Jan 19, 2012 20:17:04 GMT 10
What a load of sh1t by BV.
Any person charged with an offence has every right to prepare a case to argue it in the tribunal. Anything less than that and the umpires and BV have created their own little JOKE of a kangaroo court.
This is coming from someone who sat on the VIc Winter tribunal.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Both BV and the umpires and umpiring assoc should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Jan 19, 2012 20:44:49 GMT 10
All of the above sounds reasonable EXCEPT there is a thing called perjury (with penalties) in a court. Don't see the A.F.L using court procedures..they had legal reps and it turned out to be farcical.It's hard to imagine an ejected player having no idea why they were ejected. The manager has every right to seek detail and clarification from the umpire on the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by p8 on Jan 19, 2012 21:30:07 GMT 10
With the number of players being ejected and facing the tribunal this year skyrocketting (already more players this year have fronted the tribunal than all of last season.....etc aueagle As you would be aware with an ejection, immediately after the game a ‘Reported Person Notice’ is completed and given to the manager to sign. This notice has the name of the ejected player and the offence for which he was ejected. The bottom part of the notice is then given to the manager and the top part is retained by the umpire to take to the tribunal should a tribunal appearance be required. So now the player knows what offence(s) he is being charged with. Why should the umpire produce a report outlining his version of the event to the player prior to a hearing when the player doesn't have to reciprocate. Isn't this the role of the tribunal to weigh both the umpire's version and the player's version of the incident to determine what most likely occurred and then to make a decision accordingly. The umpire's report was previously only for their own benefit as a memory aid to assist them in presenting their verbal report to the tribunal. The player always has the right to question any part of the umpire's version of events. It has only been recently where the tribunal wanted to see a report beforehand as it assisted with being able to offer a penalty without the player and umpire needing to attend the tribunal. I'm sure that most players are happy to accept a reprimand or a 1 week penalty for a minor offence where the player knows that the ejection was valid, without the need to attend a mid week tribunal hearing! Why would reading the umpire's report change this? Should the player believe that they are innocent of the offence then they can attend a tribunal to present their case. The tribunal offers you a penalty. You do not have to accept it if you believe that you are innocent or that the penalty is excessive for the offence charged. How will knowing what is in the umpire's report change this? If you attend the tribunal hearing you will base your case on your version of the incident not on the umpire's. |
|
|
|
Post by wako on Jan 19, 2012 21:30:16 GMT 10
All of the above sounds reasonable EXCEPT there is a thing called perjury (with penalties) in a court. Don't see the A.F.L using court procedures..they had legal reps and it turned out to be farcical.It's hard to imagine an ejected player having no idea why they were ejected. The manager has every right to seek detail and clarification from the umpire on the day. In theory, yes. In practice, he may already have been tossed under "Zero Tolerance" (which is a ridiculous, tough guy-posing name for a policy unless umpires are going to start carrying guns and executing violators on the spot) or may risk getting tossed for "dissent" because of his tone of voice or facial expression. And even if the manager does discover from the umpire something that might be called detail and/or clarification, the written report is what goes to the tribunal, not some transcript of a discussion with a manager. You are correct that sporting tribunals aren't run as a civil or criminal court, but they are supposed to be run in a way that follows the principles of natural justice, as aueagle30 said. In what interpretation of natural justice is it just to charge a person with an offence and not provide them with the details of that charge in order to defend themselves? The situation is, dare I say it, Kafkaesque. We're not talking about requiring umpires to provide word-for-word copies of the evidence they intend to present, just the rule that was supposed to have been breached and the manner in which it was supposed to have been breached. Without that, the player's ability to present a considered defence is compromised and this represents a massive power imbalance, which again, is not naturally just. Remember that while players might gain the opportunity to "cook up a defence", umpires have the opportunity to do the equivalent right now - which hopefully, they don't, but the system permits and facilitates it. |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 20, 2012 16:34:28 GMT 10
As you would be aware with an ejection, immediately after the game a ‘Reported Person Notice’ is completed and given to the manager to sign. This notice has the name of the ejected player and the offence for which he was ejected. P8, I'm aware of the pink slip... it lists the charges only... I'd hardly describe this as a "written notice clearly outlining the allegation/s in sufficient detail", as recommended by the ASC. Why should the umpire produce a report outlining his version of the event to the player prior to a hearing when the player doesn't have to reciprocate. Because it's recommended by the ASC to ensure the basic principles of natural justice are followed. Isn't this the role of the tribunal to weigh both the umpire's version and the player's version of the incident to determine what most likely occurred and then to make a decision accordingly. Yes, the tribunal should weigh up the evidence of both parties... under the current system, the tribunal only considers the evidence of the umpire before passing judgement, unless the player declines the penalty and faces the tribunal. As with most judiciaries, the judgement is based on the evidence presented, not necessarily the actual events. In our current system, the umpire has time to consider and structure his evidence. The player must instantly build his defence based on the auditory comprehension of what the umpire has read. The higher difficulties most people encounter with auditory comprehension as opposed to written comprehension are well documented... I'm happy to provide some resources if you're interested. Why would reading the umpire's report change this? Should the player believe that they are innocent of the offence then they can attend a tribunal to present their case. I consider many of the common ejectable offences to be subjective offences (dissent, arguing, abuse)... for each of us, we have different levels of acceptance and definitions of these offenses. In other words, what may be dissent to you, may not be to me. What defines these terms in our system is the umpires word... by reading the report, the player is able to better understand what the umpires perception of the events and, as recommended by the ASC, adequately prepare his/her defence. Let me be clear, I'm not having a dig at the umpires or BV... I don't consider either party to be a 'disgrace'. I am merely highlighiting I don't believe our current system is in line with what the ASC recommends for tribunals to follow the basic principles of natural justice. Why is this important? According to the ASC, if the basic principles of natural justice are not followed, penalties can be challenged in a court of law and set aside... surely a can of worms our sport would prefer to avoid. The ASC states tribunals need not follow any specific legal fomalites, or be conducted as a court of law... I strongly agree with this. However, I believe we should be following the principles of natural justice to provide players with a fair and reasonable chance to defend themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by p8 on Jan 21, 2012 20:55:25 GMT 10
Aueagle30
The Summer League Tribunal offers a pre-hearing penalty for low
level offences. In looking at a copy of the report that the umpire sends in I notice that it has provision for indicating whether the offence was either low, medium, high or severe. Without some guidance this becomes a subjective opinion by the umpire. However I believe that this is the main indicator for the tribunal as to whether a pre hearing penalty is offered or whether the player must attend the tribunal.
The remainder of the report outlines the SITUATION THAT LED TO THE INCIDENT, THE INCIDENT AND ACTION TAKEN by umpire and whether there were any after effects.
While I agree with your comment that the common ejectable offences are subjective offences (dissent, arguing, abuse) and that for each of us, we have different levels of acceptance and definitions of these offences. What defines these terms in our system is the umpire’s reaction. The umpire’s report needs to be factually based without opinions or assumptions. Generally the facts are not in question. Umpire’s will react to demonstrative displays of dissent and will definitely react where a player directs comments to an umpire starting with the word ‘You’ along with other words (no matter how quietly spoken). It will only be when the ‘facts’ differ that the player should go to the tribunal to challenge so I don’t believe that the player understanding the umpires perception of the events is of benefit. Only that the facts should not differ.
|
|
|
|
Post by trober on Jan 22, 2012 0:01:05 GMT 10
A few years ago I fronted the tribunal and there were 3 very different versions of what happened. Firstly, what actually happened, what was on the umpires report (about 5 years ago so you got a copy) and the version of events that the umpire gave at the hearing. In the end I got off the charge that led to my ejection (abusing the umpire if memory serves) along with another charge and pled guilty to arguing balls and strikes (was told that questioning where a ball missed the zone could be deemed arguing) and ended up getting a week as opposed to the 5 weeks originally offered. I would recommend to anyone, go to the tribunal. If you get weeks at least you know why you got em
|
|
|
|
Post by wako on Jan 22, 2012 1:13:42 GMT 10
What defines these terms in our system is the umpire’s reaction. The umpire’s report needs to be factually based without opinions or assumptions. Generally the facts are not in question. Umpire’s will react to demonstrative displays of dissent and will definitely react where a player directs comments to an umpire starting with the word ‘You’ along with other words (no matter how quietly spoken). It will only be when the ‘facts’ differ that the player should go to the tribunal to challenge so I don’t believe that the player understanding the umpires perception of the events is of benefit. Only that the facts should not differ. Pitcher throws a pitch on or near the outside corner. Umpire calls it a ball. Pitcher exclaims "Come on!". Pitcher and Umpire agree to this point of fact. Umpire claims it is dissent and that the exclamation was directed at them, as in "Come on, that's a strike!". Pitcher claims it is not dissent, that the exclamation is directed at themselves, as in "Come on, hit your spots!". Batter takes a pitch; let's say for argument's sake that it is the same pitch that the pitcher in the above example threw. Umpire calls it strike one. Batter shifts his feet closer to the plate, performs his outside-inside bat tapping ritual, in the course of which, he taps the bat on the dirt to the outside of the plate, before assuming his stance. Umpire claims it is dissent in that the player tapped the bat to indicate his dissenting opinion of the pitch's trajectory. Batter claims it is a ritual he always performs and that if he stands closer to the plate, he will naturally tap outside the plate and that it does not indicate dissent. That's only two of the infinite number of examples where the facts of the incident would not be in dispute, but the interpretation is very important and the player would be well advised to not accept the penalty offered. |
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Jan 23, 2012 8:02:30 GMT 10
This is a stupid topic! Umpires and tribunal are a law unto themselves, and are self serving. No consideration is given to the players evidence. As soon as the umpires report and evidence is given, the tribunals mind is made up. Why bother even hearing the players evidence! It's a game of chance, more than a right to due process. They don't care about the players evidence, as clearly shown in a recent hearing where a player was giving evidence, and a certain member of the tribunal wasn't even paying attention to the player speaking. Player asked the member for his attention....and well, the test is history. Needless to say, eight weeks is a long time in baseball.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2012 10:03:22 GMT 10
All Ill say on this topic is that there needs to be proceedural fairness (for all parties). In fact I think that its a fundamental right of the 'accused' to be afforded proceedural fairness, particularly when there may be an umpire (or two?) out there that seem to actually enjoy the idea of reporting players  |
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Jan 28, 2012 17:54:35 GMT 10
Wyatt, just don't get tossed - simple solution.
Tribunals can be tough and whinging won't fix that, but if anyone thinks they're hard done by, maybe you should think back to why you got tossed in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 9:53:58 GMT 10
This is a stupid topic! Umpires and tribunal are a law unto themselves, and are self serving. Wyatt33, there is no such thing as a stupid topic... only stupid responses! |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:14:16 GMT 10
The umpire’s report needs to be factually based without opinions or assumptions. Generally the facts are not in question. P8, you seem to assume there is only one set of facts and these are consistent for everyone that witnessed them. 'Facts' are perceived truths, which can often vary greatly depending on perception... I'm not including people lying or manipulating the truth as differing perceptions. Researchers have found that "more innocent citizens are wrongfully tried and convicted on the basis of eyewitness evidence in Great Britain and North America than by any other factor within the legal system" (Smith, Stinson, & Prosser, 2004, p. 146). This is why prosecutors rely on multiple eyewitnessess to corroborate evidence. Keep in mind, for most charges, the umpire is not the victim, but the single eyewitness charged with providing evidence to the tribunal. It will only be when the ‘facts’ differ that the player should go to the tribunal to challenge so I don’t believe that the player understanding the umpires perception of the events is of benefit. Without the report being provided, how does the player determine if the 'facts' differ? And since the 'facts' presented by the umpire are his perception only, it is possible the 'facts' could legitimately differ to the perceived 'facts' of the accused. |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:26:29 GMT 10
Wyatt, just don't get tossed - simple solution. Tribunals can be tough and whinging won't fix that, but if anyone thinks they're hard done by, maybe you should think back to why you got tossed in the first place. Barb05... I ask this as a legitimate line of questioning and intend no disrespect in regard to the situation that occured last year... Was this the advice offered by you as an administrator for the Malvern Baseball Club when your head coach was ejected and suspended for five years last season? Didn't you and your club appeal the tribunal's judgement on at least one, perhaps multiple, occassions? And wasn't at least part of the appeal based on the accused's inability to prepare a proper defense due to the umpire's report not being made available? Didn't your club request a copy of the report on several occassions and express frustration at being denied? Do you believe the judgement against the accused would have been different had he been able to adequately prepare a defence? Do you believe the club/accused would have been more accepting of the judgment had the principles of natural justice been followed? Again, I'm passing no judgement on you or Malvern's conduct last season... I'm wondering why you're so dismissive of the issue now and hoping you can provide some perspective from an administrator that dealt with exactly this issue last season? I am happy to be corrected on any of points or questions if I've erred in my understanding of the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 10:37:13 GMT 10
p8, I'm going to assume you're an umpire, or at least a family member of an umpire... I can't imagine a player or coach defending umpires as strongly as you do!
Perhaps you can offer us some insight into why the umpires (either collectively, or through the leadership of the BVUA) lobbied the league to change the policy of providing the umpire's report to the accused?
Is it, as I was told, because the umpires no longer wanted the scrutiny of an adequately-prepared defence?
If not, can you please offer an explanation that will help us understand why BV would implement a policy that appears at odds with the advice given by the Australian Sports Commission.
It's this point that is of most importance... regardless of what you or I think is appropriate procedure for a tribunal, the ASC advises the principles of natural justice should be followed... this includes the following point:
"The person accused should receive a written notice clearly outlining the allegation/s in sufficient detail so as to allow the person to properly prepare and respond. The notification should outline the rule, regulation or policy they have allegedly breached, and any possible penalty that may be imposed."
Do you, in all honesty, believe our current processes meet this requirement of natural justice?
|
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Jan 30, 2012 11:16:38 GMT 10
Nate, I was no longer an admin of the club when that issue occurred. I made no comment about the current process and simply stated that if you don't get tossed then you won't have to face the tribunal. You've read a bit too much into what I've said.
Last years issue... I've pretty well documented in other threads and won't go through them again. But to answer one of your questions; I don't believe any amount of prior knowledge would have mattered. But yes. Knowledge of the charges was one factor in the appeal as the advertised by-laws are what the clubs have to go by, they are our bible. I have no problem with what you're saying here, but would recommend the only way to enforce a change to the way BV run the tribunal process is by either court injunction or have it raised as a special item in a p&s meeting and allow the clubs to vote on the process.
My opinion, most people who feel shafted by the tribunal in hindsight shouldn't think "better defense" they should think "avoid it altogether". And I do say most, because there have been some corkers recently and this change will compound that.
As for the main topic of this thread: I believe the tribunal needs to be a level playing field. If the league tips the tribunal in favour of one party then it loses all validity. It is actually a legal tribunal that holds court over a federal sports body (suspended in Vic means suspended nationally!) and as such, they need to act in accordance with the federal sports body.
In the meantime, don't get tossed!
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 11:38:02 GMT 10
If you believe the current process is wrong, please speak with you club administration and ask them to contact Baseball Victoria with their objection. I have no problem with what you're saying here, but would recommend the only way to enforce a change to the way BV run the tribunal process is... have it raised as a special item in a p&s meeting and allow the clubs to vote on the process. Concur! Thanks Barb... I also agree we should all take more responsibility for our own actions and stop looking for excuses when we don't like the consequences of our actions... that said, ignorance and stupidity are no excuse for the removal of basic rights. |
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on Jan 30, 2012 15:46:52 GMT 10
I think that's your shortest post to date.
Nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Jan 30, 2012 15:49:32 GMT 10
I think that's your shortest post to date. Nice. Yep... Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by gj on Jan 30, 2012 17:13:05 GMT 10
If I was at all cynical, I might think BV are just following the lead of the ABF. They have a history of ignoring Sports Commission guidelines.
|
|
