Judiciary Happenings
-
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
Bollocks. Typical Fern reaction.
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
Where else would I go to get 20 links a day to instagram and twitter stories that I don't read?
Except for twitter and instagram.
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Snowy The word "including" suggests that it's a non-exhaustive list of examples of what they can decide to do with the penalty. So IMO it suggests that an increase is possible. It's just odd that they've listed all the other options, but not the possibility to increase.
That runs contrary to standard interpretation of the law. The section only provides for the decrease, so according to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is limited to the meaning of the specific words listed.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
-
@SammyC said in Judiciary Happenings:
@Stargazer said in Judiciary Happenings:
@SammyC And it's even more obvious that you don't know anything about me and are very wrong.
Well in that case I'm glad you're not my lawyer.
your honour, i point you to the highlighted Instagram post of September 26, 2019
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
ejusdem generis
you just made that up you chancer!
I thought I might add some actual legal knowledge to the discussion.
I understand that the provision of facts is a one day ban for the first offence around here?
-
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
ejusdem generis
you just made that up you chancer!
I thought I might add some actual legal knowledge to the discussion.
I understand that the provision of facts is a one day ban for the first offence around here?
ah, Waratahs fan, of course you are a lawyer. My bad.
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
you know, sometimes i wonder why you are even here
I am amazed that anyone can take this place so seriously. Makes me laugh.
TBF @Stargazer does post some interesting stuff (but lighten up dude).I will wait for the official announcement before commenting though, and hopefully this post is in the correct thread, or I will have to contact my lawyer to defend myself.
-
also, to divert this thread to the actual topic, that Uruaguan getting 3 weeks is fucking bullshit. No Starry, i don't care about the protocols the judiciary had to work with, i care about the vibe, about the mabo.
The poor loke stood there, on his line, and a guy got tackled in to his shoulder. He got sent off, and suspended for the rest of the cup.
Also, what the fuck is a 6 week entry point that you instantly halve?
-
@mariner4life said in Judiciary Happenings:
Also, what the fuck is a 6 week entry point that you instantly halve?
Bullshit. That's what it is. Complete, utter, bullshit.
I agree - if Piers Francis gets a yellow card for THAT hit on the Seppo, then the Uruguayan bloke should get downgraded as well. Problem is, the impertinent little South American asked for it to be downgraded, and of course the judiciary don't like Tier 2 nations asking for anything.
-
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
-
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
rugby loves to double up its sanctions
Penalty try? then i have to yellow card you
Red card? You have to have 3 weeks. -
Ouch - sorry gentlemen. Seems I precipitated a minor storm in a teacup with my question about raising the sanction on appeal. It stems from my (clearly mistaken) belief that this was a kind of cautionary provision in place to avoid spurious appeals.
-
@Billy-Webb first time poster? Welcome aboard!
-
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
When the regulations are worded like legislative instruments, then is it any surprise that lawyers and barristers are involved?
There’s a QC hearing these matters so I’d be lawyering up to speak his language.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Judiciary Happenings:
@antipodean said in Judiciary Happenings:
This is the problem with lawyers, spit, being involved. They act like they're actually in a court of law.
The whole process is ruined by not acknowledging the parameters in which referees and their assistants have to operate.
When the regulations are worded like legislative instruments, then is it any surprise that lawyers and barristers are involved?
There’s a QC hearing these matters so I’d be lawyering up to speak his language.
That's the problem. Take Motu Matu’u for example; judge, lawyer and an ex-referee. IMO it should be referees from the existing panel to help ensure some consistency.
