Brisbane Men’s & Boys’ Hockey
Hockey - A Game for Life!
BHA Judiciary Outcomes - 2009
Brisbane Hockey Association Inc
PO Box 503
MORNINGSIDE Q 4170
Australia
Tel: +61 7 38994399
Fax: +61 7 3399 9825
Judiciary Outcomes
For some years BHA Judiciary Committee Hearing outcomes have been published on the BHA Website. It is thought that by doing so, players, officials and supporters can gain a better understanding of the consequences of unacceptable behaviour. Players' and officials' names and the names of the Clubs involved in each Hearing have been removed. The selection of outcomes listed here span several years. Click on a heading to read more . . .
These outcomes should also be read in conjuntion with the BHA By-laws, Part F - Judiciary Committee Rules (see links below).
Documents
Aust Sports Comm, Code of Behaviour (PDF)
BHA Inc By-laws, Part F - Judiciary Committee Rules (PDF)
BHA Inc By-laws, Part G - Appeals Committee Rules (PDF)
Definition
Often the Judiciary Panel will impose a sentence that concists of a number of weeks suspension and/or a number of weeks suspension 'suspended'. What this means for the Defendant is that any weeks of his suspension that have in turn been 'suspended' are held over as a form of 'good behaviour bond'. The Panel will specify a period for the 'suspended' part of any suspension.
Should the Defendant be called before the Judiciary Panel on a similar charge during the period specified, and is found guilty of the new charge, then the weeks held in suspension will automatically be imposed on the Defendant. The Defendant will then be liable for any additional supension imposed by the new Panel as a result of the guilty verdict.
09/3(a) Red Card - R2 Striking an Opponent |
| Posted by Administrator (admin) on 11-08-2009 |
A player was required to appear before a Judiciary Panel following an incident in a Veterans match in which the player had received a Red Card for 'striking an opponent'. When interviewed by the Panel the player did not deny he had punched the player. A lengthy Hearing then followed in which the player was found to have struck the opposition player with a jab to his chin in retaliation to having himself been struck in the head by the opposition player using his stick.
Over the course of two sessions (nights) the Panel heard from the other player, both match Umpires and carried out phone interviews with five other players from the two teams participating in the match. The evidence given by all but the opposition player appeared to support that of the player charged. The Panel found that four weeks suspension would have been warranted, however due to the nature of the punch being 'a retaliatory response to a blow to the head', and that the Panel believed the player to be genuinely remorseful for his actions (also backed by evidence from an Umpire), a sentence of two weeks suspension was handed down.
By way of a postscript to its report, the Panel made recommendation to the BHA Board of Management that the opposition player, whom they had found to have struck the player on the charge with his stick, be brought before a new Panel to consider whether any action be taken in relation to his conduct. The BHA Board of Management accepted the recommendation. (see 09/3(b) )