0
Although some obvious differences to Henjak v Sare, it will be interesting to see how a different code handles a somewhat similar incident between two players.
Blues wait for AFL's verdict on O'hAilpin
Jake Niall | February 9, 2009
CARLTON will not decide whether to take further action against Setanta O'hAilpin until the AFL's judiciary has dealt with his attack on teammate Cameron Cloke.
It is understood that the Blues will wait to see what punishment is meted out by either the AFL's match review panel or the tribunal before deciding on how to deal with O'hAilpin.
He punched Cloke in the head and then gave him a slight kick while he was lying face down in an intraclub game on Friday.
The Blues will consult their leadership group after O'hAilpin's fate is known, and will balance how his teammates feel about him and the Irishman's welfare.
Carlton, which has already suspended O'hAilpin pending the investigation, feels it has some duty of a care to a player who has had off-field issues in recent months.
Carlton, in any case, would find it difficult to sack O'hAilpin outright, given the limits imposed by the standard player contract. If the club did terminate him, it would have to pay out his modest contract, which has a small base and then match payments.
While O'hAilpin has been remorseful since his attack on Cloke — an incident filmed and widely shown on television and the internet — he also has contended that his actions were retaliatory.
Clubs have few avenues for terminating a player's contract. They can argue that a player such as O'hAilpin has brought the club or the game into disrepute (as in the Ben Cousins example).
They can argue that there has been a breach of contract, or point to a criminal act. In O'hAilpin's case, there has been no breach of contract, nor any criminal act, and it seems unlikely that a case could be mounted that he has brought the club into disrepute.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Burgs
Supporter" starring the #SeaOfBlue
