That is brilliant, i had goosebumps!

Absolute, out n out, genius. When I read your post DZ, I thought to myself "what could this be about that would give him goosebumps.....seriously?". And then I watched it. It would be the perfect MFC QB clash TV advert, that's for sure.

I swear to god, he better not get off on a rubbish technicality like wording

Pretty simple to counter him now though, really. Put a hard tag on him, stick to him like glue. He was nothing in the first half except for the punch thanks to Jones' tagging. If he plays you tell someone (maybe Nicholson, he's probably the best tagger we have atm) to absolutely force him to fight for every ball etc. He can't deal with it and lashes out as he did to Jones.

Edited June 7, 201114 yr by Striker475

no point sitting the tribunal tonight, i could tell you what will happen now.

the charge will be downgraded from intentional to reckless which will bring his points total down and give him carry over points to any future misdemeanours

the scum have done it again

no point sitting the tribunal tonight, i could tell you what will happen now.

the charge will be downgraded from intentional to reckless which will bring his points total down and give him carry over points to any future misdemeanours

the scum have done it again

I could be mistaken but he had over 200 demerit points from this, a downgrade from Intentional to Reckless may not put him under 100 demerits. He may need it to be thrown out completely to be clear this weekend.

I could be mistaken but he had over 200 demerit points from this, a downgrade from Intentional to Reckless may not put him under 100 demerits. He may need it to be thrown out completely to be clear this weekend.

was 166 IIRC due to good behaviour?

He's contesting it...

I have a bad feeling about this.

Dayne Beams out for 4 weeks with a broken foot reported on Nine news break.

If Daisy plays he will get the hardest Tag of his career thus far. I doubt the MFC boys would be to pleased to see him on the ground, after last week & what happened to Trenners.

I swear to god, he better not get off on a rubbish technicality like wording

Of course he will. Collingwood wont make the mistake of going in under-lawyered !!!

They aregue brilliantly. They show magical angles of view yet unknown that will prove ambiguity.

And so Daisy will get off..

isnt that how it works......... for some !!

they will be using the chewbacca defence

Maybe DW could change his movie clip to Swan & Co. going to Arizona instead of Thomas...if he gets off...they're going on a holiday.

he is challenging the intentional part of the decision, which really is the stupid one to challenge, what else could he have meant to do?

but if it is ruled reckless then it is less than 100 demerit points.

but if it is ruled reckless then it is less than 100 demerit points.

From 166? Really?

Before everyone goes to crazy, the pies will lose nothing if they challenge the decision. He will get one week if he is still found guilty, so they would be silly not to! Don't think he will get off though.

I want him to play. I want our team to play their best possible team they can put out there.

One thing that might help him, is Jones' lip gets cut right before he gets punched, it wasn't from the punch. Not sure if that will have anything to do with it, but I noticed it last night.

What would need to be argued by the MRP , imho is that you can only employ the reckless defence if the trangression was only a by-product of an incident of play ...and not teh incident itself.

There was no need for Thomas to swing and punch other than to hit Jones. It was not a incidental result of any other attempot of effort for the ball, therefore it cant be reckless and must be intentional, as the intent was indeed to swing and hit the player immediately under him.

You got niggled Daisy...and more the point you got caught....simple as !!

What would need to be argued by the MRP , imho is that you can only employ the reckless defence if the trangression was only a by-product of an incident of play ...and not teh incident itself.

There was no need for Thomas to swing and punch other than to hit Jones. It was not a incidental result of any other attempot of effort for the ball, therefore it cant be reckless and must be intentional, as the intent was indeed to swing and hit the player immediately under him.

You got niggled Daisy...and more the point you got caught....simple as !!

He'll probably pull the race card

"but jones called me a honky toy boy your honour"

He'll probably pull the race card

"but jones called me a honky toy boy your honour"

to which teh only response ought be....

Suck it up Princess !!!

they will be using the chewbacca defence

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

GOLD!!!!!!

One thing that might help him, is Jones' lip gets cut right before he gets punched, it wasn't from the punch. Not sure if that will have anything to do with it, but I noticed it last night.

Given that the incident was assessed as "low impact" then I can't see that the tribunal needs to consider it.

The main factor in this is the level of intimidation against the Tribunal that Collingwood can impart.

There was a time when the tribunal's function was to adjudicate on cheap shots and punches like Daisy's and it was simply a matter of how many weeks' suspension was meted out. These days they're more concerned with bumps and tackles. Punching an opponent is hardly a crime any more.

Surely he couldnt get off? Or even downgraded. Although Barry Hall did play in a GF and trenners got 3 weeks. who knows?

Surely he couldnt get off? Or even downgraded. Although Barry Hall did play in a GF and trenners got 3 weeks. who knows?

If he gets off the AFL appeals board will be a laughing stock. Won't happen.

If he gets off the AFL appeals board will be a laughing stock.

He's not at the Appeals Board, he's at the Tribunal.