He better get off or I will end up breaking something

Why does the AFL use an SC (Barrister) and the player uses Iain Findlay who is not an SC????

He better get off or I will end up breaking something

As long as it's not Lynch. He's had a bad enough week already.

12 minutes..........

You called him a bozo. What is he supposed to do? In your world:

Gleeson: "I refuse to prosecute this case because I think he's innocent"

Demitriou: "You're fired"

oh i see > Im supposed to justify his ridiculous stance by proffering another.

He in my humble opinion, has failed to provide a 'reasoned" argument. Argument s are supposed to be defined by logic and validity.

Go on, show me where he had any ?

If Gleeson thinks a footballer can, in 0.5 of a second, change direction sufficiently to avoid a collision then he's probably not that smart.

No, I think the point is that if 3 ex-footballers accept that ludicrous argument and declare Viney guilty, there's something seriously wrong with the system that goes beyond "smart" or not.

This is more tense than the last few minutes on Saturday

This is more tense than the last few minutes on Saturday

nice av

Well the jury has been out for a while, so maybe his case isn't as bad as you think.

It takes 0.3 of a second just to react, which leaves 0.2 of a second to get his body out of the way. Simple cognitive neuroscience and physiology says his case sucks, but then it is the AFL so granted that may be irrelevant.

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by I Give a Gawnski

Looks like we've put a very strong case. Mind you, I thought that about the Trengove tackle, but still.

First strong argument - he did not elect to bump. I think that's pretty decent for us, he didn't 'elect' to do anything in that split second, it was reactionary, and even if he did 'elect' to do something, it was an election to brace for impact, not to bump. That should be sufficient to dispense with things.

Second strong argument - he did not have any reasonable alternative to what he did. A point to be remembered - it is a focus on reasonable alternatives. So, theoretically, he maybe could have pushed off one foot and spun out of the way, but is that a reasonable alternative? Of course not.

I really cannot see this charge standing based on the way the Chairman framed the issue to the jury and the facts.

Why does the AFL use an SC (Barrister) and the player uses Iain Findlay who is not an SC????

Could be money. Could also be that Findlay doesn't need to be a QC in order to be qualified. Could be that Gleeson does a lot of the AFL's other work anyway.

nice av

Cheers

Well the jury has been out for a while, so maybe his case isn't as bad as you think.

The longer it goes, the more nervous I get.

Doesn't mean Gleeson's case is any good though; it's not (not from what has been made public so far). We've seen the jury come to some relatively baffling decisions in the past, so I wouldn't put it past them from happening again.

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by titan_uranus

Why does the AFL use an SC (Barrister) and the player uses Iain Findlay who is not an SC????

Should use Luke Darcy. He repeatedly beat charges at the tribunal representing himself.

They cant be too hasty. The AFL wont put on a show like this without final dramatic effects. They have media obligations.

Nathan Schmook:

Were back. 19 minutes of deliberations. Get ready…

[censored]

Nathan Schmook:

Guilty of rough conduct.

Guilty

Nathan Schmook:

Guilty of rough conduct.

No comment.

Wow.

Honestly, I was expecting it, but wow.

Guilty. Bastards.

Nathan Schmook:

Now the jury will identify appropriate penalty.

What rubbish

GUILTY of rough conduct!

Netball