We're adjourned now for Appeal Board to consider its verdict.

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Seems like they'll either both get off or both get done.

Given that it's an AFL tribunal, they're just as likely to suspend the umpire, Gil McLachlan, or the prime minister

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

Given that it's an AFL tribunal, they're just as likely to suspend the umpire, Gil McLachlan, or the prime minister

Not possible.

They are all Good Blokes™️

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I'm no lawyer but I think this might be why the case will be upheld.

Clarke:

- AFL has not satisfied high hurdle it must overcome to be successful in its appeal

Mmm, he did lead off with that, which is all about the doubt - so it makes sense he concludes with it - as that is all he really has.

Bottom line is, there are people are starving in the world and money is being wasted on defending the Curnows. Let them play, give them a smack bottie and donate the money from their match fees to Charity. 

Edited May 17, 20187 yr by Thehardtackler

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Happy for these Curnow Bros to play this week since they both seem to have a problem with their vision.

Cleared for 20/20 vision by the Carlton doctor

AFL reporter Nick Bowen who has been providing the updates says:

A lot of legalese in any appeal and that was certainly the case today.

 

Suspect we'll be waiting a while for a decision, but still think appeal on Charlie Curnow will be thrown out, but appeal on Ed will be upheld.

 

In other words, if I'm right, Charlie's $1000 fine will stand, and Ed will receive a  new tougher penalty, most likely a one-match suspension.

3 minutes ago, Thehardtackler said:

Bottom line is, there are people are starving the world and money is being wasted on defending the Curnows. Let them play, give them a smack bottie and donate the money from their match fees to Charity. 

this

Wonder what the SC gets for this, $2000/hr?

Crazy times folks, crazy times

(Even funnier, we're all madly discussing it. FML)

1 minute ago, timbo said:

(Even funnier, we're all madly discussing it. FML)

My interest in this is mainly because we are playing the Blues this week. If it was a GWS player I'd be doing work right now.

 

2 minutes ago, timbo said:

this

Wonder what the SC gets for this, $2000/hr?

Crazy times folks, crazy times

(Even funnier, we're all madly discussing it. FML)

break out the popcorn eh... nom nom nom

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I'm no lawyer but I think this might be why the case will be upheld.

Clarke:

- AFL has not satisfied high hurdle it must overcome to be successful in its appeal

Your post doesn't make sense, unless you meant to say  the appeal will be rejected.

I expect an appeal to the High Court either way.  Still reckon the whole saga is a plot to disrupt our selection planning today.

1,5 hours x 1200 x 8 = $I wish I was in that profession...

1 minute ago, sue said:

I expect an appeal to the High Court either way.  Still reckon the whole saga is a plot to disrupt our selection planning today.

Siege mentality writ large!

1 minute ago, sue said:

I expect an appeal to the High Court either way.  Still reckon the whole saga is a plot to disrupt our selection planning today.

The AFL can't plan that far ahead

2 minutes ago, sue said:

I expect an appeal to the High Court either way.  Still reckon the whole saga is a plot to disrupt our selection planning today.

Murphy in for Ed and Marchbank for Charlie or another Blue dropped if Charlie gets off. 

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Your post doesn't make sense, unless you meant to say  the appeal will be rejected.

I meant the appeal would be rejected. I did say I wasn't a lawyer and now you know why.

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

I meant the appeal would be rejected. I did say I wasn't a lawyer and now you know why.

Ed is gone, Charlie not sure. 1 all would satisfy many.

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

My interest in this is mainly because we are playing the Blues this week. If it was a GWS player I'd be doing work right now.

 

Who gives a [censored]... We’ll beat them regardless 

VERDICT IN:

 

Charlie Curnow evidence clear saw umpire and spoke to him and had contact with him. But took place while he was trying to break up potential melee. Open to consider his actions as inadvertent.

 

Cannot be said Tribunal decision was so unreasonable.

 

Appeal dismissed.

VERDICT IN:

 

Ed Curnow appeal. Video demonstrates clearly concession was honest and well based. But in those circumstances not other conclusion reasonable that contact was intentional.

 

Appeal upheld

Yep...a draw

Knew it

Looking like a week for Ed so that Chris Scott can tape his head back together.

So both Curnows tell fibs, but one is more plausible than the other.

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Yep...a draw

Knew it

Good pick. To save AFL face, it really had to be, didn't it? Let's steamroll the 'Scum this weekend - and along the way, flag, tag and bag Curnow with a couple of 'get up slowly, with assistance' bumps whenever possible, and I mean more than once.