2 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I hate Adrian Anderson for initiating the tanking investigation but he’s making a good case. 

I couldn't quite figure out why Angry was looming large from my sub-conscious to my consciousness tonight @Fat Tony. Now you've just traumatized me.

4 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

I hate Adrian Anderson for initiating the tanking investigation but he’s making a good case. 

Didn’t Adrian Anderson get Fritsch off in 2021?

4 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

It's not the length of the legal arguments to be concerned about - it's the length of the Tribunal's deliberations that count.

Updates seem to have eased off. Are they deliberating now?

3 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

It's not the length of the legal arguments to be concerned about - it's the length of the Tribunal's deliberations that count.

QD are you going to change your name to Kingbeyan Demon?

Speaking of deliberation, the book is open.

Over/Under set at 21.5 minutes. Place your bets. 

4 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Anderson is my new fave person in the world 😘

I thought I was.

You are very fickle.

You do know that Anderson has lost most of his Tribunal appearances.

He was also the bloke that started the Tanking investigation against us.

30 minutes ago, sue said:

Best but might sound like a smartarse

 

Problem is you're dealing with shifty bloody afl smart-arses. All they want to do is justify their coin, remind minions of their position. 

The questioning is designed to trap

They are ( insert derogatory term of preference) x 10

 

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

 

You do know that Anderson has lost most of his Tribunal appearances.

Even Dennis Denuto would have a hard time in the farce that is the AFL tribunal system. It's the vibe.

When i saw we had Adrian Anderson on board I thought great the dees are throwing everything at this appeal.

Good to see.

JVR has covered himself in glory with his responses tonight. Well done young man.

Semantics! No injury, incidental contact in play. What semantics? Charge should be withdrawn. 

The AFL’s arguments are deranged. Reeks of people who haven’t played football ever. 

It makes me wild when the AFL bang on about the duty of care. It’s 44 blokes running around full tilt trying to compete and win the ball, yet they speak like he’s a manager of a company deciding to skimp on the PPE. 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Phil C

9 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Anderson is my new fave person in the world 😘

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I thought I was.

You are very fickle.

You do know that Anderson has lost most of his Tribunal appearances.

He was also the bloke that started the Tanking investigation against us.

Hey @Redleg. Must admit, I too was a bit hurt by @WalkingCivilWar's comment.

I'm just annoyed we didn't stump up for the Carlton lawyer... I hear he's good at the tribunal thing!

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Sideshow Bob

Just now, Jaded No More said:

The AFL’s arguments are deranged. Reeks of people who haven’t played football ever. 

Get the lawyers out of the process. Their litigation is ridiculous. 
 

Resolve cases via 3 reps who have actually played the game. 

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I thought I was.

You are very fickle.

You do know that Anderson has lost most of his Tribunal appearances.

He was also the bloke that started the Tanking investigation against us.

No biggy. I change my fave person in the world more often than you change your socks. (Hadda clean that one up. The word rhymes with socks but aren’t worn on your feet. Well, they can be, buts that’s just weird.) 🤭

 

4 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Semantics! No injury, incidental contact in play. What semantics? Charge should be withdrawn. 

Yeah that worries me. Sounds like a stitch up to me.

2 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Hey @Redleg. Must admit, I too was a bit hurt by @WalkingCivilWar's comment.

Awww you know you’ll always be my fave person in the world (checks username of this particular poster), QD 

The real question is what are the optics and can the AFL live with a "not guilty" whatever the actual facts are. 

Player A, runs into player B who goes off on a stretcher. Bad optics...AFL want to look good. Money, advertising etc. 

4 minutes ago, Phil C said:

It makes me wild when the AFL bang on about the duty of care. It’s 44 blokes running around full tilt trying to compete and win the ball, yet they speak like he’s a manager of a company deciding to skimp on the PPE. 

Just said the same to a mate. They are trying to apply civil law principles to a contact sport. There is a voluntary assumption of risk that comes with plying this game. The duty of care argument is a bunch of bulldust. You could argue that the duty of care is breached in every tackle. The aim of the act is to physically challenge an opponent. It’s just outrageous 

31 minutes ago, Kiss of Death said:

Interesting, they wanted a downgrade to medium, but it’s almost like they’re pushing that it was now incidental

The only want it downgraded if it doesn't get thrown out.

1 minute ago, Wells 11 said:

The real question is what are the optics and can the AFL live with a "not guilty" whatever the actual facts are. 

Player A, runs into player B who goes off on a stretcher. Bad optics...AFL want to look good. Money, advertising etc. 

Facts and justice occasionally overlap @Wells 11.

1 minute ago, Wells 11 said:

The real question is what are the optics and can the AFL live with a "not guilty" whatever the actual facts are. 

Player A, runs into player B who goes off on a stretcher. Bad optics...AFL want to look good. Money, advertising etc. 

What about the optics of punishing players for making legitimate attempts to contest the ball in a contact sport?

Him not getting off would have bigger consequences than if the charges are dropped.