2 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

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 

This

Duty of care. Where was it when a player kicked the ball off the ground breaking another player’s finger?  

Miss spoiling the ball by 0.8 of a second and they are suggesting you were going for the man. 

12 minutes ago, ManDee said:

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 Charge should be withdrawn. 

I think it’s the correct spelling and pronunciation of his name. 

Just BTW friends - do not be too concerned if deliberations take some time. Does not necessarily mean difficulty arriving at a decision. May mean Tribunal members determined a verdict in 30 seconds and are having a scotch to assist the 'optics'.

3 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Duty of care. Where was it when a player kicked the ball off the ground breaking another player’s finger?  

Miss spoiling the ball by 0.8 of a second and they are suggesting you were going for the man. 

Yep, there's a lot of kick in danger that is never paid. 

so the spoil is legal unless you allegedly take your eyes off the ball for 0.8 of a second

As Mr Bumble said.. the law is an [censored]

(how does a reference to a donkey that is one of the most famous Dickensian quotations ended up censored.)

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Diamond_Jim

Reading all the above I get the impression the AFL know a mistake has been made with this report and are looking for a way out. Time will tell.

1 minute ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Yep, there's a lot of kick in danger that is never paid. 

Clarrie’s hand courtesy of Selwood

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Clarrie’s hand courtesy of Selwood

The laws don’t apply to Geelong players. 
Take your nonsense elsewhere. 

50 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Who is this Woods? His statement is moronic. 

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Clarrie’s hand courtesy of Selwood

No no………Clarrie would be charged with striking Duckwood’s boot.

#FreeVanRoyen....

Not sure if it has the same ring to it as 

#FreeJackTrengove

Either way both ridiculous reports

Where was duty of care when Hawkins threw and elbow back into Mays eye socket, With such force it broken his eye socket bone. Seriously? They have no idea how to apply civil law principles to a sport. It’s just plain dumb, if I tackle someone, is it reasonably foreseeable that they might get injured? Absolutely? Do I breach a duty of care? No, because the act is permitted in the sport. Is the spoil permitted - yes! There is no question that was his intent. So is it within rules, yes! It’s the biggest jog on case of all time! And that’s not hyperbole. It wasn’t even careless. It was a play on the ball. 

S'pose to be writing an essay - cannot focus.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

so the spoil is legal unless you allegedly take your eyes off the ball for 0.8 of a second

As Mr Bumble said.. the law is an [censored]

(how does a reference to a donkey that is one of the most famous Dickensian quotations ended up censored.)

Because Jim, the septic tanks ( in their inimitable way) use the name of a braying animal to describe the derriere .

19 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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

You have said it again.

Twice in one thread you have dumped me.

This Zita guy is funny, gives Schnitz a plug.

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

S'pose to be writing an essay - cannot focus.

 

If it’s based on the flaws of the MRO, don’t worry about an essay…………..it would be a thesis.

HURRY UP!  I have a “starving” son who’s threatening to call CPS on me. 

5 minutes ago, Sideshow Bob said:

#FreeVanRoyen....

Not sure if it has the same ring to it as 

#FreeJackTrengove

Either way both ridiculous reports

S'pose Christian's sanction is upheld - do we take it further? Go fund me page anyone?

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

HURRY UP!  I have a “starving” son who’s threatening to call CPS on me. 

Kids whenever they have to wait for anything for longer than 1.3 seconds….right?!

 

 

Edit: my dog just reminded me it’s his dinner time. The dog doesn’t wait. He’s the king of the house and my favourite child. 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Jaded No More

what's taking so [censored] long

should be a lay down misere

I need to be well clear of sharp objects if we lose this appeal…

21 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

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 

I think it is called volenti non fit injuria....it's been a while