Wadda We Sing 10,685 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Just drove up the Western Highway, absolutely chocker-block...... everyone is leaving the city where you cant impact the contest ! 1 4 Quote
daisycutter 30,021 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 minute ago, Jaded No More said: We are trying to bamboozle them with lawyer talk 😂 more like a kc upping his billable seconds 🤣 2 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 (edited) Can we play the race card? This is clearly a play to get the Dutch. No non- Dutch players got suspended this week. Edited May 11, 2023 by Jaded No More 1 4 Quote
Nascent 9,345 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Houghton referencing a case from 1909 was fitting, because 1909 is also the number of minutes this appeal looks like it will take. 2 Quote
Monbon 1,840 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said: CTE is horrible - agreed. But the risks are known and accepted by all. In most cases the head can tolerate and recover from concussion if left to heal. If the AFL is serious about concussion then it needs to consider a minimum 1 month or even 2 month absence from footy following a concussion and that accumulated concussion incidents force players into early retirement. That is an alternative way to deal with it rather than tinker with the game rules too much. Now I’m not saying certain rules cannot be tightened up - all for penalising players for potential to cause injury for non football actions as opposed / in addition to actual outcome, but it still won’t prevent all concussions and hence to make the decisions for players who are more concussion prone or have more concussion incidents for them. In due time we will have better techniques and tools to assess the accumulated trauma , which can be used to greater effect when making those decisions as well. If they were bloody well serious about concussion, how come Fogarty didn't get a month??? 1 Quote
daisycutter 30,021 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 4 minutes ago, Nascent said: Houghton referencing a case from 1909 was fitting, because 1909 is also the number of minutes this appeal looks like it will take. might be going for the filibuster. 2 Quote
Fork 'em 7,052 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said: We should just go in there and tell them they’re wrong and stupid 2 2 1 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 This new lawyer is good. I’m thinking his arguments can’t really be disputed. 2 1 Quote
DubDee 26,674 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said: Can we play the race card? This is clearly a play to get the Dutch. No non- Dutch players got suspended this week. completely agree first Goldmember and now this! 2 Quote
daisycutter 30,021 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 must have read my post Quote Melbourne also contesting there was a "denial of natural justice" from the Tribunal because it didn't give an opportunity to Melbourne to put forward submissions in relation to penalty once the Tribunal made its decision on the act. 2 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Is the AFL arguing that their rules are wrong? What a [censored] show 1 Quote
layzie 34,528 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Signed the petition yesterday, easiest processing will literally take you 10 seconds. Sign and recline that's the motto. Quote
Demon Dynasty 17,165 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 AFL (Woods) setting Joey up as the scapegoat fall guy with an OH&S overlay in that last statement 1 Quote
YearOfTheDees 3,266 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Can't help but think the Melbourne like the rest of the football world expected this to be thrown out on Tuesday night. They did not go as hard as they should have because of this. A very Melbourne thing to do. 2 Quote
Diamond_Jim 12,772 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 The AFL rep Woods has got his act together tonight I'm not getting the vibe Andrew Woods (AFL): The AFL's position is that a player can have the sole objective to spoil, or mark, or tackle ... but can execute it carelessly. If they do execute it carelessly, they breach the duty of care they owe to the other player and thereby commit a reportable offence. Andrew Woods (AFL): If the AFL's proposition isn't accepted, the result is that players essentially have a blank cheque. They've got no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action. 1 1 Quote
DubDee 26,674 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 how is it still going? [censored] me. the incident happened 5 days ago FFS 1 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 The AFL’s position is just that, a position. We have rules and laws. You can’t just change your position on a written law to suit your current agenda! We are either following the law or we aren’t. Also Ballard was unharmed so who says this spoil was careless? 2 1 Quote
Demon Dynasty 17,165 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 (edited) Showing the Brown vid is ok but wouldve liked to have seen Fogarty's more recent clobbering as well Edited May 11, 2023 by Demon Dynasty 1 Quote
DutchDemons 1,441 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 If the AFL makes it so that every action which has potential to cause injury is suspendible there’ll be no players eligible to play after this weekend. 5 Quote
bobby1554 1,275 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Well right about nowHoughton should be showing the Cripps hit on Ah Chee 3 Quote
leave it to deever 17,617 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Can't we have it overturned on the basis of how wonderful the Roo chant is? 1 2 1 Quote
Jaded No More 68,976 Posted May 11, 2023 Posted May 11, 2023 Why did we accept on Tuesday night that contact was not accidental?! Wtf!! 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.