Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

If the ban stays upheld my phone and the wall will meet. 

The AFL is arguing that JVR injured Ballard. 
Since when does free to play next week = injured?

 

 

David Zita

@DavidZita1

·

3m

Woods (AFL): He needed to take care, he failed to take reasonable care and he injured another player and that was appropriately found to be careless.
 

There was no definitive injury was there?


He won't get off.

This Woods guy is too much of a defence of duty of care for the player.

 

would be funny if he gets off and we rest him for Satdy

 
Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

He won't get off.

This Woods guy is too much of a defence of duty of care for the player.

 

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 


Just now, Jaded No More said:

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 

Exactly. This [censored] used the words 'the rules explicitly require a duty of care'. Oh really. Which exact rules are these?

12 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

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.

 

Even if that is accepted, that only goes to them having a duty of care. Whether or not they breach that duty of care (i.e. fail to exercise reasonable care / act carelessly) then comes down to the reasonable person test. I would have thought the reasonable person test used by the Tribunal and its application to the fact can still be attacked.

Surely we get a right of reply to this lying sack of [censored] making up rules and concocting imaginary injuries. 

It's really hard to be on DL, Fox Sports news and Zita's Twitter while trying to do a workout at the gym 


Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

Just now, Nicko said:

Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

That’s the dude doing the live reporting from the hearing. Not the actual lawyers. 

6 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 

His only other choice was to not contest, the ball or the spoil.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

That’s the dude doing the live reporting from the hearing. Not the actual lawyers. 

Gotcha….thanks 

 


Ok Melbourne is back up on the stand

This is juicier than an episode of Judge Judy after school

Judy Sheindlin GIF by Judge Judy

3 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

Trained as well from what I understand. 

 
8 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Even if that is accepted, that only goes to them having a duty of care. Whether or not they breach that duty of care (i.e. fail to exercise reasonable care / act carelessly) then comes down to the reasonable person test. I would have thought the reasonable person test used by the Tribunal and its application to the fact can still be attacked.

the standard of care would be quite high in the area of possible concussion so I'm not sure it helps

The framing of the charge on grounds similar to a tortious complaint is perhaps a dangerous misconception in the area of a disciplinary tribunal.

I see Houghton just made the same point...

Houghton (Melbourne): This attempt to impose a regime of health and safety upon players when construing a rule like 18.5 is quite wrong. 

Edited by Diamond_Jim

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Ok Melbourne is back up on the stand

This is juicier than an episode of Judge Judy after school

Judy Sheindlin GIF by Judge Judy

I'm looking forward to 11:58pm tonight when you post the 'wrap it up' one!


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 720 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies