Jump to content


Recommended Posts


Posted
3 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?)

Maybe 'Landers are far better lawyers.

  • Like 1

Posted
3 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?)

Yeah I’m confused too.. are people watching this somewhere or making judgements purely on tweets? 
 

If it’s the latter I think it’s fair to say we have no idea what’s been said 

Posted
Just now, Demonland said:

30 minutes and counting

It’s not looking good. I imagine they’re trying to come up with a statement that won’t send the AFL community into meltdown. Again. 

  • Angry 1
Posted
Just now, Demonland said:

30 minutes and counting

They have to 'appear' to be giving it serious consideration, whether that is the case or not

  • Haha 1

Posted
Just now, Jaded No More said:

It’s not looking good. I imagine they’re trying to come up with a statement that won’t send the AFL community into meltdown. Again. 

yeah probably working out the wording.

Posted
2 minutes ago, McQueen said:

So Red, why can’t it be as simple as showing the Fogarty spoil and then Jacob’s and asking wtf is different?

Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Posted
Just now, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Maybe 'Landers are far better lawyers.

the standard of the reporting blog certainly isn't what it used to be.

I suspect one needed to be there to understand the arguments in full.

In this day and age of voice generated text not to mention zoom no reason it's not more fully reported

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, McQueen said:

So Red, why can’t it be as simple as showing the Fogarty spoil and then Jacob’s and asking wtf is different?

Well, according to the AFL 2023 Tribunal Guidelines, unless something has been cited by the MRO (with or without penalty) it cannot be presented as evidence in a tribunal hearing. I'm not sure if the appeals process is bound by the same guidelines, but it could be.

Purely a guess on my behalf though.

Edited by deva5610
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Posted
37 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Wednesday Adams has just taken the stand for the Dees talking about Vicarious Intent and pure Accident. Seems her logic is impeccable!!

Who is Adams?

Posted
1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed.

So the example could/should have been presented in the first appeal?

Posted
Just now, Redleg said:

Because this is an Appeal and we need to show legal errors, not other incidents missed.

I know you said you haven’t read the proceedings, but once you do I would be interested in your opinion of our defense. I’m not a lawyer but I wasn’t impressed. AFL seem to have made a stronger argument. 


Posted
7 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

How does it come to pass that you guys read it more clearly than the lawyers tasked with representing? (not a crack, just confused?)

Because we're better lawyers.

  • Haha 1
  • Clap 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

They have to 'appear' to be giving it serious consideration, whether that is the case or not

Na, their just waiting for uber eats 

  • Haha 3

Posted

Just saw that McDonald is the sole tall being named as emergency 🤮🤮

Please for the love of God now another reason for JVR not to be suspended. 

  • Like 5
  • Love 1


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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...