Just now, DutchDemons said:

Robbo and Gerald aren’t on Thursday night

:( forgot, they have HARLEY REID on tonight though so idk if they can spare the 2 mins to report this case

why was there no argument about the severity of contact being downgraded from high

must say i thought the arguments were pretty thin

i could've thought of a lot of things to challenge

Just now, Hawny for Gawny said:

:( forgot, they have HARLEY REID on tonight though so idk if they can spare the 2 mins to report this case

Great handle their bud. 

3 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

I've been known to slip into an afterthought in my time. But I digress......

So... ah...... how about this weather?  And oh yes, what the heck is happening with Jacob?!

55 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

As for the reasonable test, what sort of precedent does it establish if his suspension is upheld? 

No sort of precedent. The AFL doesn't do precedent. Within two weeks, someone will do exactly what JvR did and won't be cited.

40 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Just saw on the news that Brad Green has been sanctioned by the AFL for his twitter comment into this ban!

Back in the day you weren't allowed to criticise Josef Stalin either. In more modern times, it's Putin. Green shouldn't stray too near any windows.

For those saying our legal argument doesn't seem strong, I wouldn't necessarily take Zita's tweets as encompassing our whole argument. On Tuesday he said they were just arguing semantics, and it was actually the whole premise of the AFL's argument re: the interpretation of the rule. Pretty important stuff, you'd think

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Exactly, the moon doesn't rotate unless the appeal board tells it too, as duty of care is an extrapolation of the rule, and not explicitly stated.

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by kev martin

Come on…will struggle to get a quaddie on at Sandown dogs at this rate.

1 Hour of Deliberating and counting ...

Just now, Demonland said:

1 Hour of Deliberating and counting ...

Is this good or bad or is everyone drunk? 

Just now, kev martin said:

Exactly, the moon doesn't rotate unless the appeal board tells it too, as duty of care is an extrapolation of the rule. 

What, specifically, is the moon? As a point of law, I mean.

Board can't come to an unanimous decision...

CASE DISMISSED!!

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

No sort of precedent. The AFL doesn't do precedent. Within two weeks, someone will do exactly what JvR did and won't be cited.

Back in the day you weren't allowed to criticise Josef Stalin either. In more modern times, it's Putin. Green shouldn't stray too near any windows.

He may soon glow in the dark.

The longer it goes on the more confident im feeling... (Is this how it works?)

Just now, Demon Dynasty said:

Board can't come to an anonymous decision...

CASE DISMISSED!!

Is this legit?

1 minute ago, Mickey said:

For those saying our legal argument doesn't seem strong, I wouldn't necessarily take Zita's tweets as encompassing our whole argument. On Tuesday he said they were just arguing semantics, and it was actually the whole premise of the AFL's argument re: the interpretation of the rule. Pretty important stuff, you'd think

100%, and if our arguments weren’t considered strong, we have a decision by now!

I think it’s a good thing… there isn’t a majority. Do we need a majority to overturn ?

1 minute ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Come on…will struggle to get a quaddie on at Sandown dogs at this rate.

Get your money on any dogs named Bull-[censored], Joke, Farce and Travesty.

2 minutes ago, Mickey said:

For those saying our legal argument doesn't seem strong, I wouldn't necessarily take Zita's tweets as encompassing our whole argument. On Tuesday he said they were just arguing semantics, and it was actually the whole premise of the AFL's argument re: the interpretation of the rule. Pretty important stuff, you'd think

Great point, I imagine Zita's understanding of law limits what he can actually understand and remember.

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

1 Hour of Deliberating and counting ...

cripps case was 2 hours

just saying

We mostly understand what a so called "duty of care" means in a legal sense - the ability to foresee the outcome of potentially hazardous actions and the duty to avoid those actions. Overwhelmingly, there is time and space to consider actions that might fall under that duty.

How could this possibly translate to a dynamic, fast moving and physical contact sport where decisions and actions are made in microseconds? It can't.

Only a genius lawyer could concoct such an argument. It's garbage in this instance.

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

What, specifically, is the moon? As a point of law, I mean.

it's all in the 1909 case ... read up on it

Maybe a 2 down to 1 outcome at best