JvR Free!!!

[Nicko 1,223]

4 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

The Appeal Board is NOW deliberating.

There is really nothing to deliberate - JVR was spoiling the ball. No strike to see here

i remain perplexed about this!

 

[Jaded No More 57,820]

Just now, YearOfTheDees said:

This Tweet

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

The club has been asked to explain his criticism of the Tribunal on Twitter

 

He should sue them for letting two thugs break his throat in a game 

[BigBadBustling 214]

12 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I’m not that impressed with our rebuttal. I expected more. 
Also where was the argument that this isn’t a strike? 

To me that was the biggest 'error in law' in the whole proceeding. Can't believe it wasn't raised.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,397]

1 minute ago, YearOfTheDees said:

This Tweet

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

The club has been asked to explain his criticism of the Tribunal on Twitter

 

Has Simon Goodwin been sent a "please explain" for his comments at his presser yesterday? 

[dazzledavey36 48,734]

Still bemused we made no mention that Ballard was not even injured in the whole incident.  

Not one single mention.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

2 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

This Tweet

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

The club has been asked to explain his criticism of the Tribunal on Twitter

 

What are they going to do, hit him with a piece of wet spaghetti?

[chook fowler 18,226]

3 minutes ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Lets take it to The Hague..

Prefer Nuremberg 

[GM11 689]

2 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

This Tweet

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

 

AFL a little touchy it seems.

[Jaded No More 57,820]

Just now, Wadda We Sing said:

What are they going to do, hit him with a piece of wet spaghetti?

Where is the duty of care for the spaghetti?

[whatwhat say what 18,918]

Just now, Wadda We Sing said:

What are they going to do, hit him with a piece of wet spaghetti?

he's a board member

he'll be told to refrain from comment in future

[Demonland 64,807]

The Appeal Board is still deliberating.

— David Zita (@DavidZita1) May 11, 2023

[DeeMee 734]

2 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

This Tweet

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

The club has been asked to explain his criticism of the Tribunal on Twitter

 

Easy fix for Brad, just send screenshot of all the head hits in spoils in the last 3 weeks. “Explain this AFL”

Of course no criticism is ever allowed of the tribunal or umpires - untouchable. Thought Goody sailed pretty close to the wind in his presser. Good on them both.

[Redleg 37,576]

I haven’t heard or read a word of tonight’s proceedings but believe it needs to be overturned for game to continue properly. So I stick with upheld appeal.

[Hawny for Gawny 396]

I feel like we came with a very weak argument, Dees lawyer kept referring to being protected by rule 18.3 or whatever it is but that is not where the AFL had issue, the main issue came from "lack of duty of care" would have been nice to have mentioned that he isn't injured, and it was a precaution and that Ballard also had an incident 30 mins prior. 

[Its Time for Another 4,053]

18 minutes ago, Deebymistake said:

My dog and children are hungry.  Let this madness end now please.

Your priorities are the same as my wifes. Dog first, children second. And sometimes as an afterthought me. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Its Time for Another

[dazzledavey36 48,734]

1 minute ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

I feel like we came with a very weak argument, Dees lawyer kept referring to being protected by rule 18.3 or whatever it is but that is not where the AFL had issue, the main issue came from "lack of duty of care" would have been nice to have mentioned that he isn't injured, and it was a precaution and that Ballard also had an incident 30 mins prior. 

Yeah I think they dropped the ball big time with this one unfortunately. 

The argument was pretty weak in general. 

[Redleg 37,576]

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah I think they dropped the ball big time with this one unfortunately. 

The argument was pretty weak in general. 

Our bloke was the ex AFL Prosecutor before Gleeson.

I am getting the feeling I am one out here in believing we win.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Redleg

[McQueen 17,863]

Fuggit. Just cracked a beer. 

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah I think they dropped the ball big time with this one unfortunately. 

The argument was pretty weak in general. 

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

[Diamond_Jim 11,746]

the degree of injury is an interesting discussion.

He was injured in the sense that he was hit. That the hit did not cause a severe injury does not change the fact he was injured.

Where things seem to have changed this year is that they are gauging the offence by its propensity to cause serious injury.

This is a real circus

[Engorged Onion 9,262]

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

Fuggit. Just cracked a beer. 

two nights in a row... on form - I seriously look forward to your posts later on...

[chookrat 3,776]

8 minutes ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

I feel like we came with a very weak argument, Dees lawyer kept referring to being protected by rule 18.3 or whatever it is but that is not where the AFL had issue, the main issue came from "lack of duty of care" would have been nice to have mentioned that he isn't injured, and it was a precaution and that Ballard also had an incident 30 mins prior. 

I suspect the high impact grading would not likely change due to the potential for serious injury and that a downgrade to medium would still mean a 1 week sanction.

We are quite right to argue that the rough conduct provisions do not apply to a legitimate spoil which is protected as per rule 18.3. This defense is clever in that if the AFL uphold the suspension then they are also saying a player could face suspension for marking the ball if he doesn't take reasonable care.

Edited May 11, 2023 by chookrat

[McQueen 17,863]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Our bloke was the ex AFL Prosecutor before Gleeson.

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

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Is an assault still an assault if you try to hit someone and miss? 

[McQueen 17,863]

1 minute ago, Engorged Onion said:

two nights in a row... on form - I seriously look forward to your posts later on...

I’ll be like an engorged onion ready to explode.