30 minutes and counting

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.

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 

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. 

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

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.

I have 100 questions 

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.

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

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 May 11, 20232 yr by deva5610

I’m on ferry and will soon be out of signal. Any chance of a decision soon???

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?

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?

Probably will increase to 4 weeks

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. 

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.

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 

The difference is I'm not pretending to know at all how this works or what it means.

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. 

1 minute ago, Bystander said:

Who is Adams?

Agreed, she was soooo yesterday!

1 minute ago, Colm said:

I’m on ferry and will soon be out of signal. Any chance of a decision soon???

Maybe your captain can radio in for the result 

This is beyond a joke.

Just now, leave it to deever said:

Na, their just waiting for uber eats 

surely a single malt... no ice

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Because we're better lawyers.

I nailed my law exam in year 12