Demonland

I hope he can find that form and stay in the team because I still believe he is in our best 22.

Rumble in the MCG jungle. Silly place to ask but who takes the bickies?

Gaff's 2018 stats

Jack Viney is the ring bearer.

VERDICT IN: Ed Curnow appeal. Video demonstrates clearly concession was honest and well based. But in those circumstances not other conclusion reasonable that contact was intentional. Appeal upheld

VERDICT IN: Charlie Curnow evidence clear saw umpire and spoke to him and had contact with him. But took place while he was trying to break up potential melee. Open to consider his actions as inadvertent. Cannot be said Tribunal decision was so unreasonable. Appeal dismissed.

I meant the appeal would be rejected. I did say I wasn't a lawyer and now you know why.

My interest in this is mainly because we are playing the Blues this week. If it was a GWS player I'd be doing work right now.

AFL reporter Nick Bowen who has been providing the updates says: A lot of legalese in any appeal and that was certainly the case today. Suspect we'll be waiting a while for a decision, but still think appeal on Charlie Curnow will be thrown out, but appeal on Ed will be upheld. In other words, if I'm right, Charlie's $1000 fine will stand, and Ed will receive a new tougher penalty, most likely a one-match suspension.

We're adjourned now for Appeal Board to consider its verdict.

I'm no lawyer but I think this might be why the case will be upheld. Clarke: - AFL has not satisfied high hurdle it must overcome to be successful in its appeal

Agreed.

If he goes to the AFL tribunal then he will get off.

Seems like they'll either both get off or both get done.

Gleeson refers to transcript of Ed Curnow's evidence: - at moment hand made contact with umpire, accepted made contact with umpire - Accepts the umpire was talking to him at moment of contact - Doesn't accept he was looking at him. 'No recollection, can't see (from vision) where my eyes are looking, Merrett's right behind ..." - Didn't say he didn't make eye contact, just that he couldn't tell from the screen and couldn't remember him - if admits umpire talking to him and that close together, doesn't matter whether their eyes met ... you don't need to see their eyes, as long as you see them. Happy for these Curnow Bros to play this week since they both seem to have a problem with their vision.

The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks this to be the case too. AFL had to appeal based on the community backlashed but will be satisfied if the decision is upheld.

The Appeal board will deliver its verdict on both cases at the end.

Gleeson: - the only reasonable available conclusion is that this was intentional - intentional and careless - they are mutually exclusive. If you find the player was careless, you are finding he did not intend to touch the umpire. - Tribunal decision was so unreasonable no other Tribunal could have reasonably come to that conclusion.

Seems like Gleeson should have been on the case from the beginning.

You can follow all the action here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-17/live-afl-appeals-tribunal-decisions-from-3pm-aest

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/carlton-brothers-ed-and-charlie-curnow-face-afl-appeals-board-over-making-contact-with-umpires/news-story/7fa938d26889d41da249acefd4d5aef3 The hearings take place at 3pm EST in front of a three-man board — Murray Kellam QC, Michael Green and Stephen Jurica. Jeff Gleeson QC will represent the AFL while Marcus Clarke QC and Paul McDermott will represent the players in their respective cases.

I'm not sure the appearance directly relates to a rise in memberships but it is free exposure and that can't be viewed as a bad thing as some are trying to paint.