Deemania since 56

One is 'more permitted' than the other to tell porkie-pies. Beez.was correct, had to be a win one, lose the other scenario to save AFL face. How would the AFL look now if they both got off? They both committed a crime, but one was more guilty than the other?

Good pick. To save AFL face, it really had to be, didn't it? Let's steamroll the 'Scum this weekend - and along the way, flag, tag and bag Curnow with a couple of 'get up slowly, with assistance' bumps whenever possible, and I mean more than once.

Yes, very probable - just a whitewash for a gleaming facade.

The jury will be selected from Gill's family members (his aunty, his daughter, his stepmother, his manservant, his second cousin) and balanced by official club sources from Carlscum (2) and Essendrug(1), not forgetting Eddie Maguire and the brilliant Sam Newman - the latter two to be scrutineers.

Dead right - but more than that CEO just being 'fair dinkum'. That CE0 must be totally innocent and/or above reproach if there is controversy in his/her actions. Such preferential treatment in a disparate community must be explained and justified - this is more than just having a coffee with a mate. Much more ...

It is not too late to suspend both - particularly as there is going to be a 're-penalising' hearing of the two Curnows, most probably for extra dollars representing more significant fines. But that just 'aint good enough for the footballing public. WE MUST DRIVE THIS POINT HOME. So, this admission by the AFL that the matter has been screwed where bias has been enabled to enter AFL decision-making and thanks to public outcry including reasonable disappointment expressed from Geelong with 'the precedent' against Hawkins, the rules and regulations must be applied: touch an umpire deliberately - go to jail - suspension to be affected. Anything less renders the whole AFL system as redundantly corrupt and that includes the existing fine as well as the harsher penalty of a larger fine - as the AFL are mooting as this point in an attempt to not be seen as 'swayed by privilege and favouritism with vested interests around the Carlscum Football Club'. Mountains are made from molehills - but we must pre-measure the occupancy of each molehill to determine what mountain is being advantaged, for what purpose.

Hibberd was dropping those goals regularly with the Essendrug team, and so he is no stranger to the big sticks from a long way out or in close. Great to see him so far down the ground with his terrific mobility and change of direction. He could teach Hunt heaps of things from handball to sidestepping to knitting socks.

Just wonder if the Curnows will enjoy a little bump from Viney this weekend early in the game - and perhaps Pedo if he is playing - sure would make for an interesting match. Petracca could give a bit of lip, too. Fire them up, so that they do not know from whence and when the trouble might come. Carlton need to know that a majority of observers of this week's Tribunal farce cannot - and will not - tolerate AFL favouritism, and the first way to prove that is to express sentiment directly back to the AFL through messages via the guilty parties, who sway AFL rules and regulations at will with the post-match co-operation of the AFL itself.

Realistically, despite how well we may play this season, it feels as if the AFL does not wish the MFC to play finals. and will do everything in its power and grasp to affect that outcome. The Curnow incidents are fine examples of this. There have already been other examples where this tendency has raised its ugly, ugly head; for example, the umpiring of the 3rd quarter MFC match against a beaten Richmond - who won the game as a result. The canning of Clarrie and 'blocking' as a warning to the League about 'unfair' play moves (of course it is unfair - Clarrie is such a good player and innovator in the 'legal' game he has to be stopped). Handball skills so sharp and astute that Clarrie was accused of throwing. The rapid ball movement of the Dees into the forward line countered mainly through the umpires again by awarding inappropriate free kicks in opponents' backlines across a whole game. The personalised treatment of the Whoreform coach with the allegedly impartial head of the AFL, itself. No need to rant on - as there are many other questionable activities and directions that have so far emerged in the 2018 season, already, not to mention in the past few seasons whilst Gil the Pill has been in charge. Through such influence, the AFL is winning the short-term outcomes that it perceives it needs for gate receipts ad nauseum. In the mid- to longer-term, the AFL under this stewardship is in fact cutting its own throat speculatively and this will lead the brave to demand changes or worse, perhaps larger-scale revolt. Which straw will break the camel's back? Any prophecies?

At Gil's level, there is no two-way street. There should be, of course, but his history clearly shows he 'aint being checked so legitimacy and fair play do not rule the roost because power corrupts, absolutely.

Which was legal, by the way.

The old Stan Alves sidestep would do it!

Those who deem Jayden to not be a natural footballer do not see, obviously, that he is a 'natural' for the wing, and I reckon you nailed it DZ. Kicking virus has crept all over our team in one form or the other. Time for the coaching methods to act. Bingo! Dead right, poita.

That is a good point but he has been asked to be a swingman since starting at the Club and one must see that a few things might well be swimming around in this young man's head once a transitional phase of a game plan has been firmed across the team. Hibberd and company would be great mentors for him in such circumstances; he is a potential game-changer and his athleticism is a great asset to assist him achieve a settled role. To my mind, Hunt is a far greater team asset than the Weed, yet the Weed is given every tick of the clock to learn something.

It just seems like Curnow's explanation was a prepared lie. Even if it were truthful, it still violates the rules - badly and openly. Disband the Tribunal, its counsel, its purpose for another before the coming round starts because the umpiring/Tribunal system and MRO are dysfunctional from their own doing and precedent is outside of their interests.

Legally, you are correct. It was established last week and this week? Blown to smithereens due to vested interest.

That fits with the AFL's flavour of the month syndrome. I think we need to revolt against the AFL for their bias.

There is no reversion - it obviously still occurs through the brown paper bag.

We must join together with Geelong and other unaffected clubs to protest this horrendous error by the AFL; this is a corrupt outcome and surely affects us all.

Nah, Poita. Let the Crows have a win first before we play them so that they feel on top of the world and start bragging again about how they can beat anyone, including all Victorian teams, on their deserved entitlement to win a GF. That is how they carry on. Then, as their bragging rights reach a crescendo, we will play them and murder them, just like last year, silencing the slime slurs and self-aggrandisement for yet another season, just like last year.

Correct, a bloody waste of time this one.

Great summation, 'Buck! It really is possible as an outcome and the preliminaries with tests earlier on may well have been ideal development ground. If we exercise a bit of grunt, we can aspire to a confidence boost, as well. We need to be a thinking football team with larger expectations more widespread across the team. Signs are very good and it is easier to predict at this point that the remainder of the season will be pleasantly productive and successful. 'Prediction' is a key word onfield - what the ball carrier has in mind, and how can a player be that receiver in that position on the ground where a simple disposal may make the objective attainable. Time and again. The gameplan is screaming out for this type of response across the board.

He often is supreme. It is not hard to remember what that man can do when he is the only one appearing to be motivated.

We'll wait and see how all of the decision-making turns out. I am sure that it will prove that Christian and the rest are not up to the job with which they are tasked.

Is it a case of a player (s) enforcing where the umpire can go - within which space - that the players concerned might prefer?