rollinson 65

Mate, tell us where you got your law degree. You actually need to READ the Bedford decision and UNDERSTAND it. Your lawyer may be able to explain it to you in kindergarten terms. Explaining to non-lawyers how one legal decision affects another is just about impossible. Just think why it takes 4-5 years of study to become an apprentice lawyer. Do you think they just teach us how to twiddle our thumbs? If you are really serious, I suggest we set up a separate thread - "Bedford Decision" - and I can educate you over the next 4 months or so. Other lawyers on here may well pitch in. I do have serious issues with the arrogant ignorant.

Sorry, PD, but they have set up the Appeal really well. I keep asking people on here to read the Toby Bedford decision. Nobody on here has taken me up on that. Now I get criticism for repeating myself. Why would I not when nobody listens? Read the Bedford decision FCS. Football action, fractions of seconds, live footage. Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal.

👍 True, mate. If the lawyers on here are out of the loop, we can just speculate.

Yes, funny about that. Politics ?? And I ask again, why did the media shy away from asking the CEO why the MRO's decision on the day was overruled? What is going on the the corridors of power closed always to the unwashed?

At the risk of being yelled at again, I really need you guys to be ready for disappointment. Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal. This is my best legal analysis and not shared by a second lawyer on this thread, so you should all hope I am wrong.

I did predict an expert but this is out of left-field. AFL lawyers ambushed and forced to react on the fly. Appeal points galore.

Yes, Kev. I think they are. On Appeal - football action, fractions of seconds, live replay. I would guess the remorse card will not be played. It was too brazen and smacks of penalty rather than exoneration.

Good point, well made. Wish we were closer to the action.

Er, looks like you just did. Only a Pies troll would ask such a question. Your posts on this thread have been very questionable. I am referring you to the Mods.

Wrong, mate, I think. Witness coaching gone right IMO. Lends strength to the way I think the Pies submissions will go - football action, fractions of seconds, live footage.

Could be that the AFL is after a political decision that they know will be overturned on Appeal. Just one possible conspiracy theory. "Hey, people, we tried." Not enough questions have been asked IMO as to why the new CEO overruled the MRO's non-decision. At the end of the day, it may turn out that us lawyers are the only ones to come out with integrity attached. We know the lawyers will be scrapping and spinning like hell for their side of the argument. That is what they are paid to do. What everyone else is doing, what is going on behind the scenes, we just don't know.

Depends on what he has to say. If he is willing to speak up for Maynard, and is medically capable, the Pies lawyers will call him. If not, the AFL lawyers probably will not. Bit of a toss up really. We would have to be much closer to the legal action and discussions to really know.

This has been a necessary thread, allowing us all to vent our anger and frustration. But some posts have been thoughtful about this concussion crisis in our game. As a result of this thread, I have two suggestions: First, the AFL establishes a fund to compensate past and future players for the consequences of concussion. Second, a red card system to be given a trial - a player is sent off for striking or a dangerous tackle, reducing the team to 17 players for a defined period. Coaches and players would soon adapt. Stacked backlines, recruitment of American-style punters, the rebirth of the torp etc etc. Most importantly, the dangerous tackle would disappear overnight on coach's instructions.

No, Balls in in my sniper sights.

Well, yes. I defaulted on the required $14.