Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden

rollinson 65

Members
  • Posts

    1,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rollinson 65

  1. 4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

    WTF are you talking about, I even posted the Appeal decision in this thread!! 

    Not that that decision has anything to do with this one, even though you keep rabbiting on about it. You've also failed to indicate what it is from the Bedford decision might be relevant here, even though you've been asked to do so on a number of occasions.

    You have some serious issues.

    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. 

    • Vomit 2
  2. 1 minute ago, Palace Dees said:

    Ihle (Pies) has requested more straws. All of their current supply has been clutched.

    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.    

  3. 5 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

    That is exactly correct. 1000% agree. Why aren't the AFL arguing on that basis? They seem to be letting Collingwood define the argument.

    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? 

  4. 7 minutes ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

    The Pies lemmings are in full force on twitter, saying the biomechanist is 'cooking'.

    These guys are drongos. Wouldn't have read a damn thing of any educational value in any of their graceless, sad sack lives. abut  all of a sudden, an 'expert' fitting into their agenda is 'cooking'. They are all for science now (unless it concerns concussion). 

    Righto.

    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.

  5. 6 minutes ago, kev martin said:

    Are they setting up for the appeal.

    No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced. 

    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.

    • Clap 1
  6. 5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

    "I didn't see him"

    Who or what did he think was kicking the ball?

    FMD what a moron. Witness coaching gone wrong Witness 

    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. 

  7. 7 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

    Interesting that Stewie Lowe and Jason Johnson have been replaced by Darren Gaspar and Scott Stevens. Wonder how come that happened at such a late stage.

    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.

    • Like 1
  8. 3 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

    Will Angus be asked to give evidence in this case. And if so who would call him the AFL or the Pies.

    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.

  9. 7 minutes ago, IRW said:

    Pretty sure it's Robbos lack of reflective intelligence(  " reflective" may well be  contestable )

    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. 

    • Like 2
  10. 7 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

    100% Balls, Ross Lyon reckons it doesn't start the moment he's in the air, and people are recognizing that it wasn't Maynard putting his arms up that did the damage but rolling the shoulder that did, and that protecting yourself doesn't get a free hit. I am very Baptists about this, you own your actions. Even Scott was onboard with times change, talks about the work they had to do with Stewart (Fox in charge of the hen house that that may be).

    Yes, but how do we change this concussion carnage?

    Macca has suggested red and yellow cards. I am on board with that as long as it leaves the team that receives the red card with only 17 players on the field until (maybe) the siren sounds to end the quarter ??

    At long last, we are finally talking about important stuff on this thread, If you have time to read, it is being echoed on the Pies sites.

  11. 16 minutes ago, Macca said:

    Go and have a bex and a lie down old fella.  It's way past your bedtime

    You're getting yourself all worked up over subject matter that none of us here can make sense of

    It's just blah, blah, blah

    And dull and uninteresting

    At least you've toned your violent and aggressive language.  That's a step in the right direction.  You're doing well

    Think of me as your therapist.  I'm here to help

     

    Calm yourself, Macca.

    Take your meds and have a lie down. 

    Think of me as your therapist . I'm here to help with better grammar, spelling and punctuation.

  12. 5 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

    Spot on Macca.

    This "he lost control once he chose to jump" [censored] is just that.

    He was fully in control when he charged at the player with the ball, with no regard for where his momentum would take him.  When he jumped he gave away further control and care for his opponent.  That he then chose to protect himself at the expense of his opponent further demonstrates his disregard and recklessness.

    Football action my backside.

    The only football action in all this is Angus kicking the ball.  If you want to stop players doing that part, take your bat an ball and go home, because we won't have a sport.

    Hey, Balls.

    You are now officially censored. Take care to read tins entire thread (are we up to 60 pages now?) before sticking out your neck again.
      

  13. 6 minutes ago, Macca said:

    Red cards and yellow cards are in just about every other sport and those sports aren't unduly effected by the rulings

    Even if play continued whilst upstairs deliberates on a possible illegal act

    Here's a good example ...

    Does Michael Long slam into an unsuspecting Troy Simmonds if the order off rule was in operation?  I say no

    The AFL needs to take a giant leap into the 21st Century in a number of areas (goal line technology is an antiquated system for starters)

    Holy [censored], Macca. You have finally got involved in the real conversation on here. No, it's a great example and a great post from you. It would be a giant leap but the new CEO may be capable of making it. Yellow cards and red cards, Why not?

  14. 3 minutes ago, 640MD said:

    I can see.  Red cards and yellow cards will come in.

    I can also see the outcome of collisions and football incidents as being of more importance than anything else.
     

    like having a car accident driving at 5km an hour and 95 kms an hour, both accidents

    but the outcome determines the penalty.   If any

    Escaped censure, but beware.

  15. 4 minutes ago, Macca said:

    For the benefit for those who have put you on ignore, I've edited your post accordingly

    Give it a rest old boy, you've made the same point at least 20 times whilst not adding anything new

    Most would be skimming past your diatribe now. 

    And why do you speak in such a violent way?  What are you so angry about?  Are you ok? 

    You don't make any sense and you have no support.  None

     

    Grampa Simpson Meme GIF by MOODMAN

    Macca, you have been censured. Read the new Rules, dolt.

    • Facepalm 1
×
×
  • Create New...