rollinson 65

You have been censured, mate. The point is that this is now in the hands of the lawyers. Your opinion and mine count for naught.

Nah, Macca, been more agreeably engaged. I have purchased this thread from Demonland. It cost me $14. As the new owner of this thread, here are the Rules: One. Anyone who disagrees with me once receives a censure. Two. Anyone who disagrees with me twice, will be executed. Three. Anyone who disagrees with me three times, will be tortured before execution. Four, Anyone who disagrees with me more than three times will be dug up out of their grave and drawn and quartered before reburial in 4 different States. Seriously, who cares about Maynard? He will get off IMO. Should we not be turning our attention to our next game against the Baggers? I have a love/hate relationship with this thread. It has reminded me of the cut and thrust on Demanology all those years ago. So many memories, so many grudges to be carried to the grave. The last post on this thread now belongs to me. Bring it on !!

I don't know where any of you people live and the Benalla Bikies are very wimpy old guys. I have been insulted and abused on this thread for trying to make you understand the legal process by which Player Maynard will be acquitted. Somebody has even suggested that I am a Pies troll !! Shall this be tolerated? It shall not.

I thought Demonology got wrecked by others, leaving us no choice but to come over to try to improve demonland. I think you people have succeeded without much help from me. On this thread, my only intention has been to prepare us all for disappointment about Player Maynard.

This thread is becoming really weird again. We are critical of Player Maynard for alleged violence on the field but we are hoping for violence in response off the field? Let's get a grip. Forget about Maynard. Let's have some intelligent discussion about contact sport versus concussion. What is the answer?

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago. Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower?

Sigh again./ football act No, it is an Appeal "as of right". The grounds must be presented, sure, but not to justify the lodging of the Appeal itself. The Senior Counsel preparing the grounds will have plenty of time. My best guess is that the Filth will go simple. Fractions of sections/ football act/ look at Bedford. ordi

I am sure the Mods can explain the simple procedure for you. :)

Sorry, but it is as simple as that. Read the Bedford decision FCS.

Just read the Bedford decision. Please.

Not the point, mate. Read the decision and the reasoning. If necessary, get your lawyer to explain it to you.

Don't give a [censored] about Maynard, mate. Let's not shirk the major question. Contact sport versus concussion. Give us an opinion.

Read the Toby Bedford decision.

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision. Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO. Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Sounds like we agree about Pell. The prosecution was doomed by the death of the the crucial witness. The third arm will save us. God, as usual, is just amused.

Good point, Sue. But we cannot affect how the lawyers at the Tribunal (or on Appeal) will interpret the real-time footage. Sure, we can be critical or even disgusted, but those lawyers will be objectively looking at the real-time footage. I have looked at it many times, and I honestly cannot see Player Maynard not being acquitted. The MRO saw this and did not cite Player Maynard. That will be a telling factor if it goes to an Appeal.

I have a few gift cards form the guys for past favours. :) I am feed up with the cheap shots, mate. Make your points, people, but do not question my passion for the Dees or my sadness for Gus. I will have the final post on this thread. (Could be an apology).

No, Sue. I am trying to get us to forget about this one incident (where we can't affect the outcome) and move on to a discussion about what the AFL can do about the issue of contact sport versus concussion. As I have said previously, I can't think of any new Rule that can address this conundrum.

Entirely possible, Dice. :)

Sorry not to be clear, Dais. In previous posts, I tried to say the lawyers (Tribunal or on Appeal) will be looking at the real-time footage. Fractions of seconds. To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions on that real-time footage is IMO impossible. On previous threads, I have tried to explain a little about how lawyers think. I apologise if this came across as smug. It was not my intention. If a poster who is an expert bricklayer or accountant gives an opinion on here on matters of expertise, I would not question it. But it seems us lawyers are fair game. Also, another lawyer on here has questioned my analysis, so I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Player Maynard will get off IMO at the Tribunal or on Appeal. Have a close look at the Toby Bedford case. There are parallels in the legal reasoning.

Another great post, if I may so so. These are starting to appear on the Pies fan sites as well. Let's all talk about how we can move forward. All I have heard on this board so far is a new consequences-based Rule, which goes against ingrained notions of reason, justice and fairness. Together, we may come up with some solution. Kane has inherited a really difficult problem and I wish her well. If she comes up with a solution that pleases nobody, she will have done well IMO.

Great post if I may say so as the sole remaining Member of the Opposition. Forgetting Player Maynard, it is all about where we can go from here. Contact sport versus concussion reality.

Not nearly enough on this forum, mate. I will keep explaining the legal reality to you people until I am proved wrong or until you all admit that passionate support for our Dees has carried you away. The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive. :)