AshleyH30

Look. Personally, I never thought we would get him, but it has been a fun ride. For those potting people that have posted rumors of what they have heard, all I'll say is that the interview with the manager yesterday does give weight to what some have posted. We have most likely gone very hard for Humphrey and it is Gold Coast that have not been willing to budge. Otherwise, the manager would have come out last week after Gold Coast to reiterate what they had said, but instead he sounded exasperated in the interview yesterday that he couldn't get his client home.

Honestly, I've never understood some of the vitriolic criticism some people post about other people posting about things they've "heard". I've always taken everything posted here with a grain of salt. If we get Humphrey, then great, if we don't, I hope we try to get best possible trade we can.

Roo could be in trouble there.

IMHO if we were to trade up for Harley Reid, we would be more willing to let both JJ and Harmes go. I'm not saying Harley would be a walk up start in the 22, but he would very quickly get ahead of those blokes. Losing JJ, Harmes, and Grundy could help us facilitate a few pick swaps to move up the board.

The fact that the club hasn't announced anything yet suggests that the hamstring is still being assessed for the best rehab treatment and they aren't sure how many weeks it'll be yet.

I imagine it had to do with the Appeals Board reviewing the rulebook in its entirety to see if there was a rule anywhere that could override rule 18.5 for the Tribunal to have come to the outcome it did. Once it was determined that there wasn't, the finding was clear. Unlike us, Lawyers, Barristers and Judges understand the importance of reading all the Terms and Conditions because sometimes there can be a condition that overrides another.

Exactly what we've been saying. It won't stop with the spoil.

I doubt we wouldn't appeal after what Goodwin said this morning. He would have been told what to say when the question was asked and he was adamant that Jacob would be playing this weekend and he wasn't considering any other option.

I was surprised at the people having a go at Anderson last night after the failed appeal. I found his argument to be on point and showed that the contest was within the rules of the game. It was Gleeson who managed to somehow pull an argument "out of somewhere not so bright" to get the outcome we got. This is why everyone in the community is so flabbergasted by the result.

"However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head." With Gleeson stating that they deemed the spoil a "football action" and to then follow up with the above statement could open a can of worms for the AFL. It won't happen tomorrow, but with this statement, the Tribunal have basically said that any football action that results in a hit to the head must be cited. That means that if you go for a speccy and knee a player in the head, you'll be liable. If you attempt to tackle you must foresee that your attempt may hit the player in the head when they drop their knees. Any football action can now be a reportable offence under this finding. I can't see how we don't appeal on that alone.

There appears to be a strong media element this morning pushing for us to appeal. Even Robbo mentioned we should in his Tackle.

Just mentions us having Freo's first and second round pick. Nothing new or exciting.

All I can say is I would hate to be a selector at Melbourne this year.