BigBadBustling

Don't forget the Newman debacle

Even an unreasonable handball receive would get him 2.

Haven't we paid the 2 weeks we owed? Or is there interest on top of that?

Good to see the umpire that paid holding the ball on TMac instead of the dangerous tackle has been punished. Yep, sure enough, he's been given our game again this week.

Love your work!

That won't be necessary. In Supercoach I've brought in Serong. He's getting the V, or might even go straight up C, just to really screw him. He'll be lucky to walk off the park in one piece the way I'm going.

Surely goes to the Tigers as the Dusty replacement?

Used to have a heart attack when Frosty got the pill, was very hard on the nerves. But now my eyes light up, come on Frosty, no fear, go for it. 🤣 Love him though, we should have a Favourite Frosty Memory thread. I'll start, the run down tackle on WCE speedster Petrucelle. That was awesome!

Desperate bid to justify upholding the ban going on here

He's being penalised for the AFL allowing the Fogarty spoil the week before

Well it's not actually in the rules, so precedent or not, any player could be rubbed out at any time, for anything

Agreed, she was soooo yesterday!

To me that was the biggest 'error in law' in the whole proceeding. Can't believe it wasn't raised.

Does anyone know if the David King 55% stat on JVR includes that high ball forward on the weekend? You know the one that landed on a Sun in the pock.... Oh, ahhh, never mind.

No, just crack I think

Exactly. This [censored] used the words 'the rules explicitly require a duty of care'. Oh really. Which exact rules are these?

Do we know if Michael Christian's been sacked by the AFL for the incorrect charge against Nic Newman, allowing him to walk from a striking charge? Yes. Tongue is in cheek....

Unfortunately though, the AFL slipped us B1 last night, so let's just hope that B2 isn't available Thursday night and they have to free Rooey.

I do. It was Jack Viney 2014

But this is actually where the AFL argument massively fails. They're admitting it was an attempted spoil, so the whole thing should be thrown at, as he's been charged with striking. It isn't striking if it's spoiling.

And fortunately, that bolded part does not appear in the rules of the game. Must be appealed.

I knew the semantics thing was a stitch up. The panel was told how to interpret a rule, when they should only ever be told to apply a rule. They cannot do that, it needs to be appealed.

Is it April 1st again?

Yeah that worries me. Sounds like a stitch up to me.

Updates seem to have eased off. Are they deliberating now?