rpfc

Well, I for many, would like him to stay. You don't shed good players if you want to be a good club. It is a shame he is carrying a toe injury, he is 6 weeks into learning a new position; the results are mixed but there is promise. I hope he can shake it off over the bye.

And make those new players earn it.

So: Tyson and 53 for pick 22 and 73? That's a good deal...

That's legal speak. If you have an appeals function in any court - to use that appeals system you are essentially saying 'I want a second opinion, as that one sucked.' Nothing personal to the three amigos...

Some won't be able to shed that state of mind until the 13th arrives...

Is he implicitly saying that any decision that gets an appeal upheld is a reason for the initial decision makers to resign? He is too dim to understand 'an appeals process' - a foundation institution in any legal environment in any democracy. You know, the ability to challenge an adjudication...

Well, I made a snap decision yesterday to spend $300 and fly down after footy to watch the Dees play. I was angry about the decision and I directed towards my savings... Now I am not angry but I will still be there. Going to be a good night of football after the BCNA event - I hope we can show something on the Saturday night stage.

If Fyfe is gettable I would be going there. We have the cap space to land him or someone of his ilk. They will ask for Hogan but we will have a top 5 pick to give.

All interesting names. I still want some mids to compete with the kids we have, someone to help Cross shoulder some burden, a small forward would be a nice luxury item, and a possible replacement for Frawley of course. Hogan and Trengove will be two good acquisitions for 2015...

He would hate that a player directly had a go at his POV. So I am happy.

I don't think we have reached the borders of Buckland yet... And Paul Roos?

Can you let us know if he replied to him? He is a bum sniffer of the highest order so he would give some laughable answer to a Geelong player like AC.

Elon Musk is a real life comic book hero. With a villains name...

How would have Lynch's jaw been in line with the shoulder of Viney if Lynch wasn't being tackled by Georgiou and Jack had the ball? The ball landing in his lap and then him being brought down by Georgiou allowed Viney's brace (or bump) to break his jaw.

Could we have? And I am glad that the appeal touched on what Jack's allowed to do near the ball as opposed to what he could have done near a player. The bounce of the ball is the reason a young man has a broken jaw.

I don't think we are quite out of the woods yet. It's a middle earth like struggle and we have had a few wins to start our journey. The curse will be lifted but with a statement even bigger than the last week. What will it be I wonder?

lol No, I don't think they will publish it. Maybe the Appeals Board...

Different rules for different players - that's life and footy.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. This is from the rule book. He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it. Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame. If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks. Don't blame the law. *put the above in the training thread for some stupid reason...

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. This is from the rule book. He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it. Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame. If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks. Don't blame the law.

The result may not be terrible, but that first half was pretty terrible.

That is a blatant call to those below to reverse the decision.

His nickname is The Purple Headed Warrior! Couldn't be more appropriate.

That was a good bunch of tweets, and Mark Robinson's were spot on too...

Give it a rest. You are just looking for gawkers and knashed teeth. Do something better with your time. Oh, and 'he will learn?' Learn what exactly? If you said to him or Roos that 'he will learn' they would look at you like you just ate a live cockatoo.