old55

Look I think it's mainly to gaslight you - and it's working, you've never posted anything remotely positive.

Or alternatively ... He can win the ball, has a nice turn of pace, has good vision, lightning quick hands, can hit a target like Salem, a willing tackler. Probably a late 2nd or 3rd rounder.

I was scheduled to have a hip replacement operation two weeks after I went to the AFL match at Alice Springs Melbourne vs GWS - I had booked the trip when the fixture came out in December before my hip broke and was determined to go. I bought a folding chair at Alice Springs K-Mart before the match to sit on with the intention of donating it to the locals post-match. I wasn't allowed to bring it into the venue. I was going to be forced to stand all match, in the freezing rain, until I insisted that it was unacceptable and the officials provided me with a plastic chair to sit on. We lost. But overall, despite the trials and tribulations, it was a very memorable and worthwhile experience.

I think at least Ratugolea is worth a 2nd rounder. Agree Sweet is not going to be an expensive trade. Port currently have 37, 43, 72 and 90 and they do have to make some picks. That set is not going to get it done. Yes, they can use their 2024 first to get some collateral.

Ratugolea, Zerk-Thatcher and Sweet all to Port and no 2023 first rounder, going to be a challenge. I wonder if as rumoured we are interested in Xavier Duursma that we could shake him loose to provide Port with trade collateral - OOC end of 2024.

As it should be, but the AFL is not fixing the match results.

So for a percentage of incremental merchandise sales the AFL is going to engineer a Carlton-Collingwood GF? OK, all I can say is it must be hard going if that's your model of reality.

Seriously? Who would you have had Grundy in for in the QF. As it turned out we lost a key mid in Brayshaw early and his replacement Laurie was unable to fill the breach. It would have been even worse if Grundy was the sub. And if he'd been in the 22 that would have further hindered our run - Max carried the ruck just fine. Grundy is a consideration this week for JVR. But would have hurt more than helped last week.

Nice tin foil hat Clint. Whether Carlton or Melbourne win the PF in Brisbane and the GF will be sell outs. There's no extra revenue in a Carlton flag.

I think Timmy said his dad and his uncle had been very busy because they to go around to Mr.Gleeson's place and show him how to light the fire in case it was needed. They had to stop at the petrol station on the way. Mr. Gleeson told them the fire wouldn't be needed.

I have a bequest of $5,000,000 ready for them to collect if they only provide their bank details and login ...

I've been following football for over 60 years, Tony. I can't ever recall a "smother" where this has happened, can anyone else? 60 seasons, more than 10,000 matches, more than 1 million minutes of football. It really is a freak accident or something else ...

Agree Sue, that is ample time. A cricket fast bowler can bowl at 150km/hr that's more than 40m/sec. The cricket pitch is half that long so the ball travels the distance in less than half a second and expert athletes are able to play the ball. Even most tail enders can.

Agree and we need extra class at ground level. Reid would be great but it might need to be Watson with our picks.

Max said himself on Gus and Gawny that he won't make 250 games. There's an understudy role there but not for a 29yo like Grundy.

McRae, Moore, Pendlebury, Sidebottom, Quaynor, the Daicos brothers - I was almost starting to warm to Collingwood - but the whole Thursday night experience snapped me back to reality.

I like your thinking. Will he ever be able to bench press 150kg like Jack?

I'll happily vouch for the fact that you've been posting rubbish in both places for the best part of 20 years and it's time you were called on it.

You typed your reply as an addendum to my post. You're way out of your depth.

The AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law - your continued insistence that the rules of law courts apply is erroneous. It has its own documented processes and procedures: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf Page 10 "Careless conduct A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence. An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness." Maynard breached his duty of care to Brayshaw.

It's unsurprising that you are Maynard's greatest advocate since it seems you see the solution to all issues through the prism of violence. You're probably suffering from PTSD from a lifetime of associating with career criminals through your legal practice. Seek help before it's too late.

Just to be absolutely clear - the AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law. There's a specific AFL document that sets out its conduct: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf On P.18 in examples of reportable offences, the Maynard charge of Rough Conduct: Careless Conduct, Severe Impact, High Contact the example is Patrick Dangerfield on Jake Kelly E1 2021: Remarkably similar to the Maynard on Brayshaw incident.

I think it's very likely we're working behind the scenes to promote with the AFL that head contact is out of the question and that Maynard should get his just desserts. It would be pretty hypocritical to challenge JVR's suspension at the same time

We eventually got what we wanted in Level 4 behind the PRE goals. Against Collingwood we had Row A but the metal bar obscures the view. The system kept trying to give us A again in all the Bays I tried until I guess some tickets sold. We're in B which should be better.

I feel your pain Katrina, but the nickname is an insult to innocent dogs.