Redleg

They have their best 3 in Cripps, Walsh and Cerra. Our midfield depth is nothing to write home about anyway.

Odds on Cripps first goal or Cripps pass to a forward for first goal?

Last week and Dogs games were pretty big:

TBH I would have thought our season decline would have driven you to harder stuff. There are some cheap brandy’s on the shelf at squire Murphys store. We are in the last chance saloon and need to keep winning from now on, or it’s closing time.

Not necessarily. We could still end up at the SCG if Swans gain a couple of %.

Well if they do I hope it’s by a few points. You do realise that if we win our two and Sydney do as well and they increase their % by a couple of %, we will play our QF at the SCG.

Results have not gone our way at all, the last 6 or so weeks, including our own. Lions have 3 tall key forwards for the big marks and then 3 small forwards, who can also take a good mark and have pace. All 6 are reasonably good kicks for goal. We have one tall key forward, one good medium, and the rest are not good marks and except for Kozzie, aren’t quick.They are also laying no tackles inside 50 and applying negligible pressure. It is vastly different to last year. Hopefully we can get the last two wins and then regain the bye week before the finals.

Turning out to be a good year for us. Jacko, going most likely, Yze possibly and media urging Bombers to get Choco.

Comes from hanging around the opposition supporters of last week and this week. BTW do you drink straight from the nozzle, or does the maid hold it above your mouth and turn the spigot on?

Do they have corks in the cask?

Pretty quiet around here again today. No news to discuss?

How many teams have gone well in the finals with just one tall key forward?

The external Appeals Board, like the Tribunal, like the MRO, are all on the AFL payroll.

I will tell you what I am really angry about, playing the Cats at Geelong, 28 times in the last 30 years, while Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Collingwood and probably Hawthorn, haven’t seen the place. I won’t even touch on the fact that Cats played Roos and Eagles twice this year and finished the season hardly leaving their home ground. I agree with Jaded No More, if Dees weren’t around, I wouldn’t watch footy anymore. It’s so far off a level playing field it’s not sport anymore, just another business, with all the dirty things that go with big business.

It’s not his fault he got off. He shouldn’t be booed, he and his team should just be well beaten.

Well there is not many others. In legal contest, injury is accident. Therefore it has be a contest for the ball and not an election to bump.

I said the same at the time, even if we lost.

I am not the only lawyer on DL and would be interested to read others views. To me it appears to be a highly technical ruling by the Appeals Board, based upon words used by the Tribunal Chairman. As I wrote before the decision, the fact that Gleeson said he was found guilty of contesting in an unsafe manner, when he would absolutely know, the word bump was the basis of the suspension and the rule, is mind boggling from such an experienced AFL advocate and Tribunal Chairman. If it was just a contest then he gets off. But he jumped off the ground, didn’t try and grab the ball and bumped the player in the head ,causing concussion. The Appeals Board has criticised his word use and said it was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. It now puts other penalties into question. Just argue every bump is a contest because the ball is nearby and you braced at last second.

But with Barry they said it was in play, as the ball was only 100 metres away. In the Moloney hearing, it was decided that running towards a player and then avoiding him was dangerous, as the victim could think someone on a football field might contact him.

New tactics this week, bomb long into the left forward picket( to an out numbered sole tall key forward with all small forwards to stand 20-30 metres away and at all costs, ignore any leading forward, or one who has made space.

You forgot “the vibe”.

Then they had to find him innocent. So should Paddy Ryder have got two weeks, for standing still while someone ran into him? Should Chandler have got two weeks for a legal tackle, where a player was unfortunately concussed? Anyway have a good night everyone, I am off to dream about our flag.

And here is where the rat walked into the room. "There's no basis in the open hearing for the Tribunal's determination that Cripps' conduct was a bump, especially in light of the Tribunal's declaration this was a genuine contest.

That's how our year has gone Daz. We should be on top having beaten Swans, Dogs and Pies and not giving a rat's about Cripps and the Blues. Our kicking for goals has been a disgrace and that is why we are where we are. I have one question, why did the Tribunal Chairman Jeff Gleeson, an extremely experienced and competent Sports advocate, say that Cripps was contesting not bumping? As I said in an earlier post, this stinks to high heaven, as it has led to the successful appeal. Why did he say that? If he said it was a bump, it was all over. I said I smelt a rat. The AFL can now say we tried to protect the head, we suspended him, the Tribunal agreed, but the Appeals Board saw it differently. The star plays, the crowds come, the media salivates and the Brownlow has another live runner. IMO Gil can't leave quick enough.

The Carlton QC probably did it for free, as he is on their Board.