daisycutter

"Then the LORD Vlad made an MRP from the rib he had taken out of the player, and he brought it to bear on the player" Here endeth the lesson, amen

now you mortally wound me....i think i'll slit my wrists

what about accidental versus negligent??? and I don't even look or sound like rpfc....hmmmph

I won't be. He is innocent. Full Stop. For Gods sake WYL stop [censored] footing about. An innocent verdict will actually be good for the AFL because they can then redraft this rule so that it is more sensible and understandable and enforceable

onya tricky....you're a gentleman

21 to 9 in favour of shafting us pessimistic bunch of pricks good luck Jack, we all know you are not a thug and this blight on your character will be lifted

"Premium Members (Legends, Trident and Redlegs) can purchase up to 10 guest passes per match for family and friends to sit in designated guest bays P10 – P12 for Melbourne home games at the MCG." Not much good for him as he is not a Premium Member. Unless a premium member reading here would like to do mousey a favour and book on his behalf?

we're talking about the players here, not the supporters B)

Won't be two weeks because that was what he originally could have settled for so it will be not guilty or reprimand or 1 week or no change

No no, it was genuine. Truly

AFL players to get EFF'd Adrian McCarthey Anderson today announced new rules for rough conduct meaning player tackles will now be rated for Excessive Force Factor (or EFF). Umpires will now judge the EFF out of all player tackles and those with an EFF of 75% or more will be deemed as rough play and a free kick given against the tackler. The player will also be reported. The umpire will call "you have been EFF'd" and indicate the offence by raising 2 fingers in the air. The new Effing rule will apply from Round 8 2011. He said that the AFL had a duty of care to eradicate rough play from the game and offenders will get EFF'ed

If you break down the "process" you have Intent - accidental, negligent, reckless etc Contact - low, medium, high Impact - none, low, medium, high JT was deemed negligent,high,high According to strict wording of appendix 1 contact is "high" (despite the tackle being below shoulders) Impact again by definition was high because he got concussion This leaves intent as the only aspect that is technically arguable If they can prove accidental then the other aspects are mute and he gets off totally I think that this has to be the main argument of the appeal (unless they are allowed to discuss fairness of the rule wording, specifically appendix 1)

it will be tough as he is not prone to concussion

It seems to me the trigger for this charge is the wording of the relevant clause in Appendix 1. Further, it seems this clause is very loosely worded and open to a very wide interpretation If the appeals committee are bound to just follow the letter of the rule then JT seems to be in trouble whether the rule wording is fair or not fair, meaning JT could be held guilty purely on a technicality and the appeals committee's hands are tied My question is does the appeals committee have the power to assess the "fairness" or degree of "natural justice" in this case both with regard to the innocent/guilty aspect plus the severity of sentence aspect? Do they have the power to question the "legality" of the actual rule as it stands and recommend its rewriting? If they don't then does this beg further appeals to civil courts? Just wondering....

Billy Connolly discusses Adrian Anderson's favourite pastime

I wonder if the umpire(s) who failed to even award a free kick will be stood down this week? If the umpires can't judge excessive force and high contact how is the player expected to moderate his action Consistency please AFL Rhetorical question, we all know the answer but it does raise the issue of just who understands the (new) rules.

Exactly. Much as I'd like to see Campbell out on the park, he is at least a few weeks off being ready

Ваше пребывание в ГУЛАГе ты товарищ?

Can we now expect players who are tackled to the ground deliberately drive their own heads into the turf in order to get a free kick?? Could be a new trick for Selwood, plus he's got a hard nut too

Ja, ich stimme

Thanks for info Ralph

take notes....we'll be interested in your summary i expect anderson will be anderson (if you get my drift)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing on this point this thread is starting to spin its wheels

or to take out an injunction.......

or for that matter Nicholson