daisycutter

just an interesting aside --- maynard was found not guilty because his action was instinctive and not conscious because of the small time interval. so sub-conscious not conscious and therefore accidental not careless. now if we take van rooyen's case. no-one was claiming it was intentional, so it was either conscious or sub-conscious. now it all happened in sub-second time and his opponent was changing direction. so how could it have been conscious? this is all so very confusing. of course, i'm not say van rooyen should not have been suspended but on the maynard logic could it not be argued as accidental.

apart from missing the appeal deadline, has the afl actually made any comment at all re last might's decision? or is it just going to ignore the elepant in the room and retreat to the quiet corner? just heard on radio. afl has declared it will not make an appeal and will make a statement later in the day so we wait for a lot of weasel words prepared by their pr dept. will be nothing to see here.

i suspect they weren't trying too hard, macca

i actually thought, being collingwood, it was more likely to be legitimate 🤣

if he gets off all the kids will be out this weekend practicing a "maynard"

in the appeal, the afl will have to get their own paid biomechanist to tear theirs to pieces they have shown their hand to early

biochemist has obviously never seen a frisbee ffs

i know the live blog is not showing every word ... but the afl counsel is coming across as very timid

Maynard: I just sort of flinched and tensed up. I thought, 'Aww [censored] i'm going to miss him, damn.'

so, what do we know about woods and ihle? @redleg

to be pedantic, they use the term careless, rather than reckless

if dangermouse is still their spokesperson (whatever) they will stay quiet. he has already come out and said it was accidental (footy action), nothing to see here. why an aflpa spokesperson would make a statement like that before a hearing is very poor judgement

he wasn't knocked out by a smother ffs he was knocked out by a bump, you know, what the afl has come down on. duh. you're a moron, brown

yeah chook, good idea to keep away from earth and other people's brains stick with demonland

in the hun this morning robbo defined it as a "pure" footy action, yes, pure! the guy is a compromised imbecile ... as if we didn't always know that how someone like him can be the chief football writer at the paper always amazes me

yeah, but only from the thugs

depends on what outcome the afl really want. that might decide who they chose to hire for the job. yeah, i don't trust the afl who are more interested in optics

yes, it got explained on fc tonight in so much detail it couldn't have been guesswork gill, dill, and laura forced it, though whether their motives were pure or just optics was unclear what a hopeless, compromised lot.

it's a bit inconclusive. more bent in and touched foreheads. not a real butt you could see he wanted to though

a simple solution would be to ask you for your membership club before waiting in the queue. it's not hard

i know and it is so frustrating but i'm old fashioned and just like a bit of truth, transparency and honesty, especially from the custodians of our game i live in despondent hope

red, i agree about christian's days are long overdue, but i would still like to see some corroboration that christian wanted no charge. the fact that the afl has not put out a clarification statement in light of the various media claims, does seem to indicate it might be true. but. such a devious cesspit, the afl

not denying your "facts" red, but here is the afl statement. doesn't this mean christian did grade and refer it to the tribunal. can you explain the contradiction?

yes, i have little faith in what the afl is plotting behind closed doors reminds me of how they closed out the hawthorn race report. lots of lawyers then too but hey, what would we do without lawyers? especially pet ones.

i really, really hope it is not as cynical as that but i've seen the afl do worse