daisycutter

was on the hf boundary, top rhs of screen last qtr not sure what you mean by "behind the goals"

surprised i haven't seen much in the media about the mark paid to port in last qtr resulting in a goal it had to be a metre over the line with plenty of umps having good vision of it maybe there was a bit of media comment but i've not found any

ah, dbj ... now there's a perfect scapegoat, can always be relied on to stuff something up every game

"lucky" handball? it was the most impressive handball of the game and very deliberate ... watch the replay

and more importantly when you are relaxed and totally unaware his action was the very such sneaky action the afl should want to eliminate should've been 1 week

and broadway productions ... toss in hollywood too

what makes it worse is that it was off the ball, there was no scrapping, just clarry standing there relaxed and he comes in from behind and hits him with clarry never seeing a thing . no heat of the moment thing.

i'd give him another week (good break till next game) then re-evaluate if a period at casey necessary

don't you mean a Scheißkerl? 😎

looked better than ok liked that play with the long handball over the top to fritta for a goal

he'll get a fine

foul breath, uncle ... fouled out in first qtr

i breathed on a guy whilst playing bball and got fouled

computer says: "next question"

gosch's is also pretty open the hangar doesn't look very enclosed either same with arden street at least most of the old suburban grounds had brick walls around them until they pulled them down for community use reasons

so if he'd continued with marking attempt and smashed his head with his knees and showed no duty of care, he would have escaped suspension rightio

but nrl is 90% contact. same with thugby ... no contact, no nrl, no thugby nrl has banned the shoulder charge but still get multiple concussion checks per game a bit off topic but what about striking the ball with your head in soccer. thousands of hits over some players careers

someone would want him. just never get much in these circumstances.

boxing and wrestling will be in big trouble then anyone for non contact nrl?

quite probable ... and gleeson is the wild card (in that he doesn't always follow the afl line)

in that last split second he was where he was purely because of a legitimate attempt to mark to mark the ball. to then claim he was a non contester is really getting over technical. there is also a duty of care on both players. greene himself was in a very vulnerable position being already legitimately air borne. anyway, let's agree to disagree

so, ok, no official grade below careless (for a charge to be made) however that is what maynard achieved. it being regarded as a "football action" i guess the real grade below careless then, is a no-charge so to reword my original, greene's defence could argue it wasn't careless and therefore no-charge at all. by deeming it accidental or a football act. wonder if gleeson will allow a bio-mechanics expert to give evidence on greene's mid air split second choices?

maynard was completely different. maynard hit well after gus had disposed of the ball. it was not during a football action as well as other considerations

by "accidental" i meant the grade below careless ... whatever it is called now yes, i know this case was graded careless ... just posing the question of whether it really was