daisycutter

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

not as simple as that it depends whether maynard had options or not. so no intent required. Duty of care is important where maynard had options (choices) as i've said before 1. he took option to smother, in a manner, where collision was inevitable 2. after failed smother with impact imminent he took option to change his stance and bump with his shoulder. he had other options neither of these 2 options are new to afl deliberations

why are you talking of malice or intent? that is already a non-issue as determined by the mro it was graded as careless. intentional is a higher classification with higher penalties now i'm really convinced you haven't done much research at all

flu? lmao, uncle. in my day it had lots of other names, but not flu, ffs

yeah sure. like attempted murder vs actual murder which attracts a higher penalty (consequences) the sticking issue here is not the impact grading but the accidental vs careless grading but i'm sure a kc or two will be able to twist that around with legalese. but i do agree the afl need to tidy their act up a lot with better processes

quite, or even just al 🤣

but you haven't given any legal reasoning except to say it will be "rules based" which says nothing in itself. if i follow the afl rules as i understand them he gets 3 weeks. no need to get all smug when you haven't really contributed anything

his real name is alexander, uncle

how come he went to melbourne grammar and can't spell his name correctly?

hey, leave mythical creatures who live in the sky out of this

a lot of commentators have said she overrode christian and that christian was not even going to make any charge. i can see that this could be deduced but there are other possible explanations too afaik no one at the afl (including christian) has actually made any statement on these claims.

he also had an option earlier when he embarked on a smother attempt, in such as a manner, where a collision was inevitabe. that's 2 options and that's why it was graded as careless

after cripps got off last year at the appeals stage the afl stated it was unhappy with the reasoning and iirc said that they would tighten up the processes to avoid a repeat of "legal mumbo jumbo" loopholes. after all the afl do set up the process parameters of the appeals board. did that ever happen?

not sure if this is still up to date Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where it 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.

when is the tribunal sitting on maynard?

just visually, last week the southern stand seating area on lvl2 seemed to have the most spare seats would these be corporate no shows?

is that for real? [censored] unbelievable i already avoid all barratt content. this only justifies my decision

after about 1 hour wait i finally got in 3 seats Q2-2 row U question for the beard. what's the -2 after Q2?

the footy gods have deserted me ... 50 mins now

how can you keep getting on and looking around when i can't even get past the queue

waiting ... waiting ... waiting... waiting zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

mate, you don't get it it's not an issue of malice or intention to the mro in this case to warrant 3 weeks it's simply whether it was accidental or careless (another word for reckless) the mro found it was careless careless - high contact - severe impact which carries 3+ weeks suspension (no option of 1 or 2 weeks) there is no issue on high contact or severe impact so it comes down to just the careless bit (whether posters think it was deliberate, intentional or malicous is just their opinion and would be hard to prove. the mro has already gone with careless so that is all that is now relevant)

maybe using different servers for port and gws given they're both interstate. i dunno, but just guessing if it's double the volume on one server it will be bedlam

i did get an sms today (still no email)

thanks, but i didn't get an email on friday from club doesn't matter now i know, just curious why no email. i usually get all emails