daisycutter

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

and worse, gus missing most of the game could have cost us the the game, the chance of a prelim final, 2 weeks off to prepare and possibility of a premiership. in fact you could put up a good argument for the opposite, that a suspension in a final should be penalised more severely (not that i am advocating that). the suggestion of the op is ludicrous.

there is absolutely no provision in the rules of the game to allow for this same in all sports

and one other thing maynard attempted a smother where contact was inevitable. this was his choice and is the primary reason why he cannot claim accidental. there are other reasons in this case too, but he started out on a course of action including contact his supporters claim he plays on the edge as if this is some sort of get out of jail card ... weird logic i think we all know he belongs to the old make them earn it club and be damned with any duty of care.

funny thing ... tackling is a "footy action" get it wrong unintentionally and hit high with severe impact and guess what ... get a suspension, footy action or not. we all remember jack trengove's tackle , right? this undefined term "footy action" is a furphy. you won't find it anywhere in the afl rules of the game or any other official afl documentation. plenty of players get rubbed out attempting footy actions that they get wrong the afl changed the rules re head high contact and duty of care. get a bump high and you can't claim accidental. it's at the very least careless (which is the mro's ruling here).

even the thugby boys would give a heavy suspension for that

so they bypassed the ex collingwood mro officer ... good tribunal will uphold as it is afl dominated and they are scared [censored] of concussion litigation then will go to appeal and all the kings men

yeah thanks. thought of that and printing i don't see why they just don't download them to mfc to mfc app like during the season. they know my barcodes are the same all season.

i've got the smss with the link back to ticketek but no option to load anywhere to the phone i've got three tickets, so i've just opened all three links as separate tabs on the browser which i'll just leave open is there a better way if you are managing multiple tickets?

yeah, yeah ... and whoever loses, the fans will blame the weather (and the umpiring). the meja will just go with whatever is the most controversial and click bait worthy. i'm looking forward to a filth meltdown.

well if you can remember back to the kb game you may find reason to be optimistic

they just don't have the vibe. red bit like the whole of the afl