daisycutter

only said it was too restrictive blood streaming everywhere - sure drop of blood from small scratch - no ymmv

don't disagree just making the point that one incident (max was just one) and the whole media narrative changes but the afl media is just a dog eat dog subculture and it aint gonna change

what's fragile is the media's reporting max's set shot doesn't hit the post and the narrative is totally different they would be forensically viewing the video for a 100 different plays where carlton choked just ignore the media, they only exist for the clickbait and to mess with your senses

i don't understand why we have such a restrictive blood rule these days. the hiv days hysteria is surely passe the nrl is much bloodier, yet they don't send players off for just a drop of blood

oh, rightio

well show me the footage you are talking about

he's got to get attention somehow cos otherwise he's pretty irrelevant and ignorable

well i think the point is that it has to be pretty conclusive to overide i just can't see anything conclusive and i'm trying to be as neutral as i can

well i would just like to see any footage that conclusively shows a touch. enough to overide a hard call by all umps. i'm open-minded. just want to see the proof. the so-called proof video (shown above) provided by the mro (supposedly) is simply not conclusive. over to you

on the footage above, and watching in slo-mo and frame by frame i see no finger bending i see no ball deviation i can't therefore see any conclusive evidence to overturn all umpires decisions, who didn't even refer it to arc very surprised the press hasn't picked up on it cost the game????

given there are about 800 listed players, that is >2 journos per player astounding

as long as it's a "football act" he should be fine or a split second non-conscious decision will be fun watching the tribunal and appeal board, but

yes, but the semi finals could have been reversed such that both winners had 7 day break for pf. and collingwood's position wouldn't have changed seems unfair on gws

how come carlton get 8 days to pf but giants only get 6 days i know, i know, let's try and get a filth vs baggers gf ... [censored] afl i so hope for a giants vs lions gf

i think we can all expect a significant inrease in ticket and membership charges in the future to cover future concussion outcomes whether in monitoring, managing or litigation. 25% would not be surprising. it's either increased charges or cuts in expenditure and the latter would be unlikely.

thanks for reminding me why i hate barratt

christian and gleeson the deck was well and truly loaded

https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/funny-that-20051127-ge1bke.html

no, it was move hudson to chf

ok, right. i got flummoxed by reference to our leader

sorry for my ignorance but who is ej ej whitten? oj's brother?

yes, mcguire just confirmed that he is mcguire

they'll have to define a sub-conscious decision as equal to a conscious decision dunno how they'll manage that

i still don't understand how the umpire who reported him on the day was excluded from appearing does reporting maynard him make him biased witness or something? the tribunal despite all its lawyers however seems very distant from a real court of law i guess it's just a version of drive-in fast mc-law

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.