daisycutter

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.

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