daisycutter

every little drop counts 64,253

maybe he's just wearing his cloak of invisibility.

no, more confused than ever seems to be most accurate

what's so interesting that you got the urge to post about it know something we don't?

i can agree with you layzie but i think it just layzie (pi 😂) that commentators make up these silly definitions to define much more complicated and nuanced situations. regarding the "feet off the ground" judgement i could equally proffer the argument that if the front foot is planted it could increase the impact as it acts as an anchor to leverage higher force. the implication of feet off the ground i think is supposed to imply more chance of hitting the head but this would only be true depending on whether the legs are straight or bent and the angle at which you make contact. the issue though is simple. you either hit the head or you don't (regardless of where your feet are) anyway, if the mro have an agenda they will use any argument to justify any decision they can the shoulder bump is dead (even if it still lives in the instincts of many), thanks byron 😂

the feet leaving the ground is just as stupid as the eyes on the ball myth watch someone running in slomo and most of the time it's no feet on the ground now, significantly elevating yourself and actually jumping is diiferent and can be dangerous especially in a bump. my point is leaving the ground is not the same as jumping yet people don't seem to see the difference

now we just need someone with photoshop skills to do a 50:50 photo of you and wcw just for the clicks. would go viral.

yeah uncle, reminds me of the half-woman, half-man at the showground sideshows.

hardly off his feet, just because at the time of impact neither foot was grounded doesn't mean he jumped. his feet were only a few inches off the ground which is quite normal when moving. regardless of his feet he's gorn big time. hit high, concussed player, game over, 3 or even more weeks. not even ex-filth player christian can spin him out of this one

fixed it for ya new afl updated classifcation

and i'm pretty sure that when the club (or other clubs) did, they didn't count in published membership totals

maybe we should all come back in 2 years' time and compare notes - lol

of course, if they didn't inform them of the accusations i would agree it's not procedural fairness. however, they might claim they just flicked those procedures (wrt the accused) to the afl integrity unit when they realised they were out of their depth and competence. but what are these "recommendations based on the findings" you talk about? also what are these "findings" you claim the hfc reached. I understood they made no findings (other than they had a problem)

i think dill's problem with the dorks is he is mad that they took on a process without predicting the outcome, hence tarnishing the afl, which is something he'd never do. it's the old "never ask a question if you don't know the answer" or can't keep it in-house.

except it's not so simple. the 3 accused no longer worked for the hfc so they had no hold over them. the 3 accused would have no obligation to give their side of the story to a private club review. i can well imagine what a lawyer would advise them. it's understandable given the serious accusations that hfc did not have the expertise to handle them and handballed to the afl who have a special integrity department on which the clubs rely. the afl was stupid enough to take it on board directly when they should have advised the accusations should be taken to the hrc or worksafe or somewhere else more applicable to a legal process.

well uncle. they were crafty words emanating from gill the teflon dill .... need i say anymore? he could have easily said no adverse or non-adverse findings were made

correct

i'd love to get the carpet cleaning contract at afl house. would keep me gainfully employed for decades

drip, drip. 64K mark passed 64,036

for an investigation that completed before it really started, i'd be curious what the combined legal fees (for all parties - afl, hfc, complainants and accused) added up to over the 8 months. It must be multiple millions. and all for what, so far? and how many more for any follow on actions? just really curious.

egg/chicken horse/cart you just don't know rjay, so you'd be best served keeping your opinions to yourself

will be interesting to see how hawthorn fare in the money grant issue, especially given their current on-the-nose situation

yes, od. sadly i feel obliged to switch to what you have been saying for a long time i had previously held a lot of optimism, and thought the glass was at least half full now .......?

good luck now trying to get gov money for a complete expensive new development time for a plan b?

correct. people get this wrong repeatedly we were never offered olympic park what was on offer was the glasshouse and gosch's paddock