daisycutter

he wasn't knocked out by a smother ffs he was knocked out by a bump, you know, what the afl has come down on. duh. you're a moron, brown

yeah chook, good idea to keep away from earth and other people's brains stick with demonland

in the hun this morning robbo defined it as a "pure" footy action, yes, pure! the guy is a compromised imbecile ... as if we didn't always know that how someone like him can be the chief football writer at the paper always amazes me

yeah, but only from the thugs

depends on what outcome the afl really want. that might decide who they chose to hire for the job. yeah, i don't trust the afl who are more interested in optics

yes, it got explained on fc tonight in so much detail it couldn't have been guesswork gill, dill, and laura forced it, though whether their motives were pure or just optics was unclear what a hopeless, compromised lot.

it's a bit inconclusive. more bent in and touched foreheads. not a real butt you could see he wanted to though

a simple solution would be to ask you for your membership club before waiting in the queue. it's not hard

i know and it is so frustrating but i'm old fashioned and just like a bit of truth, transparency and honesty, especially from the custodians of our game i live in despondent hope

red, i agree about christian's days are long overdue, but i would still like to see some corroboration that christian wanted no charge. the fact that the afl has not put out a clarification statement in light of the various media claims, does seem to indicate it might be true. but. such a devious cesspit, the afl

not denying your "facts" red, but here is the afl statement. doesn't this mean christian did grade and refer it to the tribunal. can you explain the contradiction?

yes, i have little faith in what the afl is plotting behind closed doors reminds me of how they closed out the hawthorn race report. lots of lawyers then too but hey, what would we do without lawyers? especially pet ones.

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?