sue

So those down-voters are doing a thumbs-down to AFL policy on duty of care. Great thinking. Argue he took as much care as he could etc, but saying that just shows you are a partisan [censored].

In his mind he did smother the ball which bounced up and knocked Gus out.

Yes. What footballer would use those words without coaching and following the company line.

Quite diffferent. They were contesting the ball. May still be worth a penalty but nothing like the present case.

"A professor giving written evidence is not available until 5pm to answer questions via a video call. Jeff Gleeson notes the evidence includes reference to Galileo and Isaac Newton." Forget those old physicists. The real clinching evidence will come from references to Albert Einstein. It's all relativity. The decision of the Tribunal will reflect the relative importance of C'wood to the AFL.

Don't expect anything from the AFLPA.

To deny that Brayshaw's loss was an element in why we lost is foolish. Arguably it was a major element given the closeness of the result. With him in the team maybe our bad kicking wouldn't have mattered. If one important player doesn't matter, how many missing players would be needed before you felt that was a factor in a loss? Monty Python's black knight comes to mind.

Rollyx wants change the discussion to what rule changes need to be made to stop this happening in future. (Even though apparently there was no problem with the incident - an odd position to take really). I suggested to him that if he wants to discuss that (like many of us do), he starts a new thread on the topic. Instead he keeps posting here. I suggest he's hoping to divert attention from his earlier embarrasing expert legal analysis of the event.

Maynard is no Daicos, so why are the stakes for C'wood so huge? I suggest because having run this absolutely absurd PR campaign they will look foolish and lose respect if they don't win in the end.

The C'wood supporting morons in the media and supporters will cite that as evidence that he was faking it the whole time.

That should cheer me up, but sadly it doesn't.

90,000 saw, but maybe 60,000 plus most commentators are in denial. I'm losing my faith in humanity over this.

Consult my lawyer?! If the example we have here really is a lawyer I’d rather consult my barber.

Only a lawyer can have an opinion on the interpretation of this?! FMD As for The Toby rationale, on the basis of the past behaviour of all things AFL, why would anyone not think the AFL might go hard or not in an appeal on the basis of other agendas.

A lot of us are not able to just “forget this one incident” and are very upset with the AFL media pack etc. if you want a discussion on new rules to address the issue, I suggest you start a new thread.

The difference between a lawyer’s expert advice and a bricklayer is that we all have views on issues of justice and fairness but not on mortar. If not for non-lawyer input we’d still have the Star chamber and transport for forming a union in Dorset. Sorry that you seem to feel lawyers can’t be challenged except by other lawyers. (I’m guessing you don’t really believe that but you come across like that)

Sadly consequences do affect the outcome of trials. Punch someone in the head and they land on soft grass and you are done for assault. If their head hits concrete and they die you can be up for manslaughter. Are you saying you want to change the rules based order for general criminal acts as well as those committed on the field of play?

Funnily enough I do believe in the courts (I'll leave God out of it) and I think you thoroughly misunderstand Trump's playbook. Your arguments smell of sophistry and you wonder why Dick the Butcher formed his opinion of lawyers. There is a lot of hypocrisy spoken about rules based order in international politics. Who writes the rules and who ignores them when they don't suit - everyone. Let's not have more of it here.

I don't think you are. Many of us who disagree with you as to the nature of the incident are quite prepared for disappointment thank you very much without your condescension. And no you won't be proven right (as you claim in an earlier post) as to the nature of the incident if he gets off. It will just confirm our suspicion that the AFL and the boot-licking media are corrupt and stupid.

But you don't desist. You keep saying the same thing - obviously a very deep thinker.

The grounds will be 'he doesn't play for Melbourne'. (Am I bitter and twisted? Yes.)

Unfortunately the original isn't saved in the Wayback machine (aka archive.org)

Just watched that. Good to see that unlike the Ch7 mob some in the media have half a brain (possibly because they DIDN'T play footy themselves). At one point Caro made a reference to some people having said Brayshaw should have been off for concussion review before he was hit by Maynard. What are they referring to? (In any case, surely that line of argument is the ugliest grasping at straws.)

Those turkeys are the ones needding suspension.

They'll find the grounds if need be. Just wheel in a lawyer to find some obscure legalistic point. They've done it before. But maybe, just maybe, this time the AFL will stomp on that for the good of the game. Surely sonmeone at AFL house can see through the [censored] coming from those commentators.