Macca

It is but it isn't ... do you trust anything coming out of AFL HQ? I don't and tonight's my final lesson in thinking that the right thing will be done in a consistent manner I've long felt that to get the same sort of favouritism that the big clubs get we need to become one of those big clubs. You can't fight City hall The same thing happens in big sport all around the world. The big clubs have got the clout But it's a long haul for us because we lost generations of possible supporters because we were down for so long But hey, we've got a good team now that should get better (we're good recruiters now) and we've now got 70k members. So we're not far off. In 2017 I believe we only had 40k members Another 5-7 years of constant finals and our membership will sky-rocket We just need to keep contending and the flags will come

They'll close the loophole now ... even if a player was able to reproduce Maynard's planned assault, the next player up will almost certainly cop a suspension The punters would then point at the Maynard incident but because the AFL are a law unto themselves, they'll put some spin on it and Bob's your Uncle

Yep, the AFL have to appeal and if we believe that Michael Christian was overuled by Gil, Laura & Dillon, then they have to see things through Otherwise, it will just look like a load of bs. And my faith will be reversed especially in the case of Dillon & Laura (I don't have any time for the Commission & Gil)

Yep, as I suspected, they don't understand the biomechanics of kicking the ball straight with the right foot when on the run Maynard did and that's how he was able to clean up Gus If the AFL does appeal, they need to bring some understanding of the kicking habits to the tribunal. Will they do that? I doubt it Incompetent fools but most of all, the boys club mentality has been upheld

It was a stunningly poor prosecution. Gleeson is often like a ferret after a rabbit ... but not tonight. Soft as butter If you were trying to lose you couldn't have done a better job of it They should appeal but judging by tonight's effort, is that going to happen?

The AFL must appeal the decision if they originally went with a recommended 3+ game penalty And what a weak effort prosecuting. It was as if they couldn't be bothered even trying

I'm reading between the lines and knowing Gleeson and how hard he can go, I doubt that there won't be some sort of penalty Remembering that 65+ players were suspending for poorly executed tackles or bumps ... many of which were quite innocuous Edit: Ah well, a sad day for football

It wasn't a great effort by the AFL but if you read Gleeson's instructions (before deliberating) carefully, he makes a few pointed references to duty of care and what footballers can expect in the years to come As well as another reference to a player being concussed and stretchered from the ground And if they understand Gus' movements to kick the ball and Maynard's understanding of Gus' movements then that could go against the Filth, not for them I'm still holding out hope

It's like a proper golf shot ... hit it out to right to draw the ball back to the left At my ripe old age I can still kick a footy with a draw and to do that you have to veer slightly to the right in the kicking action ... the foot goes slighty to the right working it's way to the left on the follow through A lot of players kick the ball like that including Gus. He can also kick on his left drawing the ball back to the left (his left is more of a hook but not too pronounced)

They either didn't think of it or missed it

He's lying For anyone out there ... find an open space at home and run and then feign to kick on your right foot In the kicking action you make room and veer to your right slightly(to kick the ball straight (ish)

Yes, it would be good if @Ouch! was one of the tribunal members as he enlightened us on the stutter step

So how do you live with yourself then Polly?

The filth showing the behind the goals vision might be to their own detriment if the Tribunal members are switched on in terms of knowing the natural movements of the player kicking the ball (on the run) 2 of them played footy yeah? Has Gleeson played?

That's my concern So Maynard knows that Brayshaw will veer slightly to his right as he was kicking on his right and lined him up accordingly Basic footy 101 and as you said, Steve, the tribunal members need to know the natural movements

So the filth are arguing that Gus veered slightly to his right as he kicked the ball ... that's a natural movement when kicking on your right foot (same goes when kicking on your left) To go to your left when kicking on your right would unbalance you (unless you were kicking the ball to the left) And Maynard would know that ... every footballer knows the movements

Definitely ex umpires. And most would qualify as most are well educated, hold down excellent jobs and are above reproach So the MRO needs neutral people and what better neutral people than the umpires? Umpires like Rosebury, Stevic & Razer would be near perfect

Well I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise I just always thought he was incompetant and the MRO was a farce. That was always my beef Hopefully he's gone soon, but failing that, Laura can step in whenever applicable (like, every time!)

One side of the ball says yes, the other side no

Good work layz It's like the Roman days with the thumbs up and thumbs down. Go Christians!! We need to recruit some anti-filth people to help square the ledger I've alerted Tiger, Blues & Hawks mates with the link (don't know any scum fans)

Torn achilles and that's season over from a few reports. And at 39, that might be it Next up is Zac Wilson or Joe Flacco

There are 2 big players involved here The might of Collingwood and how they are great for business and all the rest of it And the litigation and class actions re concessions and the huge payout that could eventuate So, a compromised solution might be reached (or maybe not) A one match suspension and a suspended sentence of another 2 or 3 matches? What is also interesting is Laura Kane and her experience on the legal side of things

I reckon the tribunal will give this thug a 4 or 5 game penalty. This in turn will make it almost impossible for Collingwood to argue the sentence down to 1 week Collingwood are going to have to get him off on appeal And then of course the AFL themselves can appeal

I disagree The act has to be punished as JVR is guilty and will have to wear a suspension So any suspendable act could be grounds for a sending off However, An elbow thrown compared to incidental high contact caused by a tackle or bump is different again What they could do are the do's & the dont's. A heiness act down to an elbow thrown or an obvious thrown punch ... off you go Other, more minor offences? Probably not sent off But that's only my view ... I'd bring the send off rule for red card offences only. Not the sin bin for 10 minutes

You'd have to play one short as it is in the NRL or in soccer (and rugby union) So it would be 17 on the field instead of 18 if a player is sent off in the case of the AFL (if the send off rule is introduced) But the league is often very slow on change Good examples are the Barry Hall & Gaff incidents. There's no question that both players would have been rightly sent off if that rule existed Maynard could easily have been sent off as he was reported by the umpire on the spot As would have JVR as well. In our sport not only can you not throw an elbow but you can't shirtfront and take out an unsuspecting and unprotected player