Diamond_Jim

Hi I'm an AFL member How does one order a physical membership card Thanks

have noticed that as well..

There's a big logjam at present with 7 teams on 18-24 points. Other than one of Carlton or the Dogs falling off the pace I'm not anticipating much movement in the logjam. A Swans loss would end any chance of top 4 you would think

you're dreaming ........... miracles never happen We suffer from CAS (Corridor Aversion Syndrome)

What are we watching for this weekend. For me it's the interaction between the forward talls and the smalls plus May's mobility. I'm not despairing of our forward line as yet. Fritsch should have had 3 goals last week which would have made it a comfortable win but there's definitely room for improvement as a unit

This is a classic legal pronouncement. If you want the tribunal to depart significantly from existing interpretations Parliament (in this case the AFL) needs to make it clear. Rule change coming.. (I pity the draftsperson )

Free at Last !!!

yes... to the Supreme Court or the federal Court on very very limited grounds The idea of the 3 tier system was to remove the chance of judicial review but it's still there in theory

have sympathy for them writing reasons to defend the indefensible takes time

ahh the pendulum of indecision phd theses have been written on these things

surely a single malt... no ice

the standard of the reporting blog certainly isn't what it used to be. I suspect one needed to be there to understand the arguments in full. In this day and age of voice generated text not to mention zoom no reason it's not more fully reported

the degree of injury is an interesting discussion. He was injured in the sense that he was hit. That the hit did not cause a severe injury does not change the fact he was injured. Where things seem to have changed this year is that they are gauging the offence by its propensity to cause serious injury. This is a real circus

If you frame it in tortious terms the standard would be to ensure you execute the interception in a non contact manner IMO they are mixing concepts badly

the standard of care would be quite high in the area of possible concussion so I'm not sure it helps The framing of the charge on grounds similar to a tortious complaint is perhaps a dangerous misconception in the area of a disciplinary tribunal. I see Houghton just made the same point... Houghton (Melbourne): This attempt to impose a regime of health and safety upon players when construing a rule like 18.5 is quite wrong.

The AFL rep Woods has got his act together tonight I'm not getting the vibe Andrew Woods (AFL): The AFL's position is that a player can have the sole objective to spoil, or mark, or tackle ... but can execute it carelessly. If they do execute it carelessly, they breach the duty of care they owe to the other player and thereby commit a reportable offence. Andrew Woods (AFL): If the AFL's proposition isn't accepted, the result is that players essentially have a blank cheque. They've got no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.

Strange with the natural reluctance to schedule games on Mother's Day that there is not a Thursday night game. NRL has one tonight in Melbourne and it's a big one.. Storm v Broncos

yes but you can only appeal on the basis of law not an error of fact unless the error of fact is such that no reasonably informed tribunal could have come to the decision (which in itself is an error of law). In this case the error of law and the error of fact tend to merge so it should not be too hard to mount an argument. Whether it succeeds... who knows

No one up forward excelled at VFL level. Please don't tell me they'll try Joel Smith forward given he was the best of a middling lot

nvm

I think you have unearthed the agenda The AFL stance is not just about preventing concussion but being objectively seen to have in place a system that minimises concussion. The follow up question is where to from here

that is the grounds of appeal... Is it worth arguing in the sense the clubs are part of the system that is taking the game this way

all down to the 0.8 seconds where the eyes were off the ball. This gives them the precedent to suspend JVR while still maintaining that the spoil is allowed. It is what it is............. In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball. "We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head.

so the spoil is legal unless you allegedly take your eyes off the ball for 0.8 of a second As Mr Bumble said.. the law is an [censored] (how does a reference to a donkey that is one of the most famous Dickensian quotations ended up censored.)

AFL: Do you accept that in the last five metres you're only looking at Ballard? Van Rooyen: Not specifically at Ballard, but where the drop zone of the ball was ... I did know where it was going to land from my tracking. Here's looking at you babe !!!