Remove this Banner Ad

Joe Daniher

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha omg this is awesome. So by your logic it would also have meant that Goddard has an infraction. Herp
Do you understand the distinction between players at the club in 2012 and players not at the club? We know JD was not on the list in 2012, we also know he spent considerable time there during the season. So no-one's logic is suggesting Goddard has an IN. Haha omg
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The AFL wouldn't be forcing Joe to play in Morwell, if he has an infraction notice.
They didn't force him to play in Morwell. They forbade him from playing at Willy along with everyone else who was not a 2012 listed player. They couldn't make an exception for JD to play at Willy, or else they'd be breaking their commitment to anonymity to him. That is obvious.
 
Just to put the proverbial cat amongst pigeons. What if one of the mystery support staff that received an IN was a person signing a consent on behalf of another player (for whatever reason). Some pretty good weasel room for the club to then claim that player doesn't have an IN.
Well that does set the cat amongst the pigeons doesn't it!! Given that the "mystery" support person is Dank, it means that this is in fact one of the most ham fisted theories yet! Maybe Dank DID sign for Daniher! Maybe Dank is Daniher' father. That might make this all work as you so desperately want!!
 
hence all the meetings the club had with the player's parents
Yes. But do you think Hird said at those meetings it was wrong? Has he said since those meetings it was way beyond what could be considered acceptable, and if he has admitted it, how the hell did he keep his job.

oh wait...in Hird we trust??
 
They didn't force him to play in Morwell. They forbade him from playing at Willy along with everyone else who was not a 2012 listed player. They couldn't make an exception for JD to play at Willy, or else they'd be breaking their commitment to anonymity to him. That is obvious.

Ok so 'force' isn't the most apt word. The AFL insisted that JD, along with the Goddard and the rest, should be playing in the Morwell match instead. Why would the AFL insist this if the player has received an IN?
 
Ok so 'force' isn't the most apt word. The AFL insisted that JD, along with the Goddard and the rest, should be playing in the Morwell match instead. Why would the AFL insist this if the player has received an IN?
Because if they didn't say this, they would be breaking their commitment to his anonymity. I don't think this is hard to understand.
 
Ok so 'force' isn't the most apt word. The AFL insisted that JD, along with the Goddard and the rest, should be playing in the Morwell match instead. Why would the AFL insist this if the player has received an IN?
There were six players who were not on the list in 2012 who wanted to play in the match simulation. The AFL said they would have to play in Morwell. Does not imply an IN has or hasn't been issued.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Haha omg this is awesome. So by your logic it would also have meant that Goddard has an infraction. Herp

No. Goddard was at stkilda in 2012 so I don't see it as a possibility he was getting injected by another club.

Daniher on the other hand is in a unique situation as he was involved in essendon in 2012 as a 17 year old. He is the only player on the list in this situation. If he was given an IN and essendon wanted to protect his identity they would need to make up excuses why he can't play in the practice matches
 
No. Goddard was at stkilda in 2012 so I don't see it as a possibility he was getting injected by another club.

Daniher on the other hand is in a unique situation as he was involved in essendon in 2012 as a 17 year old. He is the only player on the list in this situation. If he was given an IN and essendon wanted to protect his identity they would need to make up excuses why he can't play in the practice matches

So the would inject a 17 year old who was occasionally visiting the club, but not the 4 new players or rookies who played in Morell yesterday who were actually on the list....
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Yes and the reason they couldn't play is the AFL insisted they should be playing in the NAB. If a player has an IN, the AFL wouldn't be insisting they play in the NAB. Not hard to follow.
No. They said they couldn't play in the match simulation. They said if they were fit to play, then they would have to play in Morwell. They didn't insist they play in Morwell. The AFL wouldn't care if they play or not. It is the players who have chosen not to play pending the result of the tribunal. The six players they directed would have to participate in Morwell are the six non listed players who wanted to play the match simulation. Not hard to follow.
 
No. Goddard was at stkilda in 2012 so I don't see it as a possibility he was getting injected by another club.

Daniher on the other hand is in a unique situation as he was involved in essendon in 2012 as a 17 year old. He is the only player on the list in this situation. If he was given an IN and essendon wanted to protect his identity they would need to make up excuses why he can't play in the practice matches
This is pure jibberish :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top