Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You've gone a bit soft there, 100 points, at least.I hope he remains suspended and the Blues lose their next two by ten goals
I just read that ,beggars belief that they actually think he was playing ball I have never read such crap in all my life.They're saying they've got this on the blues board. Someone got the word.
They're saying they've got this on the blues board. Someone got the word.
He changed it from getting the word to getting the vibe.Nah he just said “we got this”. Was clearly referring to herpes.
“I’m not saying he lined up his head and bumped it, but I’m not NOT saying it either!”I will translate the real meaning and thoughts of the tribunal at deliberation
Chair of the Appeals Board, Murray Kellam, summed it up by saying: "This case is not without its complexities".
Translation - "Open and shut case boys... make em wait for dramatic effect..."
Assume you mean combined margin? Dees by 59, Pies by 1.I hope he remains suspended and the Blues lose their next two by ten goals
Agree. Don't think it's biased. They spent two hours talking in circles then said it was proof of what a complicated case it really is. They are really trying it onMy interpretation of Blues argument is interesting if not flimsy.
1. Judge didn't follow procedure of giving 2 other judges directions before private deliberation. Their argument that this was done in the past. But in the past, there were 2 judges, and now there are 3. And I am not sure the rules 1. apply in this instance considering the judge giving the guidance is involved in the decision, and can direct the other 2 judges during private deliberation. 2. there are now 3 judges and not 2 as in past years. I am biased, but Carlton is reaching in this regard.
2. 2nd argument is even sillier than the 1st. I dont get their point of view. The Blues assume that if you bump while contesting then it is ok to concuss someone. They are just playing with words for the sake of argument because they dont have a leg to stand on.
There you go. My totally biased verdict.
Put him in the stocks for 2 weeks
LOL Yup...Agree. Don't think it's biased. They spent two hours talking in circles then said it was proof of what a complicated case it really is. They are really trying it on
You have wonder at the AFL sometimes ,it is an open and shut case, where can there be any doubt about what he did and what he meant to do and the result of his actions. If they over turn it then I think there must be questions about the AFL,s integrity or lack of it .Agree. Don't think it's biased. They spent two hours talking in circles then said it was proof of what a complicated case it really is. They are really trying it on
The tv footage in this case does not lie, this is a farce if they think there are grounds to over turn it.Not sure if they are actually deliberating... or if they are just dragging this out to give off the idea that they had 'a long hard think' about it and will stick with the 2 weeks.
I don't think the AFL will cave in but them taking this long indicates they aren't just brushing it off.