Oppo Camp Other Games Rolling Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
My 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 :)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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..."

Jurors Richard Loveridge and Stephen Jurica are now off deciding. – Michael Whiting
Translation - Jurors Richard Loveridge and Stephen Jurica are now playing a gin rummy to pass the time

Stay tuned
 
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..."
“I’m not saying he lined up his head and bumped it, but I’m not NOT saying it either!”
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My 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 :)
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🙄
 
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🙄
LOL Yup...

Akin to a Monty Python Philosophy skit. But this one is about defining the meaning of a bump. Quite complicated to the uninitiated.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
The tv footage in this case does not lie, this is a farce if they think there are grounds to over turn it.
 
How can we get a refund on Maynard’s two weeks? I’d like them back please. Fmd what a joke. Maynard: Marking contest and making contact with ball = 2 weeks. Cripps: Non marking contest, no contact with ball = nothing.

Hope nobody is moving this weekend, won’t be any spare cardboard boxes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top