Search results for query: *

Why are you still sooking mate

Lol Jism

One more trophy than Freo

*WAFC They own the Dockers too.

Lol rito m8 ur done. #blocked

Yep umpires are always slagging off teams in the league they umpire in. Jog on m8

Margetts is definitely a Freo supporter mate

Confirmed

Why? Freo is already 8th highest in terms of revenue. A Freo flag would likely put the club up near Pies and Eagles in terms of profitability (and without pokies too of course). And that's heading to a new stadium where even more seated memberships can be sold. There has never been a better...

I agree the whole massive Australia wide conspiracy against the Dockers is far more believable.

Umpires are unbiased professionals?! Fake news. Sad!

Conflicts of interest hahaha

Shouldn't you be throwing pizzas?

And last night they did a good job.

Umps gave West Coast a pasting last night, was a disgrace.

So LOL

Ruh roh, he's mobilising the Anti-Terror Squad, Spuddage prepare your anus

I agree correct decision

The MRP will have asked the question of the Hawks docs.

If he was surprised, three question marks would have appeared above his head.

AFL Tribunal @AFLTribunal · Aug 19 #Fyfe’s counsel says it’s been established Fyfe intended to strike Lewis to the body. Therefore he says it should be intentional, low, body If this has been reported accurately, may be difficult. I'm keen to see what Fyfe's counsel say this arvo though!

#saveboomer

Future is bright at north, we've got Urquhart, a better version of Pendlebury.

No.

Won't make a difference for these next two games. 4th is Freo's

I appreciate your views - there is space in the tribunal rules to argue that a strike was reckless or negligent, even off the ball, but Fyfe put paid to that when he admitted he intended to strike Lewis (albeit to the body)

Mate please believe me, you've got it the wrong way around. An act of striking which occurs off the ball is usually conclusive evidence of an intentional act. The intention in an on the ball situation relates to the intent to commit the reportable offence, in this case, a strike. Not a...

That's not correct, all that is considered is whether the intention was to strike. Intention as to target or impact are not relevant. Fyfe admitted his intent was to strike, so whether it had been on or off the ball, his admission means the intent was locked in.

This is correct, strobe00 - I was there. The questions were: 1. Did Fyfe intend to strike? Answer: Yes (Fyfe admitted) 2. Was the impact low? Answer: Yes (MRP ruling not challenged) 3. Was Lewis hit high? Answer: Yes (Video, also Fyfe admitted the strike "slipped up" due to Lewis' arm)...

They were always going to have trouble with the reckless downgrade, the tribunal book specifically says that there is an automatic inference that a strike that takes place off the ball shall be classed as intentional.