- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
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.
Welcome to Carlton Harry O'Farrell.....otherwise known as SOP!!!
Although he actually looks a good prospect....196cm key defender....and the son of a KC. I dare the MRO rub him out
Can we get him as a father/sonOh, didn't realise he was Peter's son! Really like him for us.
Salty much FoxFooty!
Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case
‘Shouldn’t be a fine’: Blues win 4hr AFL Tribunal marathon... but ‘garbage’ reasoning slammedwww.foxsports.com.au
He's fairly highly regarded. Seems to be 15 - 25 in most phantom drafts. Maybe if there is no early bid on Ben.Can we get him as a father/son
It would be kind if bizarro though if we ended up with the Campo twins this year and the son of the club's KC.
200 game player as well as free legal representation for the next decade....nice
What will matter in litigation is whether they made acts like that illegal generally, not what penalty was given in individual cases.Because it wasn’t the AFL who gave the penalty, it was the “Independent” tribunal.
The AFL will just say we wanted it to be a suspension, it wasn’t us. Find someone else to sue, it’s not the AFL who’s negligent
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
That is an indictment on Christian...
Carlton's results at the AFL tribunal over the past 24 months
2024 Jordan Boyd (one-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Jack Martin (two-match striking ban) DOWNGRADED TO ONE MATCH
2023 Adam Cerra (one-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Harry McKay (one-match striking ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Nic Newman (one-match striking ban) FREE TO PLAY
2022 Patrick Cripps (two-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY*, WON BROWNLOW MEDAL
* AFL Appeals Board hearing - Represented by Christopher Townshend KC
If the AFL changes the father/son bidding system this year that forces us to use our 1st round pick on Ben - when we had Harry O'Farrell in our sights - we probably need to find a good KC to challenge the AFL's rulingHe's fairly highly regarded. Seems to be 15 - 25 in most phantom drafts. Maybe if there is no early bid on Ben.
If the AFL changes the father/son bidding system this year that forces us to use our 1st round pick on Ben - when we had Harry O'Farrell in our sights - we probably need to find a good KC to challenge the AFL's ruling
Much embarrassment, AFL!!!!
Carlton's results at the AFL tribunal over the past 24 months
2024 Jordan Boyd (one-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Jack Martin (two-match striking ban) DOWNGRADED TO ONE MATCH
2023 Adam Cerra (one-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Harry McKay (one-match striking ban) FREE TO PLAY
2023 Nic Newman (one-match striking ban) FREE TO PLAY
2022 Patrick Cripps (two-match rough conduct ban) FREE TO PLAY*, WON BROWNLOW MEDAL
* AFL Appeals Board hearing - Represented by Christopher Townshend KC
Oh god, could you even imagine our legal team going up against Laura - fully loaded with her 1 year and 9 month's legal experience under her belt.Do you know of any BH
Oh god, could you even imagine our legal team going up against Laura - fully loaded with her 1 year and 9 month's legal experience under her belt.
Would be a biggest bloodbath since the Ottomans....
I think we might get him as a father/son BH.Can we get him as a father/son
It would be kind if bizarro though if we ended up with the Campo twins this year and the son of the club's KC.
200 game player as well as free legal representation for the next decade....nice
The opinion is a joke. They found that Mansell didn't duck. Really? What was that little dip of the head and shoulders just before Boyd made contact with him.
Apparently Mansell crouched down, not ducked. It was more of a duck than the mallard I saw quietly paddling about down at Coburg Lake this morning…
An absolute clown show, and after four hours they say he didnt duck??? Have they watched the footage?
That's why we need a video umpire to watch incidents like that. They would have all the camera views on their screen, and could see the Mansell duck. The side view was pretty good vision for what Mansell did.After reading Blue and Silver's explanation of the phrase "We do not make that finding", it would seem the Tribunal was trying to find a way to say:
- we don't want to talk about what Mansell did
- we don't want to throw the MRO (and AFL house) under the bus
- we don't think Boyd should miss a week for that
Personally, I think Mansell ducked, the MRO was wrong, and Boyd should never have been there. But I can also see how the umpire from his perspective on the ground, in the high speed of the game, thought Boyd got Mansell high. And, in the end, the Tribunal has done the best in a difficult situation.
The AFL commission is treating the sport like an entertainment business. They just see it as a way to give themselves millions in bonus cheques come the end of the year. If they treated as a sporting business, they think that their bonus cheques wouldn't be as large come the end of the year.Geez, this system is a mess at the moment. A lot of things getting dropped/downgraded at Tribunal.
I'm glad Boyd got off, but the whole thing is a huge mess.
Isn’t that video vision available to Christian ?That's why we need a video umpire to watch incidents like that. They would have all the camera views on their screen, and could see the Mansell duck. The side view was pretty good vision for what Mansell did.