Preview 2nd Semi Final, 2020: Richmond v St.Kilda - Metricon Stadium, Friday 9th October, 7:50PM AEDT

[paddygunner]

I like that our QC is also a board member..love his approach so far..facts not speculation

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Whoever is arguing our case has shall now be refered to as Tripod, because he's swinging it everywhere

 

[PoppedCorn]

St Kilda also brings up Ben Long's history of rough conduct. "It's a bit unfortunate ... what went on earlier in the year is totally irrelevant. As irrelevant as any commentary around Ben Long. It would be unfair if that, in any way, was taken into account. It's this incident, this alone, that is the subject of your deliberations."

 

[Munga]

Who’s arguing for us? I like their moxy. The learned friend me Gleeson line cracked me up!

Jack Rush QC representing St Kilda

John T (Jack) Rush AO RFD KC | Victorian Bar

www.vicbar.com.au

 

[triggering bro]

They have a jury in these cases now?

A bunch of ex footy players such as David Neitz. That is what worries me.
A proper jury or judge would throw this rubbish out. However, we are dealing with a group of behemoths.

 

[Lightsxo]

Massive penis energy from our lawyer.

 

[prophetic1]

The AFL mro appeals wont overturn...dont they realise that Black Game matters??

 

[PoppedCorn]

Everyone got their melt gifs ready?
ill prob go with the Rampage Jackson tearing the door down

 

[Plugger35]

Sounds like we're making some good arguments, hopefully it pays off.

 

[StFly]

Sounds like we're making some good arguments, hopefully it pays off.

The only thing Gleeson got right was that the deliberation is in the lap of the gods.

Nothing else was or is.

 

[Hayes4PM]

AFL: "When it comes to assessing impact, the important thing to remember is the word is impact, not injury. You're not assessing injury. If you go to the guidelines ... consideration will be given to the extent of force. It's the extent of force you're assessing. Injury is a consequence of force. It's a possible consequence, sometimes it's a probable consequence ... it says 'strong consideration' will be given to the potential to cause injury ... you have significant head impact, that's apparent from the vision, and you have momentum."


The **** is that logic???

 

[Strahany]

The AFL’s argument is laughable.

The whole point of this grading process is to eliminate as much speculation and subjectivity as possible. But they’re attempting to work in this “interpretation” based on a ‘what if’ scenario.

They’re trying to argue that, had Long hit Macrae in only a slightly different spot, Macrae could easily have been severely injured. But that is completely irrelevant. By that logic, players who narrowly avoid contact with an opponent’s head should be suspended because “well, if you were only a couple cm across, you might have caused a serious injury”.

Are they listening to what they’re saying? Absolute corrupt process if Long is not let off.

 

[Ceanag]

Good argument from St Kilda plus it's finals footy blah blah blah ...I reckon he'll be cleared to play

 

[LiterallyNobody]

St Kilda also brings up Ben Long's history of rough conduct. "It's a bit unfortunate ... what went on earlier in the year is totally irrelevant. As irrelevant as any commentary around Ben Long. It would be unfair if that, in any way, was taken into account. It's this incident, this alone, that is the subject of your deliberations."

I love that.

 

[kernelT]

Mastermind jury of David Nietz, Doug Hawkins, Warwick Capper, Mark Jackson & Billy Brownless.

 

[Munga]

Far out that AFL response was unprofessional and fanciful. Ours was factual.

I'm not holding my breath here.

 

[BrutThough]

AFL: "When it comes to assessing impact, the important thing to remember is the word is impact, not injury. You're not assessing injury. If you go to the guidelines ... consideration will be given to the extent of force. It's the extent of force you're assessing. Injury is a consequence of force. It's a possible consequence, sometimes it's a probable consequence ... it says 'strong consideration' will be given to the potential to cause injury ... you have significant head impact, that's apparent from the vision, and you have momentum."


The fu** is that logic???

So if there was no injury, that should indicate that the force was low.

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

can Satan please say "suffer in ya jocks" once our QC finshes up #TheCastleReferance

 

[scotteydog]

Births? Big deal. There are hundreds everyday but how many finals are there every day.

Don't do it in January, even February, any other month, go for it. Carlisle is as thick as two planks, we all surely know that.

 

[triggering bro]

Longy should give that campaigner Gleeson a shirtfront in the car park after this shit show is over.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

can Satan please say "suffer in ya jocks" once our QC finshes up #TheCastleReferance

“Bad luck..... you dickhead!!!!”

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

The only thing Gleeson got right was that the deliberation is in the lap of the gods.

Nothing else was or is.

Or where the darts land on the board

 

[Hayes4PM]

Mastermind jury of David Nietz, Doug Hawkins, Warwick Capper, Mark Jackson & Billy Brownless.

**** me that would be a shambolic affair.

Brownless: How many froffies is each party offering hahaha, right guys??!!!

 

[plugger66]

Don't do it in January, even February, any other month, go for it. Carlisle is as thick as two planks, we all surely know that.

You do realise even if we made the grand final in a normal season the year would have been over 2 weeks before the baby was due? Surely you know that?

 

[PoppedCorn]

The AFL makes a point to say the jurors don't need to speculate but they must "give consideration" to the possibility of causing serious injury.


Getfarked