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

[triggering bro]

WTF?! Amateur hour by the AFL.

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.

 

[BrutThough]

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.

Yep. Must be thick to not foresee a global pandemic which saw the season postponed, every club leaving Victoria to hub in QLD for months on end and state boarders to close.

 

[Remboy]

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.

To be fair to Jake, in a normal year the season would be over by now.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

fu** me that would be a shambolic affair.

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

Brainless strikes me as the type of bloke who would actually say hahaha instead of laughing.

 

[BrutThough]

The AFL is basically arguing the Tribunal should suspend Long based off a hypothetical situation.

We are arguing with the factual medical report and vision of what has occurred in the past.

And I still dont like our chances of actually winning this.

 

[Plugger35]

If Long doesn't get off here he's officially our new tribunal scapegoat following in the footsteps of Tony Lockett and Stevie Baker.

 

[StFly]

Uh oh, decision deliberating time!

Also, gotta lol at the potential debate of "what does giving consideration to potential to cause injury mean?".

If you ask Gleeson, it's land of the gods, he's NFI, he's mortal.

 

[triggering bro]

"giving consideration to the potential to cause serious injury"

How is that relevant to “impact”. It’s too separate arguments & not relevant to the punishment. It’s an element that does not need to be established. It’s already been agreed that the act was reckless/careless. Amateurish argument.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Ok jury to retire and deliberate

Wont be long now ( pun unintended)

 

[Munga]

I can only conclude that the AFL rep is a Saints supporter and deliberately making the AFL look like idiots so as to release Long due to an illogical and fanciful case

 

[saintsmania]

Just reading AFLs argument smells foul..no evidence and pure speculation..hope common sense prevails buy I don't like our chances even though our argument was better and with facts and evidence.

On ONEPLUS A5000 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[triggering bro]

The people have spoken

 

[RBW_007]

Since when was potential to cause serious injury considered. Heaps of players have gotten off where the action looked bad but didn't cause injury and heaps of players have gotten weeks where lesser actions have caused injuries, What a joke argument.

 

[gringo2011]

Since when was potential to cause serious injury considered. Heaps of players have gotten off where the action looked bad but didn't cause injury and heaps of players have gotten weeks where lesser actions have caused injuries, What a joke argument.

There will be no clubs able to put a team up most weeks next season. That rule has just made 90% of actions an offence from now on.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

The people have spoken

View attachment 978117

The 24% are all the saints fans because they know we will get ****ed over.

 

[kernelT]

“I’d like you to imagine an injury”

solid case.

 

[StCicatriz]

Since when was potential to cause serious injury considered. Heaps of players have gotten off where the action looked bad but didn't cause injury and heaps of players have gotten weeks where lesser actions have caused injuries, What a joke argument.

i'm seriously puzzled how they can ascertain impact by ignoring the medical report? like how the **** do you know how hard someone hit them just by looking at the vision?

 

[DT_35]

What about the potential injury to Maguire when Baz smacked him in the guts?

What about the potential injury to Carlisle from Fyfes knee?

legit the dumbest argument I have ever heard

 

[4tune8]

Since when was potential to cause serious injury considered. Heaps of players have gotten off where the action looked bad but didn't cause injury and heaps of players have gotten weeks where lesser actions have caused injuries, What a joke argument.

AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson QC argued the incident deserved to be classified as medium impact because it had the potential to cause more serious injury.


Dusty
Got a week

 

[Rich01]

Should get off.

 

[StCicatriz]

What about the potential injury to Maguire when Baz smacked him in the guts?

What about the potential injury to Carlisle from Fyfes knee?

legit the dumbest argument I have ever heard

carlisle could have been killed, so why isn't Fyfe in prison?

 

[DT_35]

What about the potential brain injury to Ballantyne when Scarlett smashed his face in?

 

[TheEnsign]

“I’d like you to imagine an injury”

solid case.

Strikes me as a variation on the 'Eggshell Skull' rule in tort law. Except that deals with the situations where the injured party _actually_ has an eggshell skull; not a hypothetical one.

The defence to the challenge is so fanciful.

 

[Pardon me]

There will be no clubs able to put a team up most weeks next season. That rule has just made 90% of actions an offence from now on.

That’s exactly right Gringo. Every tackle has the potential to seriously harm. If they ever bothered with precedence this has fkd them

 

[Browny2Carlisle]

Playing AFL has a potential to cause serious injury... should we just ban both teams and call it a day?