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

[saintvic]

No way he gets off
Already they've said we cant have a biomechanics expert speak for us in the whole neck snap whiplash thing

it tells you that they have already made their minds up!

 

[PoppedCorn]

Pants down lads and spread em

 

[Pardon me]

What was the reason for denying us an expert in the field that the entire case was based on?

 

[DT_35]

Jack Rush QC on behalf of Long: 'The inevitable conclusion that he suffered no injury must be because the impact was low'

Makes sense. Maybe too much sense to these f****** imbeciles

I suppose it was just in the hands of god?

 

[Pardon me]

Is this being transcribed/broadcast like the last one was? Anyone know?

 

[kernelT]

We should ask the AFL which experts were called to the stand to clear Bontempelli & Cotchin when they fractured Haynes larynx and took Shiel out in the first quarter of a prelim.

 

[_Maximus_12]

Reckon we’re stuffed here lads.
We’ve taken the approach of fact and rationale which normally doesn’t bode well with the AFL

 

[saintsmania]

Ben Long’s appeal fails, ban upheld ahead of cutthroat final

Young gun’s last hope fails as Saints are rocked by ban ahead of cut-throat final

www.foxsports.com.au

Is this being transcribed/broadcast like the last one was? Anyone know?

 

[puppy_dog7]

Jack Rush dishing out the facts!

 

[Joffaboy]

Don't even bother lads. AFL made up their minds by Sunday.

 

[stfan]

Is this being transcribed/broadcast like the last one was? Anyone know?

Go to

Ben Long’s appeal fails, ban upheld ahead of cutthroat final

Young gun’s last hope fails as Saints are rocked by ban ahead of cut-throat final

www.foxsports.com.au

for live coverage. ie Transcript..


Jack Rush QC is concluding his case for the Tribunal's decision to be overturned, then Jeff Gleeson QC will respond on behalf of the AFL.

27

0


6
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC: The board should be without doubt that the Tribunal has failed to consider a most important aspect of the consideration... there is no other explanation for the Tribunal being surprised Macrae got up so quickly. Why would there be surprise if they had properly taken into account medical evidence that there was no injury?

106

8


7
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC says that Long's contact has caused no injury and that has been totally ignored in the Tribunal's initial finding.

79

9


9
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC on behalf of Long: 'The inevitable conclusion that he suffered no injury must be because the impact was low'

95

8


11
minutes ago

St Kilda say there has been an over focus on the potential to cause serious injury as opposed to the medical report that shows no serious injury was caused to Macrae.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Fairly pertinent observation - probably don't need to be a QC though to figure it out!!!

"The board should be without doubt that the Tribunal has failed to consider a most important aspect of the consideration... there is no other explanation for the Tribunal being surprised Macrae got up so quickly. Why would there be surprise if they had properly taken into account medical evidence that there was no injury? "

 

[saintsmania]

Just wrong..If you are not a star player like Danger, Hawkins or Cotchin then you are stuffed.

 

[BrutThough]

He isnt going to get off but I love that the club is doing everything they can here out of principal.

 

[True Believer]

As a matter of interest, when did they end the embargo on media coverage of reported incidents? It used to be the the media were not allowed to show reported incidents prior to the tribunal. Not only did that stop, we now have some media plonker on Foxtel highlighting things at half time during the match broadcast!! Don't know his name, but he puts forward anything that HE thinks will be reported and gives a judgement on the sentence he expects!!

How this is not trial by media I don't know, but it really shouldn't be allowed, especially as their favourite packaging is to use slow-mo replays, which is grossly unfair to convict players who were moving at high speed and making split second decisions.

 

[lewdogs]

So obvious the initial jury had no clue. "Nah um his head went back pretty fast"

 

[PoppedCorn]

Jack Rush QC on behalf of Long: 'The inevitable conclusion that he suffered no injury must be because the impact was low'

Posters in this thread:


Most of the other posters on bigfooty:


The AFL:

 

[StFly]

Not admitting new evidence is fine, the AFL would largely have NFI what he would be saying anyway.

The argument appears to be a "If-> Then" instance, with the over-reliance on Gleesons argument being "potential to" which is secondary in impact rating to "damage caused".

Since no damage was caused, this then must preclude the impact was minimal, the contact was minimal and thus the "potential" aspect is lessened since firstly its importance is secondary to, but it is also not as "dire" as requiring divine intervention.

It's sound, I wonder if Gleeson will bring dieties into it again and use flavoursome language to make his point.

 

[Pardon me]

Ben Long’s appeal fails, ban upheld ahead of cutthroat final

Young gun’s last hope fails as Saints are rocked by ban ahead of cut-throat final

www.foxsports.com.au

Go to

Ben Long’s appeal fails, ban upheld ahead of cutthroat final

Young gun’s last hope fails as Saints are rocked by ban ahead of cut-throat final

www.foxsports.com.au

for live coverage. ie Transcript..


Jack Rush QC is concluding his case for the Tribunal's decision to be overturned, then Jeff Gleeson QC will respond on behalf of the AFL.

27

0


6
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC: The board should be without doubt that the Tribunal has failed to consider a most important aspect of the consideration... there is no other explanation for the Tribunal being surprised Macrae got up so quickly. Why would there be surprise if they had properly taken into account medical evidence that there was no injury?

106

8


7
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC says that Long's contact has caused no injury and that has been totally ignored in the Tribunal's initial finding.

79

9


9
minutes ago

Jack Rush QC on behalf of Long: 'The inevitable conclusion that he suffered no injury must be because the impact was low'

95

8


11
minutes ago

St Kilda say there has been an over focus on the potential to cause serious injury as opposed to the medical report that shows no serious injury was caused to Macrae.

Thanks guys

 

[bird_man]

i dont see Abbott being competitive ... nothing from his game he played for us against the hawks screamed at me he would be anything but a wasted spot on the team that will slow us down considerably ... he is worse than Longer .. the only attribute he has is that he is tall he wont win the hitouts to advantage , he wont be a threat up forward he cant plug a hole down back he will only bring to the table a 50/50 contest in the centre bounces and throw ins ... we cant afford to carry such a one dimensional player not in a big final where every little bit of our game needs to go right for us to steal the win ...

So the only game you've seen Abbott play was for us against the Hawks?

 

[saintsmania]

Another point which I'm surprised our QC hasn't made is Long didn't jump to collect him high either. His feet remain on the ground.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Is this being transcribed/broadcast like the last one was? Anyone know?

You can catch the replay on PornHub tonight

 

[puppy_dog7]

surely common sense prevails.. although not holding my breath

 

[gringo2011]

Not admitting new evidence is fine, the AFL would largely have NFI what he would be saying anyway.

The argument appears to be a "If-> Then" instance, with the over-reliance on Gleesons argument being "potential to" which is secondary in impact rating to "damage caused".

Since no damage was caused, this then must preclude the impact was minimal, the contact was minimal and thus the "potential" aspect is lessened since firstly its importance is secondary to, but it is also not as "dire" as requiring divine intervention.

It's sound, I wonder if Gleeson will bring dieties into it again and use flavoursome language to make his point.

Yeah with Michael Christian, experts would over load his brain. Better to just say it simply to that dim wit. Something like "he didn't cop the campaigner in the nut hard. campaigner walked away so he wasn't ****ed up after it" problem works better with him.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Jeff Gleeson QC is now beginning his argument on behalf of the AFL.