He didn't confirm anything. He claimed something.Earlier posters were saying i was making an assumption that he didn't intent to hit the head. Gaff confirmed that it was not an assumption
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.
He didn't confirm anything. He claimed something.Earlier posters were saying i was making an assumption that he didn't intent to hit the head. Gaff confirmed that it was not an assumption
He didn't confirm anything. He claimed something.
The footage shows him punch Brayshaw in the face. The x-rays show he broke his jaw.The footage backs up the claim, you don't have to like it
Gaff maintains his earlier claim that Brayshaw's downward movement was what resulted in his strike hitting Brayshaw in the head, not the chest.
The footage shows him punch Brayshaw in the face. The x-rays show he broke his jaw.
Gaff maintains his earlier claim that Brayshaw's downward movement was what resulted in his strike hitting Brayshaw in the head, not the chest.
Gaff rejects the suggestion he was frustrated by being checked by Brayshaw. He says he only intended to push Brayshaw's chest to get some space momentarily.
Brayshaw's downward movement was not what resulted in Gaff's strike hitting Brayshaw in the head, Gaff's punch was.This is what the video shows, we already know the outcome
Oh, wow.
Brayshaw's downward movement was not what resulted in Gaff's strike hitting Brayshaw in the head, Gaff's punch was.
T-E-N W-E-E-K-SSo many media brainwashed sheep
Gaff is going to cop a lengthy ban
But you were all frothing hoping he would come out and say "yeah i straight up hit him on purpose in the face"
No cigar for you media lovers
T-E-N W-E-E-K-S
brainwashed sheep
Won't be surprised with the media pressure on this one
Where was the media when Fyfe was King Hitting Lewis? The hysteria is purely because of the injury outcome
Pot kettle etc.
The footage backed by Gaff's testimony shows otherwise to your media fueled agenda
He just didn't intend to hit him in the head and his statement backs up the footage
That's probably crap, but even if it weren't, what difference does it make? He has admitted his intention was to strike (he can't say anything else because we've all seen the haymaker). I just don't see what the distinction is between:
A. smashing him intentionally in the teeth and
B. smashing him intentionally but not meaning to smash him in the teeth but smashing him in the teeth anyway.
Why is the difference between A and B so important for you?
2 weeks suspension, he was intending to shove Coxy down in the ruck but accidentally ko'ed him.
Heard what the gent representing the AFL has said to him?You've heard it from Gaff now, not a King Hit