Preview Round 3, 2024: Essendon v St.Kilda - Marvel Stadium, Saturday 30th March, 4:20PM AEDT *HASTIE DEBUT*

[StFly]

Pretty sure they do? Why consider medical reports and concussions?

Weights not getting severe impact if Cunningham walked away?

They do and don't this season.

They're not beholden to any evidence, from victim, perp, club, medicos, MRO, they can choose to disregard it all, that is not to say they are unaware of it, it's just a choice now as opposed to a thing that always used to happen when the MRO graded everything and passed it on.

The key here is they are basically benching on potential for injury as opposed to the empirical injury evidence that took place.

 

[phantom13]

Was supposed to have quoted this post.

But their argument appears sound and provable. Which doesn’t always mean s**t at the tribunal

I don’t think accidental/careless and the way we’ve presented it was sound, at all, and frankly doing that and getting it wrong weakens the whole case.

I get that there probably is a way to argue accidental but we butchered it.

 

[beside the seaside]

Pretty sure they do? Why consider medical reports and concussions?

Weights not getting severe impact if Cunningham walked away?

If King knocks him out then it's severe impact or at least high. The hit was hard so there was no way they were ever going to downgrade it to low impact.

 

[phantom13]

They do and don't this season.

They're not beholden to any evidence, from victim, perp, club, medicos, MRO, they can choose to disregard it all, that is not to say they are unaware of it, it's just a choice now as opposed to a thing that always used to happen when the MRO graded everything and passed it on.

The key here is they are basically benching on potential for injury as opposed to the empirical injury evidence that took place.

Well they’ve never really been beholden to anything but it’s considered and considered pretty strongly.
Medical report saying he’s fine and vision showing he bounces up and probably doesn’t even get assessed is pretty compelling.

Ultimately the tribunal can do what it likes in spite of whatever evidence there is, I get that, but our job is to present the most compelling argument.

I don’t think we’ve done that at all.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

 

[Diehard Saint]

They do and don't this season.

They're not beholden to any evidence, from victim, perp, club, medicos, MRO, they can choose to disregard it all, that is not to say they are unaware of it, it's just a choice now as opposed to a thing that always used to happen when the MRO graded everything and passed it on.

The key here is they are basically benching on potential for injury as opposed to the empirical injury evidence that took place.

They’ve added in something about expected “community standards” or something similar.

 

[StFly]

I don’t think accidental/careless and the way we’ve presented it was sound, at all, and frankly doing that and getting it wrong weakens the whole case.

I get that there probably is a way to argue accidental but we butchered it.

I get your point, frankly I think arguing two things is too high brow for AFL representations since they just seem to parrot the charge and state "no I am right, you are wrong, I rest my case" type instances. So for obstinate twats like that, since I am also obstinate, argue one thing do it well and you'll probably be better placed in AFL parlance.

I also however just see it as us doing due diligence, which isn't wrong, probably just naive.

 

[George]

Thanks for the injury update

 

[phantom13]

If King knocks him out then it's severe impact or at least high. The hit was hard so there was no way they were ever going to downgrade it to low impact.

The hit was hard was it?

Macrae being completely fine and having absolutely no issues woukd indicate it absolutely wasn’t hard.

Evidence supports that it clearly wasn’t hard in spite of how you think it looks.

 

[stavro#4]

I don’t think accidental/careless and the way we’ve presented it was sound, at all, and frankly doing that and getting it wrong weakens the whole case.

I get that there probably is a way to argue accidental but we butchered it.

There argument overlayed with video and image shows king got lower and Macrae was dragged down due to the Hill tackle.

whether they can do that

 

[George]

Venezuelan elections would have more integrity than this glorified bush league tripe.

 

[phantom13]

I get your point, frankly I think arguing two things is too high brow for AFL representations since they just seem to parrot the charge and state "no I am right, you are wrong, I rest my case" type instances. So for obstinate twats like that, since I am also obstinate, argue one thing do it well and you'll probably be better placed in AFL parlance.

I also however just see it as us doing due diligence, which isn't wrong, probably just naive.

Yeh agree, my point was more we still haven’t worked out how to do the tribunal at all.

If we were going to go with bith defences we needed to do them both better. Failing that just do the easy one “has to be low impact cause the prick didn’t even flinch, if that’s not low impact then literally every contest has to be graded as medium or above”

 

[Minga]

Really throwing Hill under the bus here lol

 

[phantom13]

There argument overlayed with video and image shows king got lower and Macrae was dragged down due to the Hill tackle.

whether they can do that

Yeh but I don’t think that’s really relevant. We’ve admitted he elected to bump. Macrae could have teleported lower at that point and it doesn’t really matter, we know if you chose to bump (which we admitted) and you hit the head, for any reason, then it’s not accidental.

 

[beside the seaside]

The hit was hard was it?

Macrae being completely fine and having absolutely no issues woukd indicate it absolutely wasn’t hard.

Evidence supports that it clearly wasn’t hard in spite of how you think it looks.

I just don't think they seem to rule that way, as in if a player bounces up it means it was low impact. I agree with you but I just don't think when you look at the hit they'd downgrade to low impact.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Did we hire Dennis Denuto to represent us?

 

[gubby88]

Did we hire Dennis Denuto to represent us?

Hopefully they will agree with our vibe

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Really throwing Hill under the bus here lol

View attachment 1940334

I dont mind it, Hill can't be suspended lol.

 

[my name was taken]

our argument is it's low impact and Brad Hills lingering tackle is to blame, otherwise would have been shoulder to shoulder.

Not liking our chances

 

[Teflon]

Yeh but I don’t think that’s really relevant. We’ve admitted he elected to bump. Macrae could have teleported lower at that point and it doesn’t really matter, we know if you chose to bump (which we admitted) and you hit the head, for any reason, then it’s not accidental.

I hear what you’re saying and understand if you elect to bump and hit head you’re responsible that said, circumstances can’t be ignored. If a player you were about to bump suddenly drops to his knees randomly and you hit his head you’d be responsible….but the context (there are 2 people in the interaction) has to be considered. Otherwise do away with this “challenge “ farce and just hand out the penalty

 

[Sarcoidevo]

If King gets off it will be up there with the Peter Lemon-Jello "JimBob" miracle

 

[Saint Watto]

If King gets off it will be up there with the Peter Lemon-Jello "JimBob" miracle

I'm a believer.....or maybe a dickhead !!!!!!!

 

[beside the seaside]

So we are arguing accidental AND low impact.

 

[stavro#4]

Charging by the minute

 

[stavro#4]

Yeh but I don’t think that’s really relevant. We’ve admitted he elected to bump. Macrae could have teleported lower at that point and it doesn’t really matter, we know if you chose to bump (which we admitted) and you hit the head, for any reason, then it’s not accidental.

We have also said that the rules of the game allow the bump.

The head contact was accidental as it was caused by the tackle not poor technique or fault of Kings.

That’s effectively the first argument