Bender_
X
I think it was when he tried to use a Bunnings lawn chair as part of the defence to get Gov off in the GC hubs
+ squirting round packs
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.
I think it was when he tried to use a Bunnings lawn chair as part of the defence to get Gov off in the GC hubs
And a good feathering.+ squirting round packs
Nonsense.
She was covering her mouth in awe of Harley reid tackling and gaining a free kick for holding the ball.
She and we would assumed it was holding the ball and would be filthy it was overturned.
AFL website says we're looking at downgrade from high to medium. Not sure how they know that, but if true we're not even going to try to get Reid off.
Bizarrely I don’t think it works like that. They’ll either say yes it’s 0 or no, you’ve failed to get it to 0, so therefore it stays at 2.Pissed off all the reports are saying we're focussed on trying to get it down from 2 weeks to 1.
Argue to have it reduced to 0 and if it's reduced by 1, so be it.
Bizarrely I don’t think it works like that. They’ll either say yes it’s 0 or no, you’ve failed to get it to 0, so therefore it stays at 2.
They’re not getting him off, so arguing it to one gives us a chance at getting it to one in a way arguing for zero doesn’t, for all the sense in the world that makes.
So Harley was scragged for the whole second half but had 4 free kicks paid against, was fined $3600 for two separate "careless" contact with umpires, was slapped with 2 weeks for a tackle and ruled ineligible for the rising star? Right.
The other challenge is being held now, so based on form it’ll take about three hours for a verdict then we’re up.At what time does the greatest sh*t show on earth start today?
Pretty sure there's nothing in the rules preventing an "if not X, then Y" argument. Agree that it would be silly not to argue "if not low, then medium". But the rules allow the shitmixer of "potential to cause injury" to arbitrarily elevate the impact rating, so there's absolutely a world in which "high" is inexplicably upheld.Bizarrely I don’t think it works like that. They’ll either say yes it’s 0 or no, you’ve failed to get it to 0, so therefore it stays at 2.
They’re not getting him off, so arguing it to one gives us a chance at getting it to one in a way arguing for zero doesn’t, for all the sense in the world that makes.
We have definitely used that strategy before.Pretty sure there's nothing in the rules preventing an "if not X, then Y" argument. Agree that it would be silly not to argue "if not low, then medium". But the rules allow the shitmixer of "potential to cause injury" to arbitrarily elevate the impact rating, so there's absolutely a world in which "high" is inexplicably upheld.
Quick update: the West case has been going for just shy of 2.5 hours, and the deliberation component has just cleared the hour mark.The other challenge is being held now, so based on form it’ll take about three hours for a verdict then we’re up.