Ben Long One Week

[Sainter_Dad]

Chairman Jones is recapping the case and what the jurors have to consider.

[sks023]

Thanks Sainter Dad
Appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed

[thefatdork]

Yep - big thanks from me too.
TFD

[Sainter_Dad]

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.

[Sainter_Dad]

We're now debating the idea of exactly what "giving consideration to the potential to cause serious injury" means. Just in case you weren't sure whether this was a proper legal argument.

[Sainter_Dad]

"It's a matter of acting reasonably in the end", Chairman Jones says.

[Sainter_Dad]

The jury will now retire to deliberate.

[Ape_Man]

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.

This is interesting.

If I can be a smart rear end, then this could mean the end to ruck contests, tackling, screamers, backing into packs, lacing boots, playing on Lynch and when a wet ball hits outstretched fingers.

[remboy]

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.

This is interesting.

If I can be a smart rear end, then this could mean the end to ruck contests, tackling, screamers, backing into packs, lacing boots, playing on Lynch and when a wet ball hits outstretched fingers.

Surely every time two athletes run into each other at high speed there is possibility if causing injury, no matter how small. Every bump could be worth a suspension.

[Goose is king]

[quote=Ape_Man post_id=1875323 time=1601885146 user_id=375]
[quote=Sainter_Dad post_id=1875317 time=1601884692 user_id=17958]
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.
[/quote]

This is interesting.

If I can be a smart rear end, then this could mean the end to ruck contests, tackling, screamers, backing into packs, lacing boots, playing on Lynch and when a wet ball hits outstretched fingers.
[/quote]

Yes, don’t kick the ball too hard because if someone smothers it their fingers may get hurt and you will be rubbed out

[MC Gusto]

Great updates thanks! Sounds like we made a strong case

[Devilhead]

"give consideration to the possibility of causing serious injury"

That could be practically any contested ball situation where 2 players converge at speed

If that's the case then why wasn't Heath Shaw cited for his attack on Butler's legs

If that's the case you could cite over a dozen incidents a week

AFL making it up as they go as usual - MRO is an absolute train wreck

[sks023]

Can go either way me thinks

[bigred]

"This is a glancing impact, it’s a low contact, and the impact should be recategorised.”

[Sainter_Dad]

No sign of the jury yet.

[Goose is king]

My money is on us

[The Fireman]

Ban the biff
Ban the bump
What’s next ?
Ban the tackle?

May as well use a round ball

[Sainter_Dad]

Here we go.

[BackFromUSA]

Nervous wreck here

[bigred]

oh get f***ed

[Sainter_Dad]

No farking words .....
The jury found Macrae's head "snapped back" on contact, which indicated more than a glancing blow. The jury was surprised that Macrae got up as quickly as he did.

[bigred]

The Saints have been unsuccessful in trying to downgrade the impact of Ben Long's bump from medium to low.

[Sainter_Dad]

They had better farking well apply the same standard to Dusty or Paddy or ........

[CURLY]

Who’s surprised can anyone name a time where we have been on the right side of a MRP desision?

[sks023]

Flat as a tack over here
Time to listen to Robbo agree with the decision