Tweet
The fuss is that the morons in the commentary box beat it up until their pants were wet.
-
-
If that's worth a week, then so is EVERY wussy little jumper punch that we see so regularly.Originally posted by Sanecow
The fuss is that the morons in the commentary box beat it up until their pants were wet.We hate Anthony Rocca
We hate Shannon Grant too
We hate scumbag Gaspar
But Leo WE LOVE YOU!Comment
-
if he gets done for that
lets molotov the tribunal office place :PR & W 4 LifeComment
-
I fully agree (with Charlie, not with arson). I saw worse in the game tonight off the ball. It's just Walls being a knob. (Did you hear him whine about Gehrig "not deserving" to be run around by Hall! Why the hell doesn't he deserve to run around?!?!) Walls is the biggest knob in the game.Comment
-
Yep, only an issue because 10 played it so much and Hudson, Walls and Silvagni are gunning for Baz to be suspended.
The tribunal has softened its stance since the Gerhig suspension - Baz has nothing to worry about."As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk
Comment
-
OUT: Hall (Sus.)
IN: Vogels
Vogels and LRT to rotate through CHF as decoys, everybody else plays as usual.
We can win without Hall.
Let's not let it become a distraction.Comment
-
He will get off - no conclusive evidence there was contact.
May have to go to a higher court but it will happen.
McGuire=pussy - get up!Comment
-
if he does get suspended, do you really think it may go to court?
would be the biggest court case ever!Roosy = LEGENDComment
-
That would just be embarassing.Originally posted by Foreign Legion
May have to go to a higher court but it will happen.Comment
-
It has happened before - '96.
He will get off because there is no shot of the point of contact.
Back it in - he will play.Comment
-
It was embarassing then.Originally posted by Foreign Legion
It has happened before - '96.
He will get off because there is no shot of the point of contact.
Back it in - he will play.
Dunkley shouldn't have played in 96.
If a person can be tried for murder without the corpse, I don't think anyone will have trouble inferring that Hall struck Maguire with a clenched fist.
He's guilty. We all know it.
Gehrig got one for much less.
Gardiner got two for about the same.
Forget Hall, we can win it without him.Comment
-
Would you like a bet on it Midaro?Originally posted by midaro
It was embarassing then.
Dunkley shouldn't have played in 96.
If a person can be tried for murder without the corpse, I don't think anyone will have trouble inferring that Hall struck Maguire with a clenched fist.
He's guilty. We all know it.
Gehrig got one for much less.
Gardiner got two for about the same.
Forget Hall, we can win it without him.
Gehrig's was visible - Hall's wasn't clear. Beyond all resonable doubt.
He will get off.
BTW he probably did hit him but McGuire must have the weakest guts of all time.Comment
-
Just had a think about it - name me an Australian case where someone has been CONVICTED without a corpse.
Getting off the track - sorry Midaro.Comment
-
It's OK. Quick google. I think this is one. Too tired to read it all.Originally posted by Foreign Legion
Just had a think about it - name me an Australian case where someone has been CONVICTED without a corpse.
Getting off the track - sorry Midaro.
The Queen v. Ann Denise Williamson
supremecourt.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/JS-criminal/$file/js-cri-feb-2000.htm
I didn't think it was all that uncommon.Last edited by midaro; 17 September 2005, 04:11 AM.Comment
-
A bet?Originally posted by Foreign Legion
Would you like a bet on it Midaro?
Gehrig's was visible - Hall's wasn't clear. Beyond all resonable doubt.
He will get off.
BTW he probably did hit him but McGuire must have the weakest guts of all time.
I'm dumb, but not quite dumb enough to bet on a tribunal result.
Let's just says that IMO the only fair result is that Hall will be suspended.Comment
Comment