I think you will find that he was ‘convinced’ in the prehearing to plead that way.
So do we think has had sufficient time to digest the gravity of his actions? Surely it’d still be leaving a bitter taste in his mouth?
I don’t have a problem with what he pleases.
I have a problem with him speaking before the hearing.
It now looks like he is unreliable
The thing that disturbs me most about this incident, is that he chooses to not wear a mouthguard!
Why? Given the high impact game of AFL, why would you choose to not protect your mouth and teeth from injury?
another example of poor decision making amongst the list
And yes I agree, he should. They all should.
Imagine making the decision to plead guilty to a charge that you believed you were innocent of because:
The media and court of public opinion had already decided you were guilty. Most people are appalled at the act of biting itself and never bothered to believe that he may have been telling the truth in the first place. Whether he pleaded guilty or not, most had already judged him guilty based on unbelievably flimsy evidence (a scratch on Dickson’s neck - which Dickson tends to believe came from a bite).
Your legal representative (Anderson) and opposing legal counsel (Gleeson) both strongly advise in a prehearing that based on the ‘balance of probabilities’ he would also certainly fail if he pleaded not guilty. Thus, the advice is to cop a lesser penalty and it would be recognised by the AFL legal counsel that there was no video evidence of the bite (as if that would change public opinion of Irish).
He couldn’t have won either way, will forever be tarnished with the rep as a biter, but will at least be back playing sooner than if he had of challenged the charge. I can see how he decided, under those circumstances, and given that the AFL Tribunal isn’t a court of law, to plead guilty. He may be unreliable, however, I tend to believe his initial version of the events, based on all the evidence that is in the public domain.
Pleading guilty of such an act when you aren’t would gnaw away at you forever …
Agree with it all bar the “forever tarnished” bit.
Not one will care in 4 weeks time, we are already cheats in the minds of most anyway.
Word on the street is connors pre-game playlist had a bit to do with his brainfart and subsequent bite on tory. Woosha has told him this needs to change.
I had a look that the playlist, don’t see an issue myself:
Queen - another one bites the dust
Def leppard - love bites
Chris brown - bite my tongue
Troye sivan - bite
Sabaton - resist and bite
Hollywood undead - dead bite
Inconoclasm - bite your face off
Franz Ferdinand - bite hard
Machine head - bite the bullet
Great white - once bitten, twice shy
Although on second look, maybe he should have included “just don’t bite it” by n.w.a
He might just like him
MOUTH GUARD. So nothing like actual teeth.
It sure would, especially given how much general outrage there has been over this incident (biting) vs elbowing a bloke in the head behind play and knocking him out (potentially causing a brain injury or worse). Hope it doesn’t ‘eat at him’ (pardon the pun) for too long, nor affect his desire to continue developing himself as a good footballer.
Hope so, Oooraziooo.
What planet are you on ?
He plead guilty, so he admits to deliberately biting some-one.
If a dog bites some-one in Victoria, they die. If you do not think it is a serious issue, then you have no idea.
yeah mate, don’t touch my wallet.
also, go tell the people in this thread thats herding dog nipped them that their dog needs to be put down you dinosaur.
Are we comparing Mckenna to a dog now?
Certainly would leave a bad taste. He’s now had Dickson his mouth
Come on …
When did he speak and who did he speak to?