Is Bag's 3/100 = to Lonie's 6/10Yes.
6:14pm: Adrian Anderson now summarising his defence of Mark Baguley. He infers Lonie’s evidence shouldn’t be given the same weight as Baguley’s. He is also asking the Tribunal to downgrade conduct from intentional to careless if he remains guilty. That is quickly denied by chairman Ross Howie.
6:06pm: Lonie sticks to his guns when the suggestion is put to him that contact was more than “marginally” less to his neck.
Lonie wasn't charging at Baguely.
If you watch the whole incident in real time, Lonie was running straight at Bags and that’s why Bags crouched down, then a bit of a scuffle and Bags hit him in the arm.
Lonie wasn't charging at Baguely.If you watch the whole incident in real time, Lonie was running straight at Bags and that’s why Bags crouched down, then a bit of a scuffle and Bags hit him in the arm.
Bags saw Lonie and lined him up. Didn’t need to bump but did.
The punch happened after the bump off the ball.
Regardless, he should be let off, but saying that Lonie was running at Bags is ridiculous.
Watch the first few seconds of that YouTube video. Bags is looking straight at Lonie. Lonie is looking down field even up until he gets fully into frame. Then Lonie turns his head towards Bags who by that stage had taken a few steps to setup a bump off the ball. At no stage did Bags look at anything or anyone other than Lonie.
We have gone with Adrian Anderson as Baguley’s legal representative. I like this for 2 reasons:
- He was screwed over by Vlad so he could give the job to slimey Gill.
- He rewrote the rules originally when the MRP was introduced.
Baguley pleads guilty to intentional striking, but is seeking to have the contact downgraded from high to body contact.
Baguley pleads guilty to intentional striking, but is seeking to have the contact downgraded from high to body contact.Are they then allowed to dismiss the case as not substantial enough, or are they now obliged to deal out some punishment even though their agreement to the amended charge would mean it shouldn't have been referred to them?
@AFL_Nathan: Mark Baguley told an AFL investigation on Monday he believed Jack Lonie was “faking it” when he went down after being hit. @AFLTribunal
Bags telling it as it is.
Not sure. Think the downgrade would result in a fine.Baguley pleads guilty to intentional striking, but is seeking to have the contact downgraded from high to body contact.Are they then allowed to dismiss the case as not substantial enough, or are they now obliged to deal out some punishment even though their agreement to the amended charge would mean it shouldn't have been referred to them?
5:28pm: Lonie said the contact to the chest was about a 6/10 in force and the contact to his neck was about a 5/10. Baguley rated the contact to Lonie as about a 3/10 and denied he made contact to Lonie’s neck. He accused the young Saint of “faking it”.
5:25pm: Jack Lonie told an AFL investigator on Monday he had been struck by Baguley “to the upper left side of his chest, on or about the collarbone” and that strike slipped high and made contact to his neck.
Surely slipping high from the arm swing doesn’t deserve a week.
Is Bag’s 3/10 = to Lonie’s 6/10
…
Probably, if it was Lonie dishing it out.
Not liking how long this is taking. Lonie now giving phone evidence.
5:53pm: Jack Lonie says “I felt contact to my neck after the initial contact to the collarbone … it wasn’t significantly less. It took me off-guard more than anything."
5:44pm: Jack Lonie is now giving evidence via phone link. He says: “The initial contact I felt was just below or on my collarbone.”
So it’s basically ones word against another. Without definitive video footage you would hope Bags would get off but then again this is Essendon confronting the AFL. Having their ‘Rising Star’ for the week accused of faking it won’t be a good look for the AFL.
6:03pm: Jack Lonie is still under questioning from Baguley’s counsel, Adrian Anderson. He is being grilled on whether the contact to his neck was below the force normally required to be a reportable offence. AFL counsel Renee Enbom objects to the line of questioning.
Who does this little ■■■■ think he is? Just man up and say there wasn’t much in it like every other AFL player (other than carnts like Brent Harvey) would.
6:03pm: Jack Lonie is still under questioning from Baguley’s counsel, Adrian Anderson. He is being grilled on whether the contact to his neck was below the force normally required to be a reportable offence. AFL counsel Renee Enbom objects to the line of questioning.
Anderson basically accusing Lonie of being a soft ■■■■.
6:03pm: Jack Lonie is still under questioning from Baguley's counsel, Adrian Anderson. He is being grilled on whether the contact to his neck was below the force normally required to be a reportable offence. AFL counsel Renee Enbom objects to the line of questioning.Anderson basically accusing Lonie of being a soft ■■■■.
You can be reported for faking, but 18YO soft ■■■■ is fine, good line of questioning.
He is also asking the Tribunal to downgrade conduct from intentional to careless if he remains guilty. That is quickly denied by chairman Ross Howie.
Why so quick Ross? He wasn’t trying to hit him in the f’n head.
Verdict: Baguley to receive death penalty for crimes against humanity