Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

What is the risk if the suspension is challenged? The club should realise there is a PR angle to demonstrate to supporters that the club is p’d off too. Crows did it recently with McAdam. The MFC needs to harden up. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1
     
    2 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

    Had Ballard not been accidentally hit in the head earlier in the game by Pickett’s knee (and allowed to continue by the Suns), I’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t have been so badly injured by JVR trying to spoil. Just saying…

    He isn’t badly injured.

    No concussion, bone break, just a sore neck.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
     

    Feel so sorry for JVR. The stretcher was simply a precaution because he claimed he heard a crack in his neck, but I think the stretcher was the optic that got him the suspension.
    If there is a positive from this, it’s that JVR may have been in line to be managed soon anyway - now he will come back refreshed and raring to go.

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    • Shocked 1

    AFL GAGF

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Haha 1

    Challenge the high impact for sure. Just because he went off on a stretcher does not make it high impact. He had no concussion and would likely have walked off had he not apparently felt something in his neck. As soon as the doctor hears that they essentially have to call the stretcher which means he can't come back on the field.

  • Quote
    • Like 14

    Not even a strike or high impact, taken off for precaution due to it being around the neck. No injury sustained. Surely we appeal.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    Appeal that [censored]. He wasattempting a spoil and his arm got tangled with the oppo player when the flight of the ball, Roo and the GC player all intersected.

    Not even a citation for Chol is a farce. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    When do we ever challenge?

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    We won’t challenge. We never do. But we absolutely should. A complete disgrace. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Angry 2
    Just now, Jaded No More said:

    We won’t challenge. We never do. But we absolutely should. A complete disgrace. 

    I think we will. Decision that’s farcical.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    one got stretched off on a stretcher and one got caught a high tackle and played out the game with absolutely zero issues. 

    So by this  logic if Bowie was taken off in a golf cart it's to be looked at?

    Edited by leave it to deever

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Cripps knocked a bloke out and played the next week. This is horse 💩and I’m not buying the impartiality of some of these jive 🦃s

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

    7 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

    We won’t challenge. We never do.

    The last one I can recall is Jack Viney in 2014 (!!!).  We won that appeal.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    When talking about the MRO, Brad Scott on AFL 360 a few weeks ago said something like the MRO has the AFL’s medical and legal departments looking over it.

    We’ve long suspected interference from the AFL in MRO decisions to try to future proof themselves from potential lawsuits. This stunning comment from not only a coach but someone who was the head of footy operations really confirmed what we already suspected.

    Even the concept of upgrading the impact due to “capacity to cause injury” is completely flawed. How does Christian have any sort of qualifications to form an opinion on the “capacity” of an act to cause injury? Surely that would require some sort of panel of experts to make a proper informed judgment. It’s just a perfect grey area to enable the MRO to classify impact in whatever way it wants.

    The system is a farce. And it’s not just Melbourne. Players getting suspended for fairly regulation tackles is just as bad. 

    Edited by Scoop Junior

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Love 1
    2 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

    We will absolutely challenge this. 

    Yea they'll probably make it a double jeopardy. 

  • Quote
    • Sad 1

    So every time someone attempts to spoil now and glances someone in the head they'll be suspended? FMD, MFC must appeal

    Edited by Dr. Gonzo

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 2

    5 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

    The last one I can recall is Jack Viney in 2014 (!!!).  We won that appeal.

    We challenged a Fritsch suspension. 2020 i think it was.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    1 minute ago, BDA said:

    We challenged a Fritsch suspension. 2020 i think it was.

    Yes, you're right.  We won that one, too.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    I’d appeal just on the suspension for striking alone. Striking? GTFO. JVR’s bicep made the contact. Rough conduct maybe, but not striking.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
     

    The suspension doesn't worry me as the head should be sacrosanct. I want to see consistency, and MFC seems to regularly be the scapegoat without the other teams being scrutinised for similar actions.

    Clumsy attempt to spoil, though what is he meant to do when charging to the contest and the follow through of his upper arm, not his fist, impacts.

    No player should hit the head of opponents. I notice it just about every time the scrum forms, after a tackler brings someone to the ground, or, as many have said, hits to the back of the head when marking. 

    Goody could use it as Hardwick would, "us against the world". 

    Edited by kev martin

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 133 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 386 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All