IMV Kozzie only getting 2 weeks earlier this year was a pretty good result given the action he took which I think was pretty much unforgivable and I'm glad the Club didn't appeal it. I feel this is totally different. It was clumsy perhaps, no worse than that. Even the AFL website admits it was a genuine marking attempt. There's 100 attempts every game to spoil marks, and front-on contact of course deserves a free kick, but that should be the end of it. It shouldn't matter whether the opponent gets injured. That's purely luck. 

This should be appealed because it's sending the total wrong message to accept it. JVR did absolutely nothing wrong and it was a football action. Look at the 2 other incidents that incurred 1 week suspensions. Driving opponents heads into the ground appareently only deserves 1 week but accidentally connecting someone a glancing blow with your forearm when making a genuine attempt to spoli gets 2!

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Sydney_Demon
Typo

They must appeal. 

Here is the story of ruinator. The one the authorities came to blame.

For something that he never done....

I believe the decision is just plain silly but how often has that been said about the match review/ tribunal system over the years, yet nothing changes.

But ... what  implications for the game itself does this decision open up?

It seems to me that a spoiling situation always has the potential to result in high contact. In an overhead marking contest the spoilers arm, fist , forearm will always be close to the maker's head. As we see in the JVR situation where the spoiler has to move at speed to make the contest the possibility of high contact is increased.

If JVR is suspended what will this mean for attempting to spoil the mark. Is this leading closer to a non contact game?

 

PS. If someone could find the footage of the incident where Mitch Robinson poleaxed Pedo in a game at the G a few years ago it would make a very interesting comparison. If I remember correctly a free may have been paid but there was certainly no tribunal or suspension.

 

I am so angry about this.  I was watching the game at my local club, with other impartial footy followers.  When the incident occurred, I said I betcha the kid gets cited.  The response from my mates was; "no way.  Free kick yes, but there is no more in it".  I responded by saying, he plays for the Dees.

WTF is happening here?  Seriously, the MFC must appeal and make representations to the AFL about this sort of unfair treatment.

Bloody angry.😠

22 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

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

Well it was the only reason why I thought he'd get weeks because there was a concern of his neck and head.

With reports coming out that it was precautionary then it agains backs up my argument  that the Bowey and Chol incident should not even be a discussion because now the ban on JVR is a disgrace.

The Chol incident is just another footy action that gets pinged in every single game without any MRP being involved. 

Must appeal this joke decision.

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Well it was the only reason why I thought he'd get weeks because there was a concern of his neck and head.

With reports coming out that it was precautionary then it agains backs up my argument  that the Bowey and Chol incident should not even be a discussion because now the ban on JVR is a disgrace.

The Chol incident is just another footy action that gets pinged in every single game without any MRP being involved. 

. Just say there was another Jvr action on someone else exactly the same and he got up and played on, does that mean it's not considered as serious? I genuinely want to know. 

We either appeal this idiotic decision or quite frankly we are weak as [censored] as a club.

And that would be embarrassing....again

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by beelzebub
Spelling

Basically if the player doesn’t say he ‘heard a crack’ (which turned out to be nothing) and then the game goes on, this wouldn’t be an incident.

WTF?

37 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

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

We challenged the Viney suspension a few years ago. 🤔

28 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

We will absolutely challenge this. 

We must!  ……….  and hopefully it will bring some justice to the table!

1. hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand or a weapon or other implement.

That’s a definition of the word strike. 

In this case it wasn’t deliberate, and there wasn’t a motion that could be called a ‘forcible hit’. JVR’s arm was out stretched in a spoiling motion. Not a striking motion at all. 

No part of this collision was a striking motion.

If they wanted to charge him with some form of rough conduct I wouldn’t agree with it but I’d understand it. Striking - nope, there’s no strike here. Should be thrown out in 5 minutes. 

16 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

. Just say there was another Jvr action on someone else exactly the same and he got up and played on, does that mean it's not considered as serious? I genuinely want to know. 

Should be considered serious, as the consequences for repeated hits to head, no matter the consequences of the impact, can lead to CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by kev martin

And the week before, this wasn't even a free kick.  Consistency please!!!!!!

 

 

15 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

. Just say there was another Jvr action on someone else exactly the same and he got up and played on, does that mean it's not considered as serious? I genuinely want to know. 

Yes

11 minutes ago, DeeSince73 said:

We challenged the Viney suspension a few years ago. 🤔

That was 9 years ago!

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That was 9 years ago!

Exactly. We’ve copped some absolute putrid decisions and never appealed in recent years. ANB, Chandler, the list goes on of Melbourne players being made an example of. Sick of it. 

47 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

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

Surely this sets the precedent for JVR to get off. It was a marking contest. 

Amazing that this gets 2 weeks and Chol doesn't even get looked at. His action was much worse. 

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yes

Tx very much Dg . So if Kozzys bump in the dogs game had the player stretchered off, am I right in assuming he would have got more than 2 weeks?

Seems an inconsistent way to arbitrate imho if this is the case .

We appealed Fritta a couple years ago and got him off. Let’s not turn this into another one of those weird threads about how the club is apparently ‘soft’.

3 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I thought there was nothing in it at the time. But Christiansen is a goose and he’ll find a way to rub him out for 2 weeks.

U were spot on Gawndy. 

If it were any other player in another team it would be a non issue. Bloody pathetic. 

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Get [censored] MRO.

Last year you let Cripps walk free to win a Brownlow.

JVR is innocent, MRO are clowns. By the way this was purely driven by the media!!!

Does anyone have the footage of the Cripps incident? 

4 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Tx very much Dg . So if Kozzys bump in the dogs game had the player stretchered off, am I right in assuming he would have got more than 2 weeks?

Seems an inconsistent way to arbitrate imho if this is the case .

100% - if Smith was KO'd Kozzie would've got 4-6 weeks easy.

This is an absolute disgrace. We are now punishing this great young man's physical ability and playing for the ball.

Please MFC do not let this slide, they cannot keep getting away with this tripe.