2 hours ago, Monbon said:

Kev: please! This is a contact sport. Every time you step out to play there is the possibility that someone will make contact with your head - many spoils from behind mean some kind of head contact. 

Had Van R's contact been malicious or intended, sure, you do the crime, you do the time. However, this was a clear example of accidental contact and to punish a player who accidentally makes contact is criminal. 

The other aspect is that spoiling someone from taking a mark is one of the fundamental aspects of AFL. What was Van R supposed to do- just allow him to mark the ball uncontested? It doesn't work that way.

Sure, in closing, 'the head should be sacrosanct' but we need to distinguish between deliberate and accidental contact.

And distinguish between a football and non-football action. If the charge is "striking" surely it's a pretty quick tribunal hearing before it's thrown out.

2 hours ago, kev martin said:

CTE is real.

The consequences of not showing duty of care can destroy our game.

Parents will be reluctant to let their children play and the cost from being sued can destroy the financial viability. 

No one wants dementia, especially early (age) onset symptoms. 

We have a contact sport, though a little tweek here and there, can reduce the incidents and severity of potential injury.

Can't see how that effects the enjoyment of our game. Limit hits to head and high velocity hits that shake the brain about.

I want consistency and that the MFC doesn't becomes a scapegoat without the follow up to other teams.

What would you have had JVR do? He's allowed to contest the ball.

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

Will turn on whether or not he took his eyes off the ball. From the footage that they're showing (from behind) it looks like he did, and that's why there's the penalty. If the club can show otherwise I'd imagine that they'd appeal.

all this talk about where someone's eyes were pointed is all sheer rubbish. people do have good peripheral vision especially footballers.

besides, from all the videos i've seen i can't see his eyes clearly anyway. people just making up this eyes argument.

where is it written in the rules of the game anything about eyes

what is obvious is that jvr was making a legitimate attempt to punch the ball away. full stop. and not going for the man.

When Ballard went down, he immediately felt the back of his head. jVR did not hit the back of his head, and his head did not hit the ground. Kossi’s knee did hit the back of his head earlier. We should argue that Ballard was concussed by Kossi’s knee and that the Suns were negligent by having him still playing.

 

47 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Looks like we're going to appeal.

What mail do you have mate?

I'm reckoning we'll appeal and then we should be able to convince the tribunal that JVR was playing the ball in an attempt to spoil (a football move)

Do that and he has to get off otherwise any spoil, anytime, could be deemed as a reportable offence (if any sort of contact is made to the head or neck area in those spoiling attempts)

If he still gets weeks then a precedent will be set and we'll have stacks of players being cited on a weekly basis (or should do)

It's a contact sport which means that incidental contact is going to made to the head area on a constant basis

If it's a deliberate strike, elbow or shoulder or hip to the head then fair enough, cite the perpetrator

But a spoiling attempt?  No way

9 minutes ago, John Dee said:

When Ballard went down, he immediately felt the back of his head. jVR did not hit the back of his head, and his head did not hit the ground. Kossi’s knee did hit the back of his head earlier. We should argue that Ballard was concussed by Kossi’s knee and that the Suns were negligent by having him still playing.

 

AFL would subsequently suspend Kozzie for a month.

6 hours ago, DemonWA said:

Nothing in it but the MRP is a circus so he'll get 2 weeks 

I am Nostradamus

31 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What would you have had JVR do? He's allowed to contest the ball.

I'm not so set on JVR, as he is being scapegoated. It is the inconsistency that concerns me. I also assume that concerns the players as well.

If they are serious about reducing brain damage, then he shouldn't hit the player with such force.

Given that if he put a knee into his head it would be deemed in the act of the game, within the rules of the game. Such is JVR's, within the rules of the game, as I interpret them.

They are attempting to change the rules, so as to reduce brain injuries, which I believe is warranted. Just a funny way to go about it. Scapegoat a MFC, non-establshed player.

 They have done it, so now I expect consistency. 

No hits to head or heavy impacts when playing.

That includes whacks to Gawn's head, players knocking the packs hard, knees to the head when marking, straggling the head when on the ground, (elbows such as what Gotchin does). Complete duty of care, otherwise JVR takes a fall that no other players will take. 

 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by kev martin

hundreds of replies indicating appeal and outrageous, etc

 

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Underside of his upper arm connects,  as his fist is trying to connect with ball.

Jonathan Brown has said a suspension would be the worst tribunal decision ever. Pretty strong.

I agree. 

First it was a hospital ball.

Second Van Rooyen had every right to try to spoil as he was within distance if he ran at top pace.

Third. The only reason he missed the ball was because he was trying not to collect the Suns player as best he could. If he just went to hit the ball with no regard for Ballard he would have connected but it would have been worse for Ballard. You can see by the way he sort of reaches down JVR was actually trying to hit the ball but not collect the player. He wasn't quite successful but there was clearly no malice and a part of the play. It was a hospital ball. 

34 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

all this talk about where someone's eyes were pointed is all sheer rubbish.

It's one of the factors that the tribunal takes into account when considering whether a hit was deliberate or not. i.e., playing the man or the ball.

Not complicated.

Last week this is called play on. 
We are not about protecting the head, we are about protecting the optics. One player is unharmed. One player is off on a stretcher. One player doesn’t even get looked at. One player cops 2 weeks. 
 

 

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

It's one of the factors that the tribunal takes into account when considering whether a hit was deliberate or not. i.e., playing the man or the ball.

Not complicated.

What if he looked at Ballard to assess his positioning to avoid a head clash or protecting his own body?

He didn’t line him up off the ball ffs. He made a split second decision to try and impact the contest. If he doesn’t do that he gets called soft. 

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

It's one of the factors that the tribunal takes into account when considering whether a hit was deliberate or not. i.e., playing the man or the ball.

Not complicated.

The vision is from behind. Who can see his eyes? What a crock!

Spoiling a mark is a legal footy act.

Coach Dew has stated no injury.

What the hell is going on?

 

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Last week this is called play on. 
We are not about protecting the head, we are about protecting the optics. One player is unharmed. One player is off on a stretcher. One player doesn’t even get looked at. One player cops 2 weeks. 
 

 

Murphy copped a broken nose with blood streaming.

Ballard no injury.

One was a smash to the face front on, the other a glancing blow by the underside of the arm to the top of the head.

Which is worse?

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Murphy copped a broken nose with blood streaming.

Ballard no injury.

One was a smash to the face front on, the other a glancing blow by the underside of the arm to the top of the head.

Which is worse?

As I said, optics. 
AFL house= stretcher very bad, broken nose we can’t get sued for. 
If Ballard doesn’t cop an earlier knock to the head (accidental), would he have even ended up on a stretcher? Where was the duty of care prior to this incident? 

56 minutes ago, Macca said:

I'm reckoning we'll appeal and then we should be able to convince the tribunal that JVR was playing the ball in an attempt to spoil (a football move)

Do that and he has to get off otherwise any spoil, anytime, could be deemed as a reportable offence (if any sort of contact is made to the head or neck area in those spoiling attempts)

If he still gets weeks then a precedent will be set and we'll have stacks of players being cited on a weekly basis (or should do)

It's a contact sport which means that incidental contact is going to made to the head area on a constant basis

If it's a deliberate strike, elbow or shoulder or hip to the head then fair enough, cite the perpetrator

But a spoiling attempt?  No way

And not only this…. But why can’t the MRO look at the ages of some these young fellas getting booked for F’all. 
6 games in but he’s subjected to the same criteria as a 300 gamer. The game sense is poles apart. 

I just hope we really nut-up over this one. 
Not just for Jacob and the club, but for the competition. 
It is seriously becoming more and more farcical and frustrating as each year goes by. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by McQueen
Grammar

3 hours ago, layzie said:

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.

I was at the game and close by.

It was just a desperate spoil.

Was it clumsy or wreckless? No, he looked where his opponents were and focussed solely on punching the ball.

To say "he made him earn it" is utter BS.

If Roo was going to make him earn it, he would have launched sideways and absolutely destroyed him with a hip and shoulder spoil.

He actually put himself in danger by staying open to the contest with a sole intention to get a fist on the ball and took the contest chest on.

It was a fantastic spoil nothing more.

20 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The vision is from behind. Who can see his eyes?

I think that's the point here. As I said in my earlier post, perhaps there's other vision which would help clear him. If the club appeals, we could perhaps presume that that's the case.

4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I was at the game and close by.

It was just a desperate spoil.

Was it clumsy or wreckless? No, he looked where his opponents were and focussed solely on punching the ball.

To say "he made him earn it" is utter BS.

If Roo was going to make him earn it, he would have launched sideways and absolutely destroyed him with a hip and shoulder spoil.

He actually put himself in danger by staying open to the contest with a sole intention to get a fist on the ball and took the contest chest on.

It was a fantastic spoil nothing more.

And I think that’s the distinct difference between what we all saw on the TV versus the spectators in front of the play. 
I cannot see how a tribunal would rule against something that they cannot see.

 

#holdmybeer 

They’re rooyening the game. 

JVR is obviously expected, in the split second that he has to spoil a high ball, to take out a calculator and calculate the exact timing and angle at which he is to hit the ball in order to avoid touching his opponent while also ensuring his fist hits the ball directly into the hands of Kosi who then goes on to kick a banana from the pocket 🙄

Quite honestly the AFL is absolutely cooked. 

3 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

They’re rooyening the game. 

Just had my physio complete her treatment on me. 
We were discussed this topic and she agreed, “it is wery arooying”

should nothing in that, he had eyes for the ball and attempted to punch it, its was his follow through of the body that made contact.   Watching it, It was weird where Ballard grabbed his head as that didn't seem to be the point of contact from the video angles.