On 08/05/2023 at 03:59, forever demons said:

AFL/VFL have been doing us for a long long time.Example 1963 RDB rubbed for belting roger Dean cost us a final.Wish he had have hit him the little diver,and put him 3 rows back in the soutthern stand.

Arguably cost us the '63 Premiership.

  On 08/05/2023 at 06:33, DeeSpencer said:

JVR definitely gives him a good coat hangering around the head which causes the neck concern. Let's not deny that. But that's a risk when any player makes a spoil.

The thing that never gets discussed in incidents like this because people fear that it's victim blaming is how many players have lost the ability to protect themselves.

Ballard should've turned his body away from JVR, jumped to get to the ball early and stuck his backside out to protect the space. 

Had he done even part of that the worst he would've got is the arm in to his guts.

Less so than Chol on Bowey if you ask me but Bowey jumped up and played on  

I'm not quite sure how to get an image down to the really low file limit required for this site (help anybody?!) but regarding the video from behind the goals that Jonny Ralph claims 'proves' JVR had eyes on the man, if you actually pause the video just before the ball is about to enter Ballard's hands, it shows JVR is looking directly at the ball and he is in fact either touching or very close to touching the ball. 

It's just the vibe of the thing. Case closed.

  On 08/05/2023 at 01:50, Redleg said:

Do you know the sport with the most serious knee and ankle injuries?

Netball.

Funny you say that.... over my journey (team sports) ive played footy, basketball , rugby, volleyball ....and netball ( 2 seasons mixed )...  ( also skied ) 

Only injury to knees.... Netball.. left knee... still a bit dodgy 🥴

Footy is a contact sport.   Lets not change it.

  On 08/05/2023 at 04:55, Katrina Dee Fan said:

It should have been a red flag to MRO that Ballard held the back of his head, even though contact was on his forehead.  I mean, derrrr

Why would the MRO need to watch the incident? Dunstall declared JvR guilty on the spot.

  On 08/05/2023 at 06:33, DeeSpencer said:

JVR definitely gives him a good coat hangering around the head which causes the neck concern. Let's not deny that. But that's a risk when any player makes a spoil.

The thing that never gets discussed in incidents like this because people fear that it's victim blaming is how many players have lost the ability to protect themselves.

Ballard should've turned his body away from JVR, jumped to get to the ball early and stuck his backside out to protect the space. 

Had he done even part of that the worst he would've got is the arm in to his guts.

It was one of the first things we all learned as juniors. Protect yourself.

If something like this had happened back then and you got hurt there wasn't always sympathy, it was usually someone asking you what you learned from it and that you needed to use your body to your advantage.

  On 08/05/2023 at 05:19, binman said:

At least the dees will get some coverage on 360 and on the couch this week.

Pity it will only involve a million replays of the incident and silly back and forth about football acts, head being sacrosanct (is the beck adjacent sacrosanct?), Ralphy guessing the outcome, blah, blah, blah.

And then they can gte back to the Pies.

By the by, my take is Rooey could have ruined him but actually appeared to take great care not to get him in the head.

So, he did exactly what players are apparently supposed to do - show a duty of care and accept the risk that if someone is hurt, and in particular concussed, they will face a penalty. 

In contrary to the pathetic jump to conclusion commentary of Dunstall and Derwayne, Roey DID NOT HIT BALLARD'S HEAD, nor did Ballard's head hit the ground.

Watching live it was pretty clear their concern was his neck - hence the, totally appropriate, care, they provided and the long break in the game that ensued (imagine how differently this would have played out if he had got up and taken himself off the ground - the 'optics' would have been completely different and it we would have not had to sit thru bonehead ex footballers moralizing and 50 replays and close ups of a distressed JVR ) 

But bottom line is he wasn't injured badly, no concussion and will play this week. And i would argue that's all because Rooey DID show Ballard a duty of care.

 

 

 

Very well put and I totally agree

Correct call from the club to appeal.

It seems the only things in the AFL's favour are:

1. The vision which suggests JVR took his eyes off the ball; and
2. The need for a stretcher and what I assume will be a minor injury from which Ballard has recovered (as opposed to no injury at all).

There is not, and cannot be, a blanket rule that taking your eyes off the ball means your actions become a reportable offence. The onus on every player is to exercise a duty of care to other players. In some instances, the duty of care requires you to look at the player before you contact them. We cannot say that players must lock eyes on the ball in all instances. Here, in attempting to spoil, JVR checks the ball's flight, then looks at Ballard to try to spoil his marking attempt. As others have already argued, it is eminently arguable that he was trying his best to look out for Ballard, rather than the opposite.

So, taking your eyes off the ball might be evidence of a reportable offence in circumstances where, for example, you're at a stoppage and you strike your opponent (the player might defend themselves by saying they were trying to get separation but if you're not looking at the ball it's more likely you're trying to strike your opponent). But in this instance I can't accept that makes JVR guilty of an offence.

The stretcher showing up we can hopefully deal with to say that either the contact ended up being minor enough to fall below a reportable offence or, as a back-up argument, was only "low" (which would be a fine), or even more alternative was only "medium" (one week). But I'd like to not get to that point.

  On 07/05/2023 at 09:07, beelzebub said:

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

And that would be embarrassing....again

Not much the club has done over the Goodwin era has been embarrassing at all. What do you mean by that? 

Also, it's foolhardy to compare the Cripps decision.

Cripps got off on a legal technicality. Not because it was ultimately decided that his action was OK.

  On 08/05/2023 at 06:59, Wizard of Koz said:

Not much the club has done over the Goodwin era has been embarrassing at all. What do you mean by that? 

for one, chandler was worth an appeal

  On 08/05/2023 at 05:19, binman said:

By the by, my take is Rooey could have ruined him but actually appeared to take great care not to get him in the head.

All sound points, but for me this stood out, the long camera shot shows JvR moving like a missile towards the fall of the ball, (loved how he was motoring), looked like it was going to be a Jordan/Harbrow traincrash. JvR did a lot to minimise the effect. It is the clumsy look of it (and not being Hawkins) that has him cited. But I think an appeal has a good chance.

  On 08/05/2023 at 07:23, daisycutter said:

for one, chandler was worth an appeal

for the nose into the ground first tackle? Not appealing that was not embarrassing if thats the incident you are referring to?

Just on a related topic, when Kozzies knee made contact with Ballard's head, should Kozzie have received the free kick as Ballard dived across in front of his legs?  

  On 08/05/2023 at 07:39, Wizard of Koz said:

for the nose into the ground first tackle? Not appealing that was not embarrassing if thats the incident you are referring to?

wasn't worth 2 weeks ... no malice involved ... harsh treatment a star player from big club wouldn't have got

Coincidentally, it's 8 years to the day since the successful Viney appeal. 

  On 08/05/2023 at 07:43, daisycutter said:

wasn't worth 2 weeks ... no malice involved ... harsh treatment a star player from big club wouldn't have got

That is your "embarrassing club" referral? Each to their own I suppose. Compared to PF 87, GF 88, 186, Rd 22 2018 and countless decades of tripe my embarrassment barometer is calibrated differently to yours.

Football actions should not warrant suspension, regardless of outcome. This was a football action and does not warrant suspicion. It’s unfortunate Ballard was hurt (multiple times throughout the match…), but he was not concussed and will play again next week. It’s a contact sport and players will get hurt from time to time. JVR went for the ball and could have actually cleaned up Ballard if he went the man or went with his other arm etc. He did his best to play the game fairly and avoid seriously injuring his opponent. 

Suspension should only be for non football actions of malice really. Would be a shame for young JVR to be suspended for trying to play the game. If the appeal is unsuccessful, I hope it doesn’t affect his confidence and I hope he doesn’t change his game at all. 

  On 08/05/2023 at 06:56, titan_uranus said:

Correct call from the club to appeal.

It seems the only things in the AFL's favour are:

1. The vision which suggests JVR took his eyes off the ball; and
2. The need for a stretcher and what I assume will be a minor injury from which Ballard has recovered (as opposed to no injury at all).

There is not, and cannot be, a blanket rule that taking your eyes off the ball means your actions become a reportable offence. The onus on every player is to exercise a duty of care to other players. In some instances, the duty of care requires you to look at the player before you contact them. We cannot say that players must lock eyes on the ball in all instances. Here, in attempting to spoil, JVR checks the ball's flight, then looks at Ballard to try to spoil his marking attempt. As others have already argued, it is eminently arguable that he was trying his best to look out for Ballard, rather than the opposite.

So, taking your eyes off the ball might be evidence of a reportable offence in circumstances where, for example, you're at a stoppage and you strike your opponent (the player might defend themselves by saying they were trying to get separation but if you're not looking at the ball it's more likely you're trying to strike your opponent). But in this instance I can't accept that makes JVR guilty of an offence.

The stretcher showing up we can hopefully deal with to say that either the contact ended up being minor enough to fall below a reportable offence or, as a back-up argument, was only "low" (which would be a fine), or even more alternative was only "medium" (one week). But I'd like to not get to that point.

Also, van R actually punched the ball away: he must have been looking at it!!!!!!!!

The appeal will be successful.

  On 08/05/2023 at 06:48, Mazer Rackham said:

Why would the MRO need to watch the incident? Dunstall declared JvR guilty on the spot.

Dunstall is like kane Cornes and has invented himself as a peronality for the objective of getting a media gig.

In Kane's case its all about being controversial and attracting clicks as his KPI.

Dunstall has become literally a cartoon cariacature.  Bogans like it - I don't ( although I am part bogan).

 

The Club will fly the flag as they should and we just have to see what happens, but at least we have given it a shot.

  On 08/05/2023 at 08:17, Winners at last said:

The appeal will be successful.

Hope you’re right

What is evident from that behind-the-goals video is that Jacob, after his spoil effort, still managed to bend his elbow in an attempt to lift his arm over Ballard’s head. If he had not done that he would have taken Ballard’s head clean off. To me that shows a duty of care to Ballard.

  On 07/05/2023 at 08:34, Jaded No More said:

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

Wrong. We did and have.

  On 08/05/2023 at 08:24, Neil Crompton said:

What is evident from that behind-the-goals video is that Jacob, after his spoil effort, still managed to bend his elbow in an attempt to lift his arm over Ballard’s head. If he had not done that he would have taken Ballard’s head clean off. To me that shows a duty of care to Ballard.

Exactly!!!!!!