26 minutes ago, Steamin Demon said:

Wrong. We did and have.

I’m glad I was wrong. I think there was a lot of public pressure on the club to appeal. 

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I’m glad I was wrong. I think there was a lot of public pressure on the club to appeal. 

A new experience Jaded?

1 hour ago, Wizard of Koz said:

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.

i'm not making it such a big deal actually

just saying that we have been poorly treated by the mrp/mro over the journey yet we make less fuss than our contemporaries and rarely appeal.  there's a perception that we just roll over too easily

On the couch just showed footage in slo-Mo and it shows his fist just misses the ball by a very small margin.

Case will be thrown out.

On a side note it is fantastic to finally have a key forward that likes throwing his body around. Not saying he plays outside the rules but JVR just loves the contact. Reminds me of a young Browny in some ways. You would never see any of our other key fwds jump in to spoil like that.

He will will off tomorrow i reckon

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Reminds me of a young Browny in some ways.

If you mean Jonathan Brown then I was thinking the same thing. It is notable that Brown seems to talk him up a fair bit. I suspect he see's a bit of himself in the way he plays.

2 hours ago, 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.

Was about to post something similar, after watching many, many times it looks like after he has gone for the spoil  he was simultaneously trying to jump and roll his arm and shoulder over the top of Ballard's head to avoid contact but was unable to get enough height/clearance. The fact that he has avoided contact with his body on Ballard's body is also significant, as he can demonstrate duty of care by not electing to bump.

Given the chook lotto of the tribunal, any outcome from 6 weeks to a fine is a possibility

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

On a side note it is fantastic to finally have a key forward that likes throwing his body around. Not saying he plays outside the rules but JVR just loves the contact. Reminds me of a young Browny in some ways. You would never see any of our other key fwds jump in to spoil like that.

He will will off tomorrow i reckon

I listened to the May podcast today and laughed at he and Lever having to tell JVR to back off a little at training, in season, as they don't fancy anymore "corkies". Says everything really.

Edited May 8, 20232 yr by dworship

The On The Couch footage was really supportive of our case. He’s within millimetres of punching the ball clear.

It’s also worth noting that in a very hot game not one player retaliated, or even said anything to JVR until the play stopped. The players thought it was a football action.

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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

No, you have no right to just blatantly throw something out there that makes me feel this old. I’m getting my QC.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

No, you have no right to just blatantly throw something out there that makes me feel this old. I’m getting my QC.

KC

I hope folks on here upset about the way we get cited in contrast to other clubs send a message of support to the football department for appealing (as I have done).

2 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

KC

#notmyking

3 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

KC

Poor @rpfc getting another reminder of being behind the times.

If the ‘football action’ argument is unsuccessful, are we then allowed to argue against the ‘level of impact’ rating’?

 

Feels like the arrival of the stretcher heavily  influenced that grading but we’ve since found out he is actually fine and, arguably, calling for the stretcher may have been an action influenced by the fact he had already had a head knock that night (whether that be him being sensitive to another hit and over-imagining the ‘crack’ he heard or the medicos panicking that they sent a bloke back out onto the field who had already had a knock).

 

Not saying they shouldn’t have sent a stretcher out, just suggesting that there is an angle to argue that has unfairly influenced the grading of the impact.

4 hours ago, DutchDemons said:

Poor @rpfc getting another reminder of being behind the times.

I will admit that time are changing. But as long as vape on my HARMLESS e-cigarettes, while watching the NON-RACIST Tucker Carlson on FoxNews, before I LEGALLY shirtfront someone to the point of concussion - I will be sound as a pound!

47 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

If the ‘football action’ argument is unsuccessful, are we then allowed to argue against the ‘level of impact’ rating’?

 

Feels like the arrival of the stretcher heavily  influenced that grading but we’ve since found out he is actually fine and, arguably, calling for the stretcher may have been an action influenced by the fact he had already had a head knock that night (whether that be him being sensitive to another hit and over-imagining the ‘crack’ he heard or the medicos panicking that they sent a bloke back out onto the field who had already had a knock).

 

Not saying they shouldn’t have sent a stretcher out, just suggesting that there is an angle to argue that has unfairly influenced the grading of the impact.

We should argue this, and the Chol incident, and the Lynch incident, concussion protocols, the Cripps incident. Anything and everything, amounting to an avalanche of verbiage and video footage. The tribunal have shown they can be bamboozled by quantity over quality and if our reps blather on for long enough, the tribunal will let JvR off just so they can go home at last.

At the least I would like to see a video compilation of cited incidents and their wildly varying outcomes, even if it doesn't ultimately help JvR, just to highlight the bewildering inconsistency of the match review process.

28 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

We should argue this, and the Chol incident,

Sadly, hypotheticals aren’t particularly effective/welcome in a legal defence but you would like to ask them if Chol also gets two weeks had Bowey heard a ‘click’ in his neck and got stretchered off, only to realise there is nothing wrong with him.

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

If the ‘football action’ argument is unsuccessful, are we then allowed to argue against the ‘level of impact’ rating’?

 

Feels like the arrival of the stretcher heavily  influenced that grading but we’ve since found out he is actually fine and, arguably, calling for the stretcher may have been an action influenced by the fact he had already had a head knock that night (whether that be him being sensitive to another hit and over-imagining the ‘crack’ he heard or the medicos panicking that they sent a bloke back out onto the field who had already had a knock).

 

Not saying they shouldn’t have sent a stretcher out, just suggesting that there is an angle to argue that has unfairly influenced the grading of the impact.

We should argue both.

Here is how it should go.

 

present this pic by slapping it on the table and say

Us “I rest my case”

Them “ you rest your case?”

Us “What? No!… case closed!”

Anyone know what time the case is being heard tonight?

And can I tune in with a pitchfork at the ready?

20 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Sadly, hypotheticals aren’t particularly effective/welcome in a legal defence but you would like to ask them if Chol also gets two weeks had Bowey heard a ‘click’ in his neck and got stretchered off, only to realise there is nothing wrong with him.

I get that but it's not a court hearing. It's a sporting tribunal hearing. The AFL have allowed it to become a quasi-legal hearing and the Cripps thing was the pinnacle revealing the folly of so doing.

13 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Anyone know what time the case is being heard tonight?

And can I tune in with a pitchfork at the ready?

I believe there are 3 cases to be heard.

If JVR is last it could be late night on Demonland.

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

On a side note it is fantastic to finally have a key forward that likes throwing his body around. Not saying he plays outside the rules but JVR just loves the contact. Reminds me of a young Browny in some ways. You would never see any of our other key fwds jump in to spoil like that.

He will will off tomorrow i reckon

This is the thing Dubdee. It's really important we do our best to get him off because this is a young guy, still with a little head bobble and not regimented with tonnes of system and protocol yet, playing on gut instincts which has been very  refreshing. I also saw a bit of Jonathan Brown in that contest where he really had no right to be in the same post code but gave his absolute all to get to it and still did his best to play it fair. Isn't that what we as fans have always wanted?

I would hate if the Tribunal stamp this out of him, he's been a joy to watch with his off the ball efforts and I wouldn't be telling him to alter his game one little bit. 

Edited May 8, 20232 yr by layzie