Just now, Sydee said:

And so he should be it was clearly high and clearly high impact

Needed a stretcher for impact.

3 minutes ago, Sydee said:

The vision released from behind the goals really does make this charge look like a farce hopefully some sanity prevails, and the lad is free to play this week. 

Ralph said on Twitter that that replay showed his eyes were off the ball as he approached the contest. I don't know what he was suggesting by that, is that good because he was gauging space or bad because he was 'lining' him up. 

Would help if these guys explained it a bit better. 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You can't tell players to go at less than 100%. It's a tough game, players will get hurt - it's unavoidable.

If the CTE stuff gets serious attention, more civil cases, and evidence of cause from collision. I believe they will have to, as "duty of care", forces them to be less aggressive towards the other, as body contact occurs. The ball becomes the object, and players getting to it first have protection. If an equally contested ball, then they must change direction and that energy cannot be a direct whack. (Tough when the bodies are unequal weight). They need 100%, as anything less leaves you open to injury, but not 100% directly at each other. The bump is nearly finished, soon the contest will have to be shoulder to shoulder, not shoulder at shoulder. 

That is the way I see footy heading, and the citing of JVR, is an indication that is where they are pushing the players.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by kev martin

2 hours ago, stinga said:

He was holding the back of his head.  So it wasn't the spoil that hurt him, it was when he hit his head on the ground.

I imagine it is possible to hurt the back of your head (upper neck) as a result of frontal impact forcing the head back. I don't think JVR should be penalised for an in play accident that did not cause injury.

Can anyone explain fairly why Chol was overlooked?

Crackers

Grinter

Schwarz would all get 6 weeks

8 minutes ago, kev martin said:

If the CTE stuff gets serious attention, more civil cases, and evidence of cause from collision. I believe they will have to, as "duty of care", forces them to be less aggressive towards the other, as body contact occurs. The ball becomes the object, and players getting to it first have protection. If an equally contested ball, then they must change direction and that energy cannot be a direct whack. (Tough when the bodies are unequal weight). They need 100%, as anything less leaves you open to injury, but not 100% directly at each other. The bump is nearly finished, soon the contest will have to be shoulder to shoulder, not shoulder at shoulder. 

That is the way I see footy heading, and the citing of JVR, is an indication that is where they are pushing the players.

Footy may well be heading that way, but I don't think the citing of JVR was a planned indication of this.  More a knee-jerk reaction to a stretcher and a pile of [censored] commentators.

19 minutes ago, layzie said:

Ralph said on Twitter that that replay showed his eyes were off the ball as he approached the contest. I don't know what he was suggesting by that, is that good because he was gauging space or bad because he was 'lining' him up. 

Would help if these guys explained it a bit better. 

He's suggesting it looks bad for JVR because he took his eyes off the ball.

I'd argue that JVR's peripheral vision is good enough to suggest that he knew an opponent was there, and had he not looked over at him to judge the positioning of said opponent, he would have flattened him and probably himself too.

He showed duty of care by looking over to judge how to approach the contest. Nowhere in the rule book does it say you can't look at your opponent while attempting to spoil. In fact, I am sure most footballers directly look at their opponent and the ball while going for a spoil, or a lot more players would end up giving away high contact free kicks. 

You can see in the replay that JVR tries to adjust his arm, which is fully stretched out by the way, to avoid contact with Ballard, which is why he ends up approaching it so awkwardly and his other arm almost loops over the top of Ballard.

If JVR wanted to hurt Ballard, he would have approach the contest completely differently, and he would have really hurt him. 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Jaded No More

For those citing Ballard holding the back of his head, the sun's have already said it was because he heard a crack in his neck and not due to where Van Rooyen hit him. That doesn't mean the hit didn't cause it, but that's why he had the stretcher. It was purely precautionary.

No concussion, no neck injury, a football action. He should get off

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Mickey

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

He's suggesting it looks bad for JVR because he took his eyes off the ball.

I'd argue that JVR's peripheral vision is good enough to suggest that he knew an opponent was there, and had he not looked over at him to judge the positioning of said opponent, he would have flattened him and probably himself too.

He showed duty of care by looking over to judge how to approach the contest. Nowhere in the rule book does it say you can't look at your opponent while attempting to spoil. In fact, I am sure most footballers directly look at their opponent and the ball while going for a spoil, or a lot more players would end up giving away high contact free kicks. 

You can see in the replay that JVR tries to adjust his arm, which is fully stretched out by the way, to avoid contact with Ballard, which is why he ends up approaching it so awkwardly and his other arm almost loops over the top of Ballard.

If JVR wanted to hurt Ballard, he would have approach the contest completely differently, and he would have really hurt him. 

Yeah that's what I thought.

And he'd be one of the few to think that based on this footage. 

15 minutes ago, sue said:

Footy may well be heading that way, but I don't think the citing of JVR was a planned indication of this.  More a knee-jerk reaction to a stretcher and a pile of [censored] commentators.

The hit to Bowey head was not cited. The heavy body check and some part of arm to head,  caused the citing to JVR. The difference was the energy involved in the collision. The bump is nearly finished.

Kossie's sanction occurred because of the force of collision. Didn't hit head, tried to turn his body lateral, nearly perpendicular to the ground as he hit opponent across chest area, no concussion.

Seems to me it is the force of collision they are looking at.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by kev martin

The Chol hit on Bowey has never been a reportable offence in the history of footy.

Hopefully the same logic and common sense prevails tonight for JVR.

31 minutes ago, radar said:

Can anyone explain fairly why Chol was overlooked?

Crackers

Grinter

Schwarz would all get 6 weeks

Kane Cornes on SEN referred to this and called Chol the luckiest person this weekend 

Tribunal.  Close case has been in deliberation on verdict for 10min.  Rooey up soon.

you can follow on here

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by daisycutter

43 minutes ago, layzie said:

Ralph said on Twitter that that replay showed his eyes were off the ball as he approached the contest. I don't know what he was suggesting by that, is that good because he was gauging space or bad because he was 'lining' him up. 

Would help if these guys explained it a bit better. 

Ralph has no idea. I think only a top echelon player could explain where they look, and when, and why, and I would add the caveat that most of them don't actually know because it's so instinctive to them. "Eyes on the ball" is fundamental to any ball sport, but there's so much more to it than that. You often see a good player have a quick glance around them just before the ball comes into proximity, to feed their internal football computer with the necessary information.

2 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Ralph has no idea. I think only a top echelon player could explain where they look, and when, and why, and I would add the caveat that most of them don't actually know because it's so instinctive to them. "Eyes on the ball" is fundamental to any ball sport, but there's so much more to it than that. You often see a good player have a quick glance around them just before the ball comes into proximity, to feed their internal football computer with the necessary information.

did ralph ever play footy?

17 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The Chol hit on Bowey has never been a reportable offence in the history of footy.

Hopefully the same logic and common sense prevails tonight for JVR.

Absolutely incorrect.

Go back and look at the Grinter hit on Wallace as an example.

Chol could have broken Bowey’s jaw or cheekbone too.

BTW in the Grinter case, the Dogs doctors said he would miss weeks and he played the next week, with a cracked cheek and starred. That was actually brave of Wallace.

Chol had the potential with a head hit from behind to have caused serious injury. As Garry Lyon said , it was aggressive and dangerous. Given the current climate I cannot understand how he wasn’t cited. Cornes is right he is the luckiest footballer this weekend.

I actually thought at the time that it was disgraceful, but of course Dunstall and Derwayne would have seen it as a normal footy act.

This reminds me of when Fritta’s one-week suspension was (successfully) appealed in May 2021. I had only just joined Demonland and we were all on here to learn Fritta’s fate, record number of posters for a Tuesday arvo. I remember thinking, “Wow, I’ve found a bunch of nuffies as nuffie as me!”

9 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

Kane Cornes on SEN referred to this and called Chol the luckiest person this weekend 

Save money. Dismiss Christian and get match reviews done for free by Kane Cornes.

still deliberating on close. 32 minutes now.

David Neitz on the jury for Close

I suspect he won't be on the JVR jury

48 minutes ago, sue said:

Footy may well be heading that way, but I don't think the citing of JVR was a planned indication of this.  More a knee-jerk reaction to a stretcher and a pile of [censored] commentators.

Wasn't the knee doing the jerking.

30 minutes ago, Redleg said:

actually thought at the time that it was disgraceful, but of course Dunstall and Derwayne would have seen it as a normal footy act.

Dunstall comes from the joint that has condoned on field violence for 60 years. And I cannot say anything more is case I say something more.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

did ralph ever play footy?

When all the boys lined up at school for a scratch match and the two captains took turns in picking players for their team,  you get the feeling that little Ralphy was the last one to get selected.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Ralph said on Twitter that that replay showed his eyes were off the ball as he approached the contest. I don't know what he was suggesting by that, is that good because he was gauging space or bad because he was 'lining' him up. 

Would help if these guys explained it a bit better. 

If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are to shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist.

Norman Mailer

9 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I had only just joined Demonland and we were all on here to learn Fritta’s fate, record number of posters for a Tuesday arvo. I remember thinking, “Wow, I’ve found a bunch of nuffies as nuffie as me!”

I think you're underselling yourself a little WC