6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The best answer to “you looked at Ballard” would be “ of course I did, I wanted to make sure I limited contact with him, that is my duty of care”.

I would guess they'd respond with something like - 

AFL - "So you thought you'd likely make contact but elected to continue?"

Clearly JVR is smarter than the 3 baboons representing the AFL. Sounds about right. Well done young man. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Who is this Woods? His statement is moronic. 

Woods obviously knows absolutely nothing about the reality of the AFL game. It is a 'contact' sport....

I like the strategy of using the AFL’s rules against them. 🤣

This whole “you looked at him for 0.3 seconds makes you guilty” is just the dumbest argument I’ve heard. 
If players don’t look over at their opponent in play, can you imagine how many horrific head clashes and other impact injuries we’d see every week?! 
Are players meant to play blind?

Just now, Demonland said:

I like the strategy of using the AFL’s rules against them. 🤣

Yes but what about the vibe!

6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Truly pathetic 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

That ought to mean that Chairman Gleeson says, Enough. Not guilty. Next !

7 minutes ago, deva5610 said:

I would guess they'd respond with something like - 

AFL - "So you thought you'd likely make contact but elected to continue?"

Which is still within the rules

Interesting, they wanted a downgrade to medium, but it’s almost like they’re pushing that it was now incidental

Just now, BigBadBustling said:

Which is still within the rules

Oh of course it is. I don't think JVR has anything to answer here, it's one of the stupidest MRO gradings I think I've seen in a while.

I just think that if he said something like what was above the AFL would play it off as "well you knew you'd make contact so you've breached your duty of care."

I'm kind of glad he answered how he did.

9 minutes ago, deva5610 said:

I would guess they'd respond with something like - 

AFL - "So you thought you'd likely make contact but elected to continue?"

And you’d say: “yes I play contact sport. I also tackle opponents when I know it will result in contact”. 

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Who is this Woods? His statement is moronic. 

Correct...JVR is also allowed to take into account the laws of physics and flight and nearly 20 years of catching balls.

 

... was to guess where the ball was going to land ... Wow!! Are they trying to outlaw spoils along with the bump??

guess? Get out the protractor and ruler boys!!

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by DemonicFinalFantasy

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

7. He clearly tried, and largely succeeded, to minimise the impact and avoid putting Ballard into next week. Exercised exemplary duty of care. No mean feat at all given the speed and direction (ie with the flight of the ball) he was travelling.

I don’t like how long this is taking. It should be clear cut in JVR’s favour.

 

 

Anderson is my new fave person in the world 😘

I hate Adrian Anderson for initiating the tanking investigation but he’s making a good case. 

Van Reeyen is clearly guilty and this is a case of mistaken identity.

 

also - onya Angry Anderson for stating that if he hadn’t tried to spoil, he would not be a reasonable AFL footballer 😂

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Kiss of Death

1 minute ago, Deeoldfart said:

I don’t like how long this is taking. It should be clear cut in JVR’s favour.

It's not the length of the legal arguments to be concerned about - it's the length of the Tribunal's deliberations that count.

1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

It's not the length of the legal arguments to be concerned about - it's the length of the Tribunal's deliberations that count.

Fair point, QD.