May as well just put bibs on now and make it touch footy

all down to the 0.8 seconds where the eyes were off the ball.

This gives them the precedent to suspend JVR while still maintaining that the spoil is allowed.

It is what it is.............

In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball.

 

"We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Diamond_Jim

6 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Bypass the appeals board, they’re on the afl take and take it straight to the Supreme Court. Then sue the AFL for gross incompetence.

There are many silly, corrupt, or evil practices that would cease to exist if the participants did not generally comply with certain putative norms. Put simply, the MFC, and therefore its members, of which there are many on 'Land, are complicit in supporting this oppressive, systematic racket, dressed up as a judicial system. This is not about Michael Christian or any other individual, but insidious, systematic injustice, that transcends individual actors. Sooner or later, someone or something, must take a stand to root out systematic oppression within the whole system. It is clear the emperor has no clothes, for the AFL judicial system has acquired both a power and personality of its own, operating in a closed system, accountable only to itself.

What is needed is an outside force that takes a drastic action upon the interlocking forces that composes the system. If successful, this usually results in the movement of the entire system. One person or organisation can change a system, which in turn changes other systems, forming a network of cascading changes unimaginable from the point of the first contemplative action.

Numerous such actions have been taken against the previous incarnation of the VFL, and the modern AFL, that exposed disorder, hypocrisy, highlighted political and moral U-turns, and punctured bombastic posturing. Maybe the time has come to expose the emperor again and the institutionalisation of trickery at all levels.

AFL tightened the appeal rules last year.

So I’m not expecting an appeal. Strongly worded statement is required tho.

JVR needed a freshen up too I reckon. The shame is it’s 2 weeks.

It’s BBB time 

If his name is Tom Hawkins he isn’t even charged. Let alone gets 2 weeks. 
 

The corruption and utter stupidity of this competition is beyond a joke. If Melbourne folded tomorrow I would never watch another game again. 

Ellis and Fiorini were the closest GC players to the incident and they did not even remonstrate with JVR! So the players on the ground thought there ‘was nothing to see here’ but the MRO and tribunal think slapping him with a two week ban is justice?

what am I missing???? 

Again we are the kicking boys of the afl. " Oh he is just a Melbourne player so we can rub him out to keep the Grand Masters happy as they squaffle their scotch. "

The afl and mro can go and get stuffed.

Tribunal apparently said this:

"It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

So what they are saying is that in 0.6 of a second a reasonable player whose objective is to contest the ball can foresee that the form of spoil which they decide to make (also in a split second) will inevitably result in a player being hit in the head.

That is ludicrous reasoning. Absolutely ludicrous. What kind of person can make an assessment in a split second that their form of spoil will inevitably make forceful head contact?

If that's the Tribunal's reasoning then we should appeal because I fail to see how any Tribunal, acting reasonably, can put such an expectation on the reasonable player.

I knew the semantics thing was a stitch up. The panel was told how to interpret a rule, when they should only ever be told to apply a rule.

They cannot do that, it needs to be appealed.

Genuine question if he went for a mark in the same situation running back and took someone out would he be suspended? I suspect not! Just farcical and no sense of the game these muppets

8 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Que Mr Leg

Jeff Gleeson imo has possibly convinced the 2 ex footballers to side with him.

We now have the situation where apparently the entire football world, except this Tribunal thought he should never have been even cited.

You now can’t spoil , bump, tackle, kick the ball anywhere near another player, as you have a duty of care not to hurt or strike or hit anyone.

If this is not overturned the game can’t be played in any way other than by touch footy.

Whately and Robbo said it must be appealed for the sake of the game.

Appeal please.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by YesitwasaWin4theAges

Can we lose the whole “we’re the whipping boys” [censored]. It’s [censored] and annoying

Absolutely disgusted at this result.

That's it. I've seen my flag.

I'm done with the AFL.

The game is cooked

Jack Riewoldt and Hawkins both said on AFL360 tonight that this is the wrong decision. 

Just now, Scoop Junior said:

Tribunal apparently said this:

"It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

He didn't bloody hit him in the head FFS!

1 minute ago, Scoop Junior said:

If that's the Tribunal's reasoning then we should appeal because I fail to see how any Tribunal, acting reasonably, can put such an expectation on the reasonable player.

that is the grounds of appeal...

Is it worth arguing in the sense the clubs are part of the system that is taking the game this way

1 minute ago, Scoop Junior said:

Tribunal apparently said this:

"It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

So what they are saying is that in 0.6 of a second a reasonable player whose objective is to contest the ball can foresee that the form of spoil which they decide to make (also in a split second) will inevitably result in a player being hit in the head.

That is ludicrous reasoning. Absolutely ludicrous. What kind of person can make an assessment in a split second that their form of spoil will inevitably make forceful head contact?

If that's the Tribunal's reasoning then we should appeal because I fail to see how any Tribunal, acting reasonably, can put such an expectation on the reasonable player.

And fortunately, that bolded part does not appear in the rules of the game. Must be appealed.

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

On the basis of the reasoning, I think there's a strong case to argue error in law - given the rules explicitly allow a player intending to contest the ball to do so

Nothing to see here 

4 minutes ago, Nicko said:

Ellis and Fiorini were the closest GC players to the incident and they did not even remonstrate with JVR!

Yeah, I saw that. Ellis is pretty experienced and he very clearly didn't think it was anything but a football act. Pretty telling given the way the Suns were into us for other things.

Are all these iincidents going to be cited?  If so, we could have numerous citations every week ... if all it takes is incidental contact to the neck/head area

Of course, it won't happen like that as it looks to me like they just want to send a message

Every contested mark in the forward line brings with it a defender spoiling attempt.  Often multiple defenders if the ball is kicked to a pack

The class actions, CTE and litigation has got the AFL running scared.  But their fear is a  futile exercise anyway - if  the sport becomes a version of touch football, no one will watch it

So a spoil from behind brings with it a.possible/probable reportable offence?

We must appeal

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Macca

14 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Bypass the appeals board, they’re on the afl take and take it straight to the Supreme Court. Then sue the AFL for gross incompetence.

Yep...time to take this out of their playground.

[censored] them

For the second year running one of our youngsters has been bitten by the corrupt acting MRO.