Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

32 minutes ago, monoccular said:

In fairness the Suns said from the word go, even before that smug dim witted Christian had cited JVR, that their player was NOT INJURED and that the stretcher was a precaution because he felt a crack in his neck.  He will play this week. 
There is just ZERO LOGIC to these findings.   

In all fairness... i dont believe a word another club utters...especially after the fact....and to cover their own [censored].

 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    But if it was Tom Hawkins rather than JVR and he broke the GCs players jaw, Hawkins would still have got off!!

  • Quote
    • Like 4
     

    1 minute ago, The heart beats true said:

    And… Carlton win their appeal. 

    2 out 3 wins for the MRO is acceptable to the AFL for this week I guess. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

    I just want Steven May to punch a tribunal member in the head.

    If you don't want the punch to miss l would send in Melksham

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
    • Clap 1

    I just went to the The Age website to see if there were any reactions to the JVR fiasco. On the front page is a huge headline with the words: 'Betrayal', 'laughable'. For a microsecond, I thought "you [censored] beauty!" Then i kept reading:

    'Betrayal', laughable': Greens, Pocock slam JobSeeker rise

    Edited by Queanbeyan Demon
    Typo

  • Quote
    • Haha 2
    • Sad 1
    1 minute ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

    I just went to the The Age website to see if there were any reactions to the JVR fiasco. On the front page is a huge headline with the words: 'Betrayal', laughable'. For a microsecond, I thought you [censored] beauty!  Then i kept reading:

    'Betrayal', laughable': Greens, Pocock slam JobSeeker rise

    You know its bad when everyone in the media and social media are all on the same side... that its an awful result. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    Ffs. 

    panel of former players Jason Johnson and Paul Williams.  
     

    wow.

    Who?

  • Quote
    • Sad 1

    From another article on the appeals amendment due to the Cripps decision:

    "Previously, an error of law that had no substantive impact on a Tribunal's reasoning or decision could be a ground for appeal," the updated guideline reads.

    "The AFL Regulations and Tribunal Guidelines have been amended to provide that the relevant ground of appeal is that there was an error of law that had a material impact on the Tribunal's decision."

    From a pretty rudimentary look at it without all the facts, it would seem there is an arguable error of law in the application of the test for breach of duty of care.

    It seems completely non-sensical to say that 1) the evidence establishes the player's objective was to go for the ball and 2) a reasonable player in those circumstances would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did it would have almost inevitably resulted in head contact. Those two findings seem contradictory to me. If a player's objective is to go for the ball the corollary of that is that they have formed a decision that they can get the ball. If you have formed that decision then why would you also be of the view that head contact with the opposition is inevitable? The two propositions don't seem to sit together, and the argument would be that no reasonable person whose objective is to get the ball would foresee inevitable head contact.

    I think it's pretty clear that if an error of law can be established, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate a "material impact" on the Tribunal's decision as the application of the breach of duty test is the fundamental basis of the decision.

    Edited by Scoop Junior

  • Quote
    • Like 10
    • Thanks 1

    11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    Ffs. 

    panel of former players Jason Johnson and Paul Williams.  
     

    wow.

     

    1 minute ago, loges said:

    Who?

    Essendscum and Colonwood. Nuff said.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Honest question. Is there another avenue of appeal now?

    GCS took a precaution with their player (absolutely fair), but if anyone hits their bicep into another player high whilst trying to spoil running back towards the player = two weeks?

    If so can you all please crowdfund me in my new quest to play AFL for the Dees (all the profits to the Dees of course) so I can win the Brownlow next year. I won't need long, like a minute or two on ground cos nobody else will be eligible.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    41 minutes ago, binman said:

    So, we can expect there to be a six oppo players suspended every week for missing the ball and instead smashing Max in the back of the head in a marking contest.

    Really, such utter rubbish.

    Only if Max lies down on the ground and waits for a stretcher and..... it was not a high profile player from a high profile club who punched him in the head.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    33 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

    Can someone explain what the outcome would have been if JVR had actually connected with the ball?

    If the RSPCA followed the tribunals lead, kangaroo abuse.

  • Quote

    Coach to players:

    "Now boys, i want you to impact the contest hard today, eyes on the ball and hard at the contest, bodies on the line but whatever you do, dont hit any other players......... or its 2 weeks."

    "Yeah, sure thing coach....can you explain that again?"

    Edited by Wadda We Sing

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 3

    The bump is dead

    The tackle is dead

    now the spoil is dead too

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Angry 1
    3 minutes ago, Sigil said:

    Honest question. Is there another avenue of appeal now?

    GCS took a precaution with their player (absolutely fair), but if anyone hits their bicep into another player high whilst trying to spoil running back towards the player = two weeks?

    If so can you all please crowdfund me in my new quest to play AFL for the Dees (all the profits to the Dees of course) so I can win the Brownlow next year. I won't need long, like a minute or two on ground cos nobody else will be eligible.

     

    Would probably look pretty much like this alas

     

    image.png.c1957a44ff46118aa8cab722f3f6f909.png

  • Quote
    • Sad 1

    I'd also like to know how it could be graded as high impact when he didn't knock any teeth out?

    JVR you obviously need to improve your spoiling technique.  Uncle Balls will pop down to training and help out with some mentoring on this one.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    4 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

    From another article on the appeals amendment due to the Cripps decision:

    "Previously, an error of law that had no substantive impact on a Tribunal's reasoning or decision could be a ground for appeal," the updated guideline reads.

    "The AFL Regulations and Tribunal Guidelines have been amended to provide that the relevant ground of appeal is that there was an error of law that had a material impact on the Tribunal's decision."

    From a pretty rudimentary look at it without all the facts, it would seem there is an arguable error of law in the application of the test for breach of duty of care.

    It seems completely non-sensical to say that 1) the evidence establishes the player's objective was to go for the ball and 2) a reasonable player in those circumstances would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did it would have almost inevitably resulted in head contact. Those two findings seem contradictory to me. If a player's objective is to go for the ball the corollary of that is that they have formed a decision that they can get the ball. If you have formed that decision then why would you also be of the view that head contact with the opposition is inevitable? The two propositions don't seem to sit together, and the argument would be that no reasonable person whose objective is to get the ball would foresee inevitable head contact.

    I think it's pretty clear that if an error of law can be established, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate a "material impact" on the Tribunal's decision as the application of the breach of duty test is the fundamental basis of the decision.


    Out: Anderson 

    In: Scoop Junior

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Clap 1
    7 minutes ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

    You know its bad when everyone in the media and social media are all on the same side... that its an awful result. 

    I'm looking forward to an uprising  

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Geelong

      There was a time in the second quarter of the game at the Cattery on Friday afternoon when the Casey Demons threatened to take the game apart against the Cats. The Demons had been well on top early but were struggling to convert their ascendancy over the ground until Tom Fullarton’s burst of three goals in the space of eight minutes on the way to a five goal haul and his best game for the club since arriving from Brisbane at the end of 2023. He was leading, marking and otherwise giving his opponents a merry dance as Casey grabbed a three goal lead in the blink of an eye. Fullarton has now kicked ten goals in Casey’s three matches and, with Melbourne’s forward conversion woes, he is definitely in with a chance to get his first game with the club in next week’s Gather Round in Adelaide. Despite the tall forward’s efforts - he finished with 19 disposals and eight marks and had four hit outs as back up to Will Verrall in the second half - it wasn’t enough as Geelong reigned in the lead through persistent attacks and eventually clawed their way to the lead early in the last and held it till they achieved the end aim of victory.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Geelong

      I was disappointed to hear Goody say at his post match presser after the team’s 39 point defeat against Geelong that "we're getting high quality entry, just poor execution" because Melbourne’s problems extend far beyond that after its 0 - 4 start to the 2025 football season. There are clearly problems with poor execution, some of which were evident well before the current season and were in play when the Demons met the Cats in early May last year and beat them in a near top-of-the-table clash that saw both sides sitting comfortably in the top four after round eight. Since that game, the Demons’ performances have been positively Third World with only five wins in 19 games with a no longer majestic midfield and a dysfunctional forward line that has become too easy for opposing coaches to counter. This is an area of their game that is currently being played out as if they were all completely panic-stricken.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Essendon

      Facing the very real and daunting prospect of starting the season with five straight losses, the Demons head to South Australia for the annual Gather Round, where they’ll take on the Bombers in search of their first win of the year. Who comes in, and who comes out?

        • Clap
      • 201 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 04

      Round 4 kicks off with a blockbuster on Thursday night as traditional rivals Collingwood and Carlton clash at the MCG, with the Magpies looking to assert themselves as early-season contenders and the Blues seeking their first win of the season. Saturday opens with Gold Coast hosting Adelaide, a key test for the Suns as they aim to back up their big win last week, while the Crows will be looking to keep their perfect record intact. Reigning wooden spooners Richmond have the daunting task of facing reigning premiers Brisbane at the ‘G and the Lions will be eager to reaffirm their premiership credentials after a patchy start. Saturday night sees North Melbourne take on Sydney at Marvel Stadium, with the Swans looking to build on their first win of the season last week against a rebuilding Roos outfit. Sunday’s action begins with GWS hosting West Coast at ENGIE Stadium, a game that could get ugly very early for the visitors. Port Adelaide vs St Kilda at Adelaide Oval looms as a interesting clash, with both clubs form being very hard to read. The round wraps up with Fremantle taking on the Western Bulldogs at Optus Stadium in what could be a fierce contest between two sides with top-eight ambitions. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 273 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Geelong

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 7th April @ the all new time of 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect another Demons loss at Kardinia Park to the Cats in the Round 04. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 52 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Geelong

      Captain Max Gawn leads the Demonland Player of the Year in his quest to take out his 3rd trophy. He leads Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver who are in equal 2nd place followed by Kade Chandler and Jake Bowey. You votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Like
      • 30 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All