JvR Free!!!

[beelzebub 23,382]

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].

 

[D4Life 2,510]

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

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,862]

I just hope @Demonland is available this evening to take a call from NBN Co. We've broken the internet I fear.

[Mickey 4,730]

 

[spirit of norm smith 16,574]

Ffs. 

panel of former players Jason Johnson and Paul Williams.  
 

wow.

[The heart beats true 18,144]

And… Carlton win their appeal. 

[Earl Hood 6,101]

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. 

[Hawny for Gawny 461]

Im convinced Carlton's lawyer could cure cancer if they tried... 

[Demons1858 1,766]

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

[layzie 33,989]

I made dinner in such an angry way tonight and it yielded fireball like results 

[Nascent 9,280]

There was nothing in the Carlton one and was rightfully thrown out. Should have been the same for us though.

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,862]

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 May 9, 2023 by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

[Hawny for Gawny 461]

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. 

[loges 6,767]

11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Ffs. 

panel of former players Jason Johnson and Paul Williams.  
 

wow.

Who?

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

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 May 9, 2023 by Scoop Junior

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,862]

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.

[Sigil 1,001]

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.

 

[Brownie 5,986]

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.

[Demon Disciple 12,267]

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.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

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 May 9, 2023 by Wadda We Sing

[DeeZee 7,445]

The bump is dead

The tackle is dead

now the spoil is dead too

[Sigil 1,001]

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

 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,870]

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.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

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

[layzie 33,989]

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