Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

  On 09/05/2023 at 10:53, 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
     

      On 09/05/2023 at 11:34, 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
     

    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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:40, 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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:32, 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

    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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:01, 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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:11, 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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:45, 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
     
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:44, 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
      On 09/05/2023 at 11:42, 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

    • REPORT: West Coast

      On a night of counting, Melbourne captain Max Gawn made sure that his contribution counted. He was at his best and superb in the the ruck from the very start of the election night game against the West Coast Eagles at Optus Stadium, but after watching his dominance of the first quarter and a half of the clash evaporate into nothing as the Eagles booted four goals in the last ten minutes of the opening half, he turned the game on its head, with a ruckman’s masterclass in the second half.  No superlatives would be sufficient to describe the enormity of the skipper’s performance starting with his 47 hit outs, a career-high 35 possessions (22 of them contested), nine clearances, 12 score involvements and, after messing up an attempt or two, finally capping off one of the greatest rucking performances of all time, with a goal of own in the final quarter not long after he delivered a right angled pass into the arms of Daniel Turner who also goaled from a pocket (will we ever know if the pass is what was intended). That was enough to overturn a 12 point deficit after the Eagles scored the first goal of the second half into a 29 point lead at the last break and a winning final quarter (at last) for the Demons who decided not to rest their champion ruckman at the end this time around. 

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Hawthorn

      The Demons return to the MCG to take on the High Flying Hawks on Saturday Afternoon. Hawthorn will be aiming to consolidate a position in the Top 4 whilst the Dees will be looking to take a scalp and make it four wins in a row. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 41 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: West Coast

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 5th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse the Demons 3rd win row for the season against the Eagles.
      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.

        • Haha
        • Love
        • Like
      • 13 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: West Coast

      Following a disastrous 0–5 start to the season, the Demons have now made it three wins in a row, cruising past a lacklustre West Coast side on their own turf. Skipper Max Gawn was once again at his dominant best, delivering another ruck masterclass to lead the way.

        • Love
        • Like
      • 197 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • VOTES: West Coast

      Max Gawn leads the Demonland Player of the Year from Jake Bowey in 2nd place. Christian Petracca, Ed Langdon and Clayton Oliver round out the Top 5. Your votes for the win over the West Coast Eagles in Perth. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Like
      • 32 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • GAMEDAY: West Coast

      It's Game Day and the Demons have a chance to notch up their third consecutive win — something they haven’t done since Round 5, 2024. But to do it, they’ll need to exorcise the Demons of last year’s disastrous trip out West. Can the Dees continue their momentum, right the wrongs of that fateful clash, and take another step up the ladder on the road to redemption?

        • Like
      • 669 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All