Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

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

    • PREGAME: St. Kilda

      The Demons head to the Red Centre to face St Kilda in Alice Springs, aiming for a third straight win to keep their push for a Top 8 spot alive. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Sad
        • Shocked
        • Like
      • 466 replies
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 12

      Round 12 kicks off with the Brisbane hosting Essendon at the Gabba as the Lions aim to solidify their top-two position against an injury-hit Bombers side seeking to maintain momentum after a win over Richmond. On Friday night it's a blockbuster at the G as the Magpies look to extend their top of the table winning streak while the Hawks strive to bounce back from a couple of recent defeats and stay in contention for the Top 4. On Saturday the Suns, buoyed by 3 wins on the trot, face the Dockers in a clash crucial for both teams' aspirations this season. The Suns want to solidify their Top 4 standing whilst the Dockers will be desperate to break into the 8.

      • 235 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: St. Kilda

      The media has performed a complete reversal in its coverage of the Melbourne Football Club over the past month and a half. Having endured intense criticism from all quarters in the press, which continually identified new avenues for scrutiny of every aspect, both on and off the field, and prematurely speculated about the departures of coaches, players, officials, and various employees from a club that lost its first five matches and appeared out of finals contention, the narrative has suddenly shifted to one of unbridled optimism.  The Demons have won five of their last six matches, positioning themselves just one game (and a considerable amount of percentage) outside the top eight at the halfway mark of the season. They still trail the primary contenders and remain far from assured of a finals berth.

        • Haha
      • 12 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Sydney

      A few weeks ago, I visited a fellow Melbourne Football Club supporter in hospital, and our conversation inevitably shifted from his health diagnosis to the well-being of our football team. Like him, Melbourne had faced challenges in recent months, but an intervention - in his case, surgery, and in the team's case, a change in game style - had brought about much improvement.  The team's professionals had altered its game style from a pedestrian and slow-moving approach, which yielded an average of merely 60 points for five winless games, to a faster and more direct style. This shift led to three consecutive wins and a strong competitive effort in the fourth game, albeit with a tired finish against Hawthorn, a strong premiership contender.  As we discussed our team's recent health improvement, I shared my observations on the changes within the team, including the refreshed style, the introduction of new young talent, such as rising stars Caleb Windsor, Harvey Langford, and Xavier Lindsay, and the rebranding of Kozzy Pickett from a small forward to a midfield machine who can still get among the goals. I also highlighted the dominance of captain Max Gawn in the ruck and the resurgence in form in a big way of midfield superstars Christian Petracca and Clayton Oliver. 

        • Haha
        • Like
      • 9 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Sydney

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 26th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse a crushing victory by the Demons over the Swans at the G. 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.

      • 51 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Sydney

      The Demons controlled the contest from the outset, though inaccurate kicking kept the Swans in the game until half time. But after the break, Melbourne put on the jets and blew Sydney away and the demolition job was complete.

        • Love
        • Like
      • 428 replies
      Demonland
    View All