Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.
Demonland

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (â‹®) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

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

    • Welcome to Demonland: Steven King

      The Melbourne Football Club has selected a new coach for the 2026 season appointing Geelong Football Club assistant coach Steven King to the head role.

        • Like
      • 662 replies
      Demonland

    • AFLW PREVIEW: Port Adelaide

      The undefeated Demons venture across the continent to the spiritual home of the Port Adelaide Football Club on Saturday afternoon for the inaugural match for premiership points between these long-historied clubs. Alberton Oval will however, be a ground familiar to our players following a practice match there last year. We lost both the game and Liv Purcell, who missed 7 home and away matches after suffering facial fractures in the dying moments of the game.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • AFLW REPORT: Richmond

      A glorious sunny afternoon with a typically strong Casey Fields breeze favouring the city end greeted this round four clash of the undefeated Narrm against the winless Tigers. Pre-match, the teams entered the ground through the Deearmy’s inclusive banner—"Narrm Football Weaving Communities Together and then Warumungu/Yawuru woman and Fox Boundary Rider, Megan Waters, gave the official acknowledgement of country. Any concerns that Collingwood’s strategy of last week to discombobulate the Dees would be replicated by Ryan Ferguson and his Tigers evaporated in the second quarter when Richmond failed to use the wind advantage and Narrm scored three unanswered goals. 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Frankston

      The late-season run of Casey wins was broken in their first semifinal against Frankston in a heartbreaking end at Kinetic Stadium on Saturday night that in many respects reflected their entire season. When they were bad, they committed all of the football transgressions, including poor disposal, indiscipline, an inability to exert pressure, and some terrible decision-making, as exemplified by the period in the game when they conceded nine unanswered goals from early in the second quarter until halfway through the third term. You rarely win when you do this.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • AFLW PREVIEW: Richmond

      Round four kicks off early Saturday afternoon at Casey Fields, as the mighty Narrm host the winless Richmond Tigers in the second week of Indigenous Round celebrations. With ideal footy conditions forecast—20 degrees, overcast skies, and a gentle breeze — expect a fast-paced contest. Narrm enters with momentum and a dangerous forward line, while Richmond is still searching for its first win. With key injuries on both sides and pride on the line, this clash promises plenty.

      • 3 replies
      Demonland

    • AFLW REPORT: Collingwood

      Expectations of a comfortable win for Narrm at Victoria Park quickly evaporated as the match turned into a tense nail-biter. After a confident start by the Demons, the Pies piled on pressure and forced red and blue supporters to hold their collective breath until after the final siren. In a frenetic, physical contest, it was Captain Kate’s clutch last quarter goal and a missed shot from Collingwood’s Grace Campbell after the siren which sealed a thrilling 4-point win. Finally, Narrm supporters could breathe easy.

      • 2 replies
      Demonland
    View All

    Configure browser push notifications
    Chrome (Android)
    1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
    2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
    3. Adjust your preference.
    Chrome (Desktop)
    1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
    2. Select Site settings.
    3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.