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

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

      • 16 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      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.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 8 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Like
      • 206 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Port Adelaide

      Max Gawn has an insurmountable lead in the Demonland Player of the Year ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzy Pickett. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Sad
      • 25 replies
      Demonland

    • GAMEDAY: Port Adelaide

      It’s Game Day, and the Demons are on the road for the next month and will be desperate to claim a crucial win to keep their finals hopes alive against Port Adelaide.

        • Haha
      • 786 replies
      Demonland
    View All