From David, the reporter at the Tribunal just now . . .

Thanks to everyone for following along on a long, long Tribunal Tuesday. We will have a Tribunal Wednesday and - when the Dees likely appeal - an Appeals Board Thursday! See you in less than 24 hours!

Paddy Cripps' Brownlow will forever be a shining beacon of bulldust 

5 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

The bump is dead

The tackle is dead

now the spoil is dead too

Yep. Just stand around and let the opposition take the mark ALL by themselves. We are getting softer and softer and softer etc. etc.

He has never been reported in either junior or senior football before this.

 

Police stand by, as looters take what they want.

53 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Well that was a ride…

I, for one, will always remember the 25 minute period when @Jaded No Moreloved ADRIAN FREAKIN ANDERSEN.

 

 

51 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

That wasn’t me sir. I want a full retraction.  

Yeah nah, it was me. He was elevated to my new fave person in the world. Needless to say his stay in that position was fleeting. 

Nic Newman’s suspension was overturned. No surprise there. 

When in doubt it's pretty simple 

It's the money .....

 

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Can someone explain what the outcome would have been if JVR had actually connected with the ball?

Same under the decision.

It was not based on touching or missing the ball.

3 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Nic Newman’s suspension was overturned. No surprise there. 

There was nothing in it, so I’m glad. Also now Carlton’s lawyer is free on Thursday and we should hit him up. Knows his stuff that guy. 

42 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Time for the dog to wag the tail.

We made this game.....

Time to remind some....

[email protected]

Having a wild stab that might possibly be his email.

Might be nice to puff his inbox up a bit.

Wouldn't bother with Gil

Gee what's Carlton's secret to getting off charges? They seem to have the knack. 

can we re Appeal?

3 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Gee what's Carlton's secret to getting off charges? They seem to have the knack. 

I think this is becoming somewhat of a problem 

1 minute ago, dees189227 said:

Gee what's Carlton's secret to getting off charges? They seem to have the knack. 

Well … one explanation might be that their membership numbers are larger than ours and they attract bigger crowds which equals more $ in the AFL’s coffers. 

But surely, this couldn’t possibly be about money? 😀

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I just want Steven May to punch a tribunal member in the head.

Booking the restaurant now…

If we lose the appeal, boo the umpires and the broken system they represent as they come out and at the 2nd minute mark of the 2nd quarter for Roo.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by OhMyDees

45 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Ffs. 

panel of former players Jason Johnson and Paul Williams.  
 

wow.

I think you can take it to the bank that Gleeson is behind this decision.

Not one former player has said JVR should have been reported, so why would these two be any different, unless they were pressured.

How was a written decision made in 16 minutes, after the time needed for discussion  about the evidence and the rules?

I am highly suspicious of this decision.

I see an Appeal and a win.

I see the AFL then doing the big PR about them doing everything to prevent injuries.

I just hope that JVR is alright and not badly affected by this.

BTW: anyone see any similarities in recent events, Kozzie bumps, no injury but 2 games, JVR does an action within the rules, no injury, but 2 games, under a duty of care that is not mentioned in the relevant rule.

29 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.

The other possible error of law is the Tribunal's reliance on law 18.5, which as far as I can tell talks about free kicks. I can't see that it sets the boundaries for reportable offences. 

But I agree with you. The Tribunal found:

1. JVR's objective was to spoil
2. It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation

Those two things IMO mean his actions were reasonable, and the contact was incidental to his reasonable objective.

I find it nearly impossible, as you do, to reconcile the above two points with the Tribunal's further finding about the inevitability of a forceful blow to the head.

I'm livid with this decision. I think it's genuinely legally unsound. I think it's incredibly harsh that JVR misses two weeks whilst Lynch's charge was thrown out and Fogarty didn't even get cited. It's yet another example of the system being broken. 

We need Johnny Cochrane 

38 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

The bump is dead

The tackle is dead

now the spoil is dead too

Actually so is the contested mark and kicking a footy anywhere near another player, where the ball, or your boot, could contact the other player.

18 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

 

Yeah nah, it was me. He was elevated to my new fave person in the world. Needless to say his stay in that position was fleeting. 

Oh, my bad @Jaded No More - I have been blind with rage for a couple hours now.

And WCW… DISAPPOINTING 

38 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'm looking forward to an uprising  

Listen to footy talkback tomorrow. 

What's a joke. Just read the points on AFL.com We need the council that the cats get every time. It was play as day accidental contact and with no lasting effects and he's playing this week.  The stretcher was just playing safe.