1 minute ago, Redleg said:

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.

To be fair the Kosi bump, although no injury was sustained, is so so so much worse than JVR’s spoil, that it’s actually laughable that those two ended up with the same penalty.
It’s absolutely incomparable actions. One was totally unnecessary and off the ball. One was in play and IN THE RULES. One had the intention to hurt and one had the intention to contest the ball.

If we don’t appeal this I’ll be very upset and if we don’t win the appeal I’ll know for sure that the AFL is corrupt.

Can you imagine Jeremy Cameron, Scott Pendlebury, or Lachie Neale getting suspended for this same action in September? No you couldn’t, because it would NEVER happen. The AFL makes up rubbish rulings every week to suit whatever dumb agenda they want to push at the time, and young no name players from small clubs suffer as a result. 

18.5.3 on 'Permitted Contact':

"Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark."

Gleeson conceded that JVRs intent was to spoil but adds that any reasonable player couldn’t spoil without causing impact.

I wonder whether we are all being played for fools here and this will be successfully appealed under error of law, however the AFL will then initiate an immediate revision of this and other rules like it where any football action that a reasonable player performs will be done with a duty of a care.  
 

Previously any football action was a grey area and somewhat protected can now have a definitive line where players can now be suspendable performing football acts that are not reasonable in their endeavour. 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Gawndy the Great

8 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

To be fair the Kosi bump, although no injury was sustained, is so so so much worse than JVR’s spoil, that it’s actually laughable that those two ended up with the same penalty.
It’s absolutely incomparable actions. One was totally unnecessary and off the ball. One was in play and IN THE RULES. One had the intention to hurt and one had the intention to contest the ball.

If we don’t appeal this I’ll be very upset and if we don’t win the appeal I’ll know for sure that the AFL is corrupt.

Can you imagine Jeremy Cameron, Scott Pendlebury, or Lachie Neale getting suspended for this same action in September? No you couldn’t, because it would NEVER happen. The AFL makes up rubbish rulings every week to suit whatever dumb agenda they want to push at the time, and young no name players from small clubs suffer as a result. 

Barry Hall, the Swans Captain, punched a bloke in the guts, 150 metres away from the ball ,in a PF and the Tribunal found it was IN PLAY.

 

And this wasn't cited????

This is one of the worst decisions I've ever ever seen.

4 minutes ago, wizardinoz said:

And this wasn't cited????

It is an absolute farce… there is literally no difference.

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

all down to the 0.8 seconds where the eyes were off the ball.

This gives them the precedent to suspend JVR while still maintaining that the spoil is allowed.

It is what it is.............

In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball.

 

"We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head.

That determination is completely idiotic, the AFL has jumped the shark

7 minutes ago, wizardinoz said:

And this wasn't cited????

Why would it be cited, he just jumped off the ground, running as fast as he could and smashed Murphy in the face, breaking Murphy's nose.

No reasonable player doing that would have thought that someone might be hurt.

Just ask the MRO, he will tell you. Then ask Gleeson and he will agree.

8 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It is an absolute farce… there is literally no difference.

Yes there is.

Murphy got a broken nose.

Some of the stuff quoted there is nothing more than nonsensical jabbering.

I think this is an absurd decision. JVR is banned doing a legal action under the rules and laws of the game. No swinging arm. No concussion.  It’s a spoiling attempt that hit the other player in the head. Wow that’s 10-12 incidents per match every week.  

13 minutes ago, wizardinoz said:

And this wasn't cited????

Because he walked off.  Should have called an ambulance.

On 5/7/2023 at 6:59 PM, defuture15 said:

Here is the story of ruinator. The one the authorities came to blame.

For something that he never done....

#freevanrooyen

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Jeff Gleeson imo has possibly convinced the 2 ex footballers to side with him.

We now have the situation where apparently the entire football world, except this Tribunal thought he should never have been even cited.

You now can’t spoil , bump, tackle, kick the ball anywhere near another player, as you have a duty of care not to hurt or strike or hit anyone.

If this is not overturned the game can’t be played in any way other than by touch footy.

Whately and Robbo said it must be appealed for the sake of the game.

Possibly Gleeson .... or Gleeson (and the others?) coerced by somone upon high within the AFL to deliver a pre-determined outcome?

Yet Chol has no case to answer for a similar incident. He attempted to tackle but hit Bowey in the head.  That’s 2 weeks. 

Any KCs here willing  to do pro bono work to save roo?

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Satan

After all this is over, the AFL need to apologise to JVR, the MFC and their supporters.

Better still, put the whole tribunal in some stocks errected outside Gate 5 at the MCGand let us throw rotten vegetables and fish heads at them.

13 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Possibly Gleeson .... or Gleeson (and the others?) coerced by somone upon high within the AFL to deliver a pre-determined outcome?

I suspect Gleeson was worded up prior, to back the MRO this week after some very poor outcomes in recent weeks. That’s how the AFL operates. 

 

1 hour ago, Seraph said:

"However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

We're honestly one step away from banning players for injuring themselves.

"We also find that a reasonable player would have forseen that in jumping for the ball in the way they did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in them forcefully hitting their head on the ground. We therefore must uphold the decision to ban them for 2 matches."

What utter [censored] 🤮 The contact and spirit of our game is now dead. Wokeism is now a part of AFL sanitation squad!

not even downgraded from high to medium impact ... wtf ... double jeopardy

 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by daisycutter

 

Our former Captain and number 2 doesn’t seem to agree with the decision either. 🔴🔵

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Deevout

This is just plain flawed. What he is saying is that if there is a free kick, it can be reportable, but if there was no free kick, it is not reportable. The rule says nothing about that. He has just made it up.

Under “Spirit and Intention” law 18.5.1 reads: “The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so”.

Under “Permitted Contact” law 18.5.3 reads: “Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark”.

Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC credited that as a valid point – but said it created a “complex” issue.

“If conduct could not constitute a free kick, it is not presently apparent to me how that same conduct could constitute a reportable offence,” Gleeson said.

 

This really is all a big joke 

2 hours ago, Seraph said:

"However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

We're honestly one step away from banning players for injuring themselves.

"We also find that a reasonable player would have forseen that in jumping for the ball in the way they did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in them forcefully hitting their head on the ground. We therefore must uphold the decision to ban them for 2 matches."

What utter [censored] 🤮 The contact element and spirit of our game is now dead.! Weĺcome to Wokeism AFL Style which is now a part of AFL sanitation squad! Unless òf course u are ........!

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by picket fence