Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5
     

    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 by Gawndy the Great

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     

    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 7
     
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    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.  

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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?

  • Quote
    • Like 3

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

    Edited by Satan

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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!

  • Quote
    • Like 2

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

     

    Edited by daisycutter

  • Quote

     

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

    IMG_5956.png

    Edited by Deevout

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Love 2

    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.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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 by picket fence

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Like
      • 133 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Sad
        • Love
        • Like
      • 404 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      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
        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All