17 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

He recklessly hit a player high in the head enough for that player to be subbed out. Lucky not to get more weeks 

You're talking the [censored] right?

The AFL needs a renaissance 

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

Same under the decision.

It was not based on touching or missing the ball.

Thats curious then.

No one has priority to contest a ball. Both players have equal opportunity to mark, spoil or bump etc.

If JVR gets there and contacts the ball first what responsibility does Ballard have in terms of putting is head where the ball is?

Remember Dangerfield in the Grand Final against Vlastuin? The decision was based on Dangerfield getting to the ball first. The subsequent contact to Vlastuin's head was deemed incidental or in the contest.

 

 

Just now, layzie said:

The AFL needs a renaissance 

i'd settle for just a plain reformation

1 minute ago, layzie said:

The AFL needs a renaissance 

it needs an enema

24 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am surprised at the anger on this thread. It was as sure as the sun rising that this would be the result. The system is not fair we have known that for years, some teams always get a better run than others. We are among the ones that get used to show the league's intent to eliminate certain actions from the game. Suck it up and move on. 

That sort of defeatist attitude would leave us all still being ruled by kings OD.  Oh, wait.

So if connecting with the ball has no bearing on this decision then we're in serious trouble.

To use a Soccer example there are often many perfectly timed tackles that both win the ball but then may clip the opponent afterwards in the follow through action. Sometimes believe it or not this leads to a player being down and needing treatment. I can't say I've ever seen a red card and suspension given to someone who made contact with the ball first.

If Van Rooyen had indeed spoiled the ball and Ballard was still hit, this would be the equivalent to what I described above. In my view anyway. 

Jeff Gleeson is a major problem and is ruining the tribunal process.

He essentially accepted that what JVR did was not unreasonable and was in the play, but then found some way to make out that he was unreasonable, which is totally contradictoray.

He then quite obviously held sway over Johnson and Williams, who let' be honest are just token tribunal members to make it look like it isn't just Gleeson calling the shots.

34 minutes ago, Bystander said:

This is more important than jvr missing a couple of games. If this decision stands there will be 20 plus players a week there on Tuesdays plus a radical change to the way the game is played.

I think the issue we’re so rightfully angry about is that this WON’T happen. It WOULD fundamentally destroy the game if it was enforced, making this decision a ‘bubble’ precedent. This incident is scapegoating for appearances only. If the AFL, or the tribunal were accountable in any way, they would have to explain why dozens of incidents this coming round alone don’t result in suspensions. They’re in a position of not having to explain or justify anything to anybody. Much like the ongoing umpiring malaise. One complaint from anybody in clubland about any umpiring decision, or a publicly heard negative value judgment on anything to do with umpiring, and the AFL penalises the complainant, with absolutely no obligation to discuss the complaint or judgement. AFL house is simply a collective autocracy. 

I found the wording and the finding contradtory so hope that we appeal this unjust verdict.!!!

39 minutes ago, AshleyH30 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."

With Gleeson stating that they deemed the spoil a "football action" and to then follow up with the above statement could open a can of worms for the AFL. It won't happen tomorrow, but with this statement, the Tribunal have basically said that any football action that results in a hit to the head must be cited. That means that if you go for a speccy and knee a player in the head, you'll be liable. If you attempt to tackle you must foresee that your attempt may hit the player in the head when they drop their knees. Any football action can now be a reportable offence under this finding.

I can't see how we don't appeal on that alone.

i wrote something to this effect last night as well. This whole charade i think is trying to remove the protection that a 'football action' provides players, which translates to everything you wrote above. 

The only issue is that its not (yet) in the rules of the game, so the appeal may be successful, but the AFL may use it to put all players on notice and initiate a rule change mid-season. Which is really really bizarre as they said this won happen again. 

With the Lynch and a in particular Fogarty incidents not so long ago, I really wonder why they waited for another incident to do this, because the action in all three incidents were basically  indistinguishable , whilst the outcomes all varied. 

12 minutes ago, layzie said:

So if connecting with the ball has no bearing on this decision then we're in serious trouble.

To use a Soccer example there are often many perfectly timed tackles that both win the ball but then may clip the opponent afterwards in the follow through action. Sometimes believe it or not this leads to a player being down and needing treatment. I can't say I've ever seen a red card and suspension given to someone who made contact with the ball first.

If Van Rooyen had indeed spoiled the ball and Ballard was still hit, this would be the equivalent to what I described above. In my view anyway. 

its a dangerous fine line, if that is the case.. You could be 2mm away from a 2 week suspension on one hand or saving/kicking a goal on the other... ludicrous. 

53 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am surprised at the anger on this thread. It was as sure as the sun rising that this would be the result. The system is not fair we have known that for years, some teams always get a better run than others. We are among the ones that get used to show the league's intent to eliminate certain actions from the game. Suck it up and move on. 

Absolutely not.

We owe it to JVR and the game to get this disgraceful miscarriage set aside and we will.

Hell yeah. Storm the AFL buildings !! 
 

when do we confirm whether or not we're appealing?

why doesn't MFC take on the AFL on due process grounds (or lack there of) that leads to a denial of natural justice ... the afl legal system is shambles and probably ILLEGAL ??? ... EXAMPLE the van rooyen case due process is at best questionable ...

11 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

when do we confirm whether or not we're appealing?

I would assume we’ll find out today. They mentioned on Fox last night that if we appeal it would be heard on Thursday. 

I want us to appeal for the sheer fact that no big club would stand for this rubbish.

I am sick of no name players from smaller clubs being used as a pawn in the AFL's latest games. 

If we don't stand up against this and fight it, we are saying to the AFL that they can keep using our players to make an example, when the reality is, not a single AFL player is watching this suspension and thinking next time they won't go for the spoil.

45 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'd settle for just a plain reformation

How about a Spanish Inquisition? Bring out the ‘comfy chair’!!

 

1 minute ago, AshleyH30 said:

 

Good work Goody. Time to stand up to this corrupt organisation.

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

not a single AFL player is watching this suspension and thinking next time they won't go for the spoil.

And of course they will go for the spoil, Jaded, because if you take that option away, the game is dead. We all know this, or at least “reasonable” people know this (see what I did there?), which is why the commentariat is outraged, and this will be thrown out. How they let it get this far doesn’t just defy reason, but logic, and in fact sanity. 

9 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

The loss of JVR is beside the point. We have been in this position so many times and we are always the precedent case. 

I guarantee you we will see at least a dozen more of comparable cases before season end and there will not be a single charge laid - not a single one. 

How many of them will see a stretcher go out onto the field. AFL is all about optics

Its insane how Chol's action is not then also worthy of a 2 week suspension - yet not even reported.

And if its because of a stretcher that is ridiculous as Ballard was not injured, nor concussed and will play this week. It was purely precautionary according to the Suns because he said he heard a 'crack'.

Max Gawn should lie on he ground and call for a stretcher every single time he gets whacked in the head.

The AFL/tribunal needs to explain how this can possibly be so. And explain to players how things will be adjudicated. It is as it always has been - a complete [&^%^%$#&^$#&#] lottery, with big name players and big name clubs having all the good tickets.