Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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?

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Haha 1
     
    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.

     

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
     

    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.

  • Quote
    • Haha 4
    • Clap 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 9
    • Thanks 1
    • Clap 2
     
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Thanks 3

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

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 1

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Clap 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Love 6

    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 ...

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Clap 1
    45 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    i'd settle for just a plain reformation

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

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 5
     
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 4

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 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.

      • 25 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? 

        • Like
      • 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?

        • Thumb Down
      • 232 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