Jump to content


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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 

Max gets thumped in the back of the head week after week after week 

Not even a free kick - sorry mate can't agree with you

Listen to Jono Brown , Riewolt and Hawkins - players are told to make all efforts to bring the ball to ground (spoil) that was his only focus - in the process of spoiling the mark a glancing blow to the head, the damage was way overstated with the abundance of caution / stretcher. Not concussed, fine to play next week. Sensible cautious approach when he thought he heard a crack in the neck, but no damage done. If he had of got up just like Bowey, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This process needs to be less obscure.

How does this panel work?

Do they have to be unanimous or is it a majority?

Or does the chair override and it's a panel in name only?

I have the impression it's the latter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AshleyH30 said:

 

The Dark Knight Fan Art: The Joker | Morning humor, Work humor, Funny  pictures

 

Anyone with half a legal brain knows the judgement is complete hogwash. As I have said since last night, bringing in 'reasonable foreseeability' and 'reasonable person tests' is the greatest load of rubbish. This is a contact sport. You cannot use Civil Law principles. Even the whole 'duty of care' stuff is rubbish. If the AFL really wants to legal protect themselves, get a contract signed with players that includes a voluntary assumption of risk clause. FFS. These clowns at the AFL have lost the plot. 

 

Lastly, any reasonable player does what he can to win the ball. That's the object of the game. He was competing for the ball. This nonsense about duty of care and reasonability can be saved for off the ball stuff like Nic Newman, oh wait ! It's a complete farce. And 2 weeks! 2 weeks !

 

Top 30 Total Recall Two Weeks GIFs | Find the best GIF on Gfycat

  • Like 6
  • Clap 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

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.

It’s all optics. If Bowser has gone down for awhile even without being stretchered off Chol probably would have been cited. He might still have got off but he most likely would have at least faced MRO scrutiny. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEN just played Goody's presser. Said they hope they appeal, sounds like they will and when asked who will come in for Jacob, Goody said I'm picking Jacob in the team and thats all I'm thinking about. 

He just sounded bewildered still he got 2 weeks. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, deeTRACted said:

Goodie seems rightfully annoyed by it. 

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 


I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 


I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

There was no concussion here 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bystander said:

I don't think having a lawyer/QC as chairman is helpful. You just need someone, preferably a former player, who is literate and fair. ( The rules here were simple and jvr's actions were within those rules ).

We lawyers, on the other hand, have the capacity to distort plain words to get a result.

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 doubt this will be the case as the AFL choose who to cite and who not to via the MRO (eg. Chol vs van Rooyen).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deestiny Awaits said:

I couldn't listen live on SEN, where else can I find the presser?

It presumably will be posted later on the Dees website and their YouTube channel. I’ll post here when it becomes available

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 


I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

Not to mention the fact that a player that intentionally elbowed another player in the head got off just minutes later. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

Not to mention the fact that a player that intentionally elbowed another player in the head got off just minutes later. 

Or the fact that Lynch got off a few weeks ago for a much cruder spoil, or the fact that Fogarty wasn’t even cited in a spoil that resulted in a facial injury to his opponent.

Let’s just conveniently shaft a player that has played 6 games playing for a club that traditionally doesn’t pull the big angry mob crowds. Nobody will notice. Nobody will care. 

AFL read the room wrong. I hope we fight this and I hope we get a decent bloody lawyer not another AFL fanboy. 

  • Like 6
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago the tribunal was labelled chook lotto and unfortunately it is still chook lotto to this day. Players are cited depending on their status in the game, who they play for etc. Then you have this tribunal chairman who seems very happy with his own self importance giving reasons for the suspension that are totally contradictory . FMD

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone with knowledge tell me if we appeal this outcome, is it only about the hearing, the evidence provided, and the rationale around the decision? ie. doesn't take into account other past incidents, reported or not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens to the ruck contest from now on?

There’s always the reasonable possibility of a ruckman legitimately going for a hit out accidentally making contact with an opponent and therefore, every time this happens from now on the offending ruckman will according to the newly minted Gleeson doctrine be liable for a two week suspension.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised at the people having a go at Anderson last night after the failed appeal. I found his argument to be on point and showed that the contest was within the rules of the game. It was Gleeson who managed to somehow pull an argument "out of somewhere not so bright" to get the outcome we got. This is why everyone in the community is so flabbergasted by the result.

Edited by AshleyH30
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just now, DemonicFinalFantasy said:

Can anyone with knowledge tell me if we appeal this outcome, is it only about the hearing, the evidence provided, and the rationale around the decision? ie. doesn't take into account other past incidents, reported or not?

I have no special knowledge but I don't think relying on things that players have got away with in the past is a wise line to take.  All the AFL has to say is that things are changing and while the rules have not been changed, the interpretation has.  After all, the AFL specialise in that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

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.

Look back at Danger's elbow to the face of Vlastuin. Got off because of an argument as to who got to the ball first.

A completely irrelevant reason to let off a blatant elbow to the face, but of course, committed by a star from a big club.

  • Like 3
  • Vomit 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

What happens to the ruck contest from now on?

There’s always the reason possibility of a ruckman legitimately going for a hit out accidentally making contact with an opponent and therefore, every time this happens from now on the offending ruckman will according to the newly minted Gleeson doctrine be liable for a two week suspension.

Exactly.  If make me wonder if the AFL has leant on Gleeson or he has just gone feral.  Or a more likely third option, the AFL has not thought things through (as they often fail to do with rule changes) and in leaning on Gleeson (or merely creating an atmosphere where he felt he had to act as he did), they have thrown the whole game into chaos.

But most likley they will ignore this as a precedent so that the game does not become touch football.  And they may merely be content to use JvR's suspension to show to a court in 10 years time how they didn't tolerate anything that could cause a concussion.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Look back at Danger's elbow to the face of Vlastuin. Got off because of an argument as to who got to the ball first.

A completely irrelevant reason to let off a blatant elbow to the face, but of course, committed by a star from a big club.

Dangers was actually two actions One a spoil, two lifting his elbow up and thrusting it in the face of Vlastuin - al in the name of 'bracing for contact'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, loges said:

Many years ago the tribunal was labelled chook lotto and unfortunately it is still chook lotto to this day. Players are cited depending on their status in the game, who they play for etc. Then you have this tribunal chairman who seems very happy with his own self importance giving reasons for the suspension that are totally contradictory . FMD

Crooks Lotto...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    FROZEN by Whispering Jack

    Who would have thought?    Collingwood had a depleted side with several star players out injured, Max Gawn was in stellar form, Christian Petracca at the top of his game and Simon Goodwin was about to pull off a masterstroke in setting Alex Neal-Bullen onto him to do a fantastic job in subduing the Magpies' best player. Goody had his charges primed to respond robustly to the challenge of turning around their disappointing performance against Fremantle in Alice Springs. And if not that, t

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 7

    TURNAROUND by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons won their first game at home this year in the traditional King’s Birthday Weekend clash with Collingwood VFL on Sunday in a dramatic turnaround on recent form that breathed new life into the beleaguered club’s season. The Demons led from the start to record a 52-point victory. It was their highest score and biggest winning margin by far for the 2024 season. Under cloudy but calm conditions for Casey Fields, the home side, wearing the old Springvale guernsey as a mark of res

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    PREGAME: Rd 15 vs North Melbourne

    After two disappointing back to back losses the Demons have the bye in Round 14 and then face perennial cellar dweller North Melbourne at the MCG on Saturday night in Round 15. Who comes in and who goes out?

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 186

    PODCAST: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Tuesday, 11th June @ 8:30pm. Join George, Binman & I as we analyse the Demons loss at the MCG against the Magpies in the Round 13 on Kings Birthday. You 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. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human. L

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 36

    VOTES: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    Captain Max Gawn has a considerable lead over reigning champion Christian Petracca in the Demonland Player of the Year Award. Steven May, Alex Neal-Bullen & Jack Viney make up the Top 5. Your votes for the loss against the Magpies. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 41

    POSTGAME: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    Once again inaccuracy and inefficiency going inside 50 rears it's ugly head as the Demons suffered their second loss on the trot and their fourth loss in five games as they go down to the Pies by 38 points on Kings Birthday at the MCG.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 415

    GAMEDAY: Rd 13 vs Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons are once again faced with a classic 8 point game against a traditional rival on King's Birthday at the MCG. A famous victory will see them reclaim a place in the Top 8 whereas a loss will be another blow for their finals credentials.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 941

    BOILED LOLLIES by The Oracle

    In the space of a month Melbourne has gone from chocolates to boiled lollies in terms of its standing as a candidate for the AFL premiership.  The club faces its moment of truth against a badly bruised up Collingwood at the MCG. A win will give it some respite but even then, it won’t be regarded particularly well being against an opponent carrying the burden of an injured playing list. A loss would be a disaster. The Demons have gone from a six/two win/loss ratio and a strong percentag

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews 3

    CLEAN HANDS by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons headed into town and up Sydney Road to take on the lowly Coburg Lions who have been perennial VFL easy beats and sitting on one win for the season. Last year, Casey beat them in a practice match when resting their AFL listed players. That’s how bad they were. Nobody respected them on Saturday and clearly not the Demons who came to the game with 22 players (ten MFC), but whether they came out to play is another matter because for the most part, their intensity was lacking an

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...