2 hours ago, sue said:

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision.  Baloney.  No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'.  It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

Yes. Although the word ‘woke’ has now so many meanings - it is the word of the lazy in this country and the malevolent in the US. I would suggest people using actual words with actual meaning but whatever - I am not here to tell people not to use a word, only that they are damned in eternal hellfire if they do use it…

Longer this goes without a comment from the club the less confident of them appealing I am.

7 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Longer this goes without a comment from the club the less confident of them appealing I am.

We will appeal and win.

 

57 minutes ago, Redleg said:

This will get you angrier.

In the Carlton charge Gleeson found that Newman hit Neale to the jaw forcibly, with his LEFT forearm.

BUT, he was charged with doing it with the RIGHT forearm.

He found the right arm hit Neale's chest.

He found that was not a strike.

Obviously not the underarm and armpit, which we know are lethal weapons. 

Instead of just amending to the left arm, which they always do, he dismissed the charge.

Whately can't believe it. Neither can I.

It's like you shot him with a gun in your right hand. No it's the left and therefore not guilty.

 

Am starting to believe that tribunal charges are being deliberately erroneously worded to ensure a particular case is dismissed. Same as introducing errors in due process. Like with Cripps it doesn’t take a Captain Obvious to note that the only possible way in this universe he could have got off his charge was due to a never before seen technicality. Then we have the McKay/Sheezel incident where evidence is happily accepted to claim McKays intention was to push and not elbow Sheezel high but this photo suggests he actually elbowed him in the face despite what he intended. Curiously Carlton seem to be serial beneficiaries of these egregious decisions.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

We will appeal and win.

 

Are you representing us? 🤔😂

4 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Longer this goes without a comment from the club the less confident of them appealing I am.

I doubt we wouldn't appeal after what Goodwin said this morning. He would have been told what to say when the question was asked and he was adamant that Jacob would be playing this weekend and he wasn't considering any other option.

6 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Are you representing us? 🤔😂

That would guarantee a win.😉

4 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Am starting to believe that tribunal charges are being deliberately erroneously worded to ensure a particular case is dismissed. Same as introducing errors in due process. Like with Cripps it doesn’t take a Captain Obvious to note that the only possible way in this universe he could have got off his charge was due to a never before seen technicality. Then we have the McKay/Sheezel incident where evidence is happily accepted to claim McKays intention was to push and not elbow Sheezel high but this photo suggests he actually elbowed him in the face despite what he intended. Curiously Carlton seem to be serial beneficiaries of these egregious decisions.

I forgot about this case… it’s worse than the JVRs but still not worthy of suspension. This just raised my anger another level.

7 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Longer this goes without a comment from the club the less confident of them appealing I am.

Cant just appeal by putting your hand up. A rationale has to be formulated, written and presented on the reason for appeal. Need a few legal minds time to get it right and not stuff it up.

6 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Am starting to believe that tribunal charges are being deliberately erroneously worded to ensure a particular case is dismissed. Same as introducing errors in due process. Like with Cripps it doesn’t take a Captain Obvious to note that the only possible way in this universe he could have got off his charge was due to a never before seen technicality. Then we have the McKay/Sheezel incident where evidence is happily accepted to claim McKays intention was to push and not elbow Sheezel high but this photo suggests he actually elbowed him in the face despite what he intended. Curiously Carlton seem to be serial beneficiaries of these egregious decisions.

Equally bewildering is why isn’t anybody asking why Carlton are continually being let off without any humorous undertones? It is beyond coincidence now. 

Just heard Damian Barrett pontificate on this: wow, what a font of opinionated [censored].

14 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

Longer this goes without a comment from the club the less confident of them appealing I am.

Watch Goodwins presser, very strong words, we are clearly ropable. 
 

we will be appealing, JVR is getting picked and not even considering who will come in for him. 
 

loved it!

11 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Am starting to believe that tribunal charges are being deliberately erroneously worded to ensure a particular case is dismissed. Same as introducing errors in due process. Like with Cripps it doesn’t take a Captain Obvious to note that the only possible way in this universe he could have got off his charge was due to a never before seen technicality. Then we have the McKay/Sheezel incident where evidence is happily accepted to claim McKays intention was to push and not elbow Sheezel high but this photo suggests he actually elbowed him in the face despite what he intended. Curiously Carlton seem to be serial beneficiaries of these egregious decisions.

Why didn't the Tribunal say, if you raised your forearm and ran into a player to "push" him, it was "foreseeable" if not " inevitable" that you could have hit him high and at the very least, "struck him with your forearm"?

This is a strike on any viewing, with the only question being, where was first contact. It's not a push it's a strike.

But Tribunal accepts from the Carlton player what his intention was and ignores it in JVR's case. WHY?

This Tribunal makes it up as it goes along and one can unfortunately suspect, possibly working to an agenda.

Apparently we have until midday to appeal this. So 15 Minute left if that is true. 

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by YearOfTheDees
Should have been Midday. Auto Incorrect.

Just now, GCDee said:

Watch Goodwins presser, very strong words, we are clearly ropable. 
 

we will be appealing, JVR is getting picked and not even considering who will come in for him. 
 

loved it!

I’m positive they are considering who will replace him. They would be negligent not to. Not saying they aren’t serious about appealing. We clearly will but there is no guarantee he gets off if we do. 

1 minute ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Apparently we have until monday to appeal this. So 15 Minute left if that is true. 

It’s Wednesday and the game is on Saturday so I think your timing is off. 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

It’s Wednesday and the game is on Saturday so I think your timing is off. 

May have autocorrected from midday to Monday I reckon.

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

It’s Wednesday and the game is on Saturday so I think your timing is off. 

Just been reported inThe Age that the AFL want a decision by Midday. If they Appeal the AFL will hear it on Thursday night. 

 

Not been confirmed but from Goodys presser it is going to happen. 

love it! we’ll have the whole nation on our side

Good work Dees. 
Fingers crossed the people on the appeals board are less drunk than those at the tribunal last night. 

The club has made it Offical as well. Go Dees.

 

 

The appeal must be based on the words, reasonable, foreseeable/potential, and blow. 

I can't see how JVR would have had going through his head, that his spoil was going to result in a blow to Ballard's head. If his fist was going at Ballard and not the ball the of course, but his leading arm was going at the ball. The thoughts of JVR would have been get to and impact the contest, prepare for a hit, I assume Ballard would be the same. He would be a genius if he could predict the outcome of two independent bodies in a complex collision, give him an honoury degree in physics.   

It is reasonable to allow a player to go at the ball.

The "blow" is a bit wrong. I see a player falling from his flight and putting weight through his arm to the head of Ballard. More a neck bend than, whiplash from a strike.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by kev martin

Just watched Goody's presser.  Wow!  I'm delighted to hear how strongly Simon Goodwin is supporting JVR in this - stridently refusing to entertain a selection scenario where JVR is not available this weekend.  Fantastic stuff.  Repeated emphasis that the fabric of the game is in question.  And now we have confirmation we are appealing. BRING IT ON!!!