5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

By why not change the system to say you can accept the ban or take your chances with an appeal? Why go via the Tribunal?

You're not guilty until you go to the Tribunal. I know is sound weird but it's like a speeding ticket. You can accept the ticket or fight it. If you fight it and lose you can appeal. 

I assume if we lose this appeal we can just get rid of contested possession as an AFL stat going forward.

Closest to the ball just gets possession. I assume after that players will be able to chase and tackle? Is tackling contesting? Oh, it's becoming a bit confusing.

1 minute ago, YearOfTheDees said:

You're not guilty until you go to the Tribunal. I know is sound weird but it's like a speeding ticket. You can accept the ticket or fight it. If you fight it and lose you can appeal. 

yes but you can only appeal on the basis of law not an error of fact unless the error of fact is such that no reasonably informed tribunal could have come to the decision (which in itself is an error of law).

In this case the error of law and the error of fact tend to merge so it should not be too hard to mount an argument. Whether it succeeds... who knows

37 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Members of the Appeal Board for a hearing cannot be the same members that sat on the matter at the Tribunal.

 

This must increase the odds of JvR beating the charge. So far, I would estimate that about 98% of football people who have expressed a view on the charge against him have called it out as absolute BS. The other 2% sat on the Tribunal.

The law of averages says he’ll be good to play on Saturday.

So does plain logic.

Bring it on!

 

We’ve got this

 

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

We’ve got this

Now we've seen that......please never do it again !!!

40 minutes ago, Deeoldfart said:

I’ve always loved the game and our great Club!  My love for the Club went to a new level with this morning’s decision to challenge the JVR decision …………. for the sake of justice and the integrity and good of the game.

Pfffft.   The AFL has never had integrity, so why would it start now?  New CEO, maybe? But then he has been part of the circus long enough so nothing will change 

Wil Powell demonstrating perfectly that there are still acceptable reasons to boo players at the footy...

2 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Wil Powell demonstrating perfectly that there are still acceptable reasons to boo players at the footy...

But how do we boo the AFL?

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I still don't understand why there's a three step process. I fully understand why there needs to be a second process to allow for natural justice. Why don't MRO appeals go straight to the Appeals Board. What's the point of an appeal against an MRO decision going to the Tribunal at all?

The suited up lawyers need an extra chance to make some cash.

1 hour ago, Kent said:

There are a lot of words in the recent lexicon RPFC. I tend to ignore all of them for lack of  context. Most are used by lazy word users who never realize how meaningless they are and that they cant use this beautiful language that is ours.

I indubitably agree.

As Redleg said - appeal, get a few fresh nuffies to look at it and they will see what the 98% see. It’s just maths.

1 hour ago, sue said:

From The Age: " Gleeson said the potential to cause serious injury to the neck and the spine was considered in deciding the force was high, and not incidental, upholding the suspension."

That makes no sense.  How can 'potential to cause injury' indicate the strength of a force?  A certain amount of force could cause potential injury but you can't estimate the actual  strength of a force by saying some level of force has the potential to cause injury, therefore this force was high .    Beyond belief. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

McCartin got concussion from his head lightly touching the ground

 

Better ban the ground

This will be the biggest case a court has heard since the Nuremberg trials. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Demonland said:

We’ve got this

 

The rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostril...

but yes that might work

May have been answered elsewhere but where can you read the AFL rules?

7 minutes ago, sue said:

But how do we boo the AFL?

We hack the Big screen video feed at the G, put up vision of Gil and all his goons, Gleeson, Christiansen and let it rip. 
 

I suggest we all make a worthwhile investment in a few long horns 

 

17 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I indubitably agree.

3 hours 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.

 

Interestingly Carlton also used an incident as evidence involving the same Charlie Ballard as the JVR incident.

22 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Wil Powell demonstrating perfectly that there are still acceptable reasons to boo players at the footy...

What an absolute little [censored]. How about your mate Chol Will? Looking forward to getting stuck into him next time we play

21 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

Wil Powell demonstrating perfectly that there are still acceptable reasons to boo players at the footy...

JVR will be a premiership player years before if ever Powell will be.  

Simply listen to Whately this morning and his opinion, then just wheel that out at the upcoming appeal.  Succinctly put by Gerard.

This is a point of law issue so has grounds.

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This must increase the odds of JvR beating the charge. So far, I would estimate that about 98% of football people who have expressed a view on the charge against him have called it out as absolute BS. The other 2% sat on the Tribunal.

The law of averages says he’ll be good to play on Saturday.

So does plain logic.

Bring it on!

I have it on good authority that the appeals board comprise Sportsbet executives and litigation experts. The real test will be when they hear a case involving head contact, concussion and brownlow contender. I suspect the litigators will fall on behind sportsbet.

His actions were reasonable but a reasonable player would deem them to have been unreasonable. Are we living in a simulation? This can’t be real. 

The notion that JVR didn't have eyes for the footy is completely false.

You are entitled to watch the footy up until a point that you can't, especially when you are running back with the flight of the ball. Unless we get a player with eyes in the back of the head it is almost impossible.