On 10/05/2023 at 03:30, Mach5 said:

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

What did Powell do/say?

  On 10/05/2023 at 03:57, DistrACTION Jackson said:

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.

For someone not watching the ball he did remarkably well to get a fist 2 mm away from it - uncanny actually

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

Them fighting words Wil! Must have been reading Jeremy Howe interviews. 

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

He is protecting his team mate , but that last comment ‘he got what he deserved’ went overboard - spewing we don’t play them again this year. 

  On 07/05/2023 at 05:50, Gawndy the Great said:

I thought there was nothing in it at the time. But Christiansen is a goose and he’ll find a way to rub him out for 2 weeks.

He's may be a goose, but he hates Melbourne FC and just loves to play the official - even though his capabilities are limited and his rule understandings receive enormous, and embarrassing, levels of criticism. Legitimate concerns arise about the impartiality applied and thus the justice of his 'judge & jury' exclusivities - particularly if remembered for his own blind swipes at opposition players on the footy field in past days. Again, the proof is in the pudding. He needs to be replaced by an expert footballer from any past who was/is without compromise, current favour and the casualisation of scrutiny that leaves so much unfulfilled as his trademark. 

Edited May 10, 20231 yr by Deemania since 56

  On 10/05/2023 at 03:56, Ethan Tremblay said:

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. 

I keep saying; AI isn’t ready yet. The simulation is failing

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:11, Gawndy the Great said:

He is protecting his team mate , but that last comment ‘he got what he deserved’ went overboard - spewing we don’t play them again this year. 

That has nothing to do with protecting his team mate - and he is perpetuating the myth that JVR hit Barnett on the head anyway, and he seems to believe that he was injured by that incident.

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

Let’s send Jack Viney to him next time we play. Would give us a nice new entry into the Jack Viney hurt me thread!

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:11, Gawndy the Great said:

He is protecting his team mate , but that last comment ‘he got what he deserved’ went overboard - spewing we don’t play them again this year. 

Sounds like we've got a new 'all duck no dinner' 😜

  On 10/05/2023 at 02:05, 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?

You can see why so many of us on DL and in the broader footy community are angry with this.

Gleeson is an intelligent man I would assume and to come up with his sort of garbage, just causes real angst, as to where this is all coming from.

He finds on the same night, that Neale was hit forcibly to the jaw by a left forearm of Newman and that Neale was also hit by the right forearm of Newman to the chest. He finds the chest hit not a strike and chooses not to amend the charge to left forearm and lets another Carlton player off. We all know about the Cripps rubbish. Then despite video showing McKay hits Sheezel with a forearm to the neck and lower jaw, he accepts that McKay's version that he was intending to push, not strike. I thought usually pushing involved hands and not forearms. Third Carlton player let off.

Despite accepting JVR intended to spoil, he brings in foreseeabilty, which is not in the rule.

He doesn't allow previous incidents to be shown or compared or discussed.

What the hell is going on here? 

  On 10/05/2023 at 00:17, AshleyH30 said:

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.

Anderson did a terrific job. The case should have been thrown out after he directed the Chairman and panel to their own rules, which clearly state that the actions of JVR were within the rules. The fact this was allowed to be deemed a striking offence is complete and utter nonsense..he did not strike him at any stage.  

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

There’s one player who certainly deserves to be booed this weekend by everyone 

https://chng.it/Cpn9tjkZSc

 

sign the petition, folks!

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

A nobody player who plays for a nothing club. Call me when someone I care about doesn’t back in JVR. 
 

By the way, his own club clearly disagrees with his opinion since they gave evidence to say Ballard was not hurt and cleared to play this week. They didn’t need to do that if they thought the action was malicious. Could have said he was hurt and then made a miraculous recovery. Aka what Adelaide did with Dangerfield in the Trengove case. 

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

Quote from Will the Dill

“It’s widely covered now that if you make contact with the head and don't make contact with the footy, you're going to be in a bit of trouble.

“I think the MRO is doing a really good job of staying on top of (these incidents) which is perfect.

“He didn't make contact with the footy, didn't have eyes with the footy and smacked Charlie in the side of the head.

“I think he got what he deserved, the MRO is doing a good job.”

Now compare the pair

1. Not watching the ball (tick)

2. No contact with the football (tick)

3. Smacked opposition player in the head (tick)

4. Seems he didn't get what he deserved (tick)
 

  On 10/05/2023 at 02:38, 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?

That is the way the AFL has set it up.

The MRO officer initially lays the charge and penalty, unless it is a serious matter, requiring it to go directly to the Tribunal, like the Junior Rioli case later this afternoon.

If unhappy with the MRO finding, a player can appeal to the Tribunal to downgrade the charge/penalty or to have it completely overturned.

If unhappy with the Tribunal decision, a player can appeal to the Appeals Board, which is more of a review of the Tribunal decision, as to whether it is correct in law, was conducted appropriately and that on the evidence, it was a decision that the Tribunal could reasonably have arrived at.

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:40, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

There’s one player who certainly deserves to be booed this weekend by everyone 

Don’t worry, the little schmuck will hear plenty of boos this weekend, they’re at Optus against the Eagles. 

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:03, Heart Beats True said:

“He got what he deserved”

Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

Powell is a wet lettuce leaf. You don’t win friends with salad. 

Edited May 10, 20231 yr by Ethan Tremblay

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:25, layzie said:

Sounds like we've got a new 'all duck no dinner' 😜

Hence why I was spewing we don’t play em again.

  On 10/05/2023 at 03:56, Ethan Tremblay said:

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. 

Welcome aboard Ethan.

It's the type of garbage your avatar would spout in one of his films or interviews and we would all be laughing hysterically.

  On 10/05/2023 at 03:33, sue said:

But how do we boo the AFL?

If, and that's a big if, we don't beat this on Thursday I am expecting a new banner made on Thursday night to read 

"FREE ROO". 

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:38, Redleg said:

You can see why so many of us on DL and in the broader footy community are angry with this.

Gleeson is an intelligent man I would assume and to come up with his sort of garbage, just causes real angst, as to where this is all coming from.

He finds on the same night, that Neale was hit forcibly to the jaw by a left forearm of Newman and that Neale was also hit by the right forearm of Newman to the chest. He finds the chest hit not a strike and chooses not to amend the charge to left forearm and lets another Carlton player off. We all know about the Cripps rubbish. Then despite video showing McKay hits Sheezel with a forearm to the neck and lower jaw, he accepts that McKay's version that he was intending to push, not strike. I thought usually pushing involved hands and not forearms. Third Carlton player let off.

Despite accepting JVR intended to spoil, he brings in foreseeabilty, which is not in the rule.

He doesn't allow previous incidents to be shown or compared or discussed.

What the hell is going on here? 

We need one well respected football authority - preferably a current or recently retired player or at least someone in the media to come out and say just this. Not many people in the footy world will have made this connection and without drawing the spotlight to it, will continue to happen.
 

  On 10/05/2023 at 04:49, Dee Zephyr said:

Don’t worry, the little schmuck will hear plenty of boos this weekend, they’re at Optus against the Eagles. 

Bit of a shame he said it, do like him as a player.

  On 10/05/2023 at 00:26, sue said:

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.

That argument won’t fly because any competent counsel representing an injured footballer could also point to the cases (eg the hit the week before on Murphy) where the AFL neglected to act and therefore failed in its duty of care to its players. The AFL has made a rod for its own back by the fact that the tribunal and its operation has resulted in inconsistency and utter confusion.