31 minutes ago, Red and Blue Flame said:

https://chng.it/Cpn9tjkZSc

 

sign the petition, folks!

Let's get this to 100k

7 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

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.

Doesn't mean the AFL isn't stupid enough to try to use it.

i know that technically this is not a court of law, but nevertheless jvr is still entitled to fairness and natural justice.

how then do we explain natural justice to jvr when the afl mro/tribunal processes in just the last few weeks, in the fogarty and lynch cases, can come up with different interpretations and results?  Is this natural justice? Did the afl change the rules of the game or the interpretations in the last few weeks?  didn't the afl tell the clubs that this year there would be no mid season changing of rules or interpretations?

the afl must be the only sporting organisation that has a set of rules that only the afl fully understand, and only then when it suits their agenda.

Exactly what we've been saying. It won't stop with the spoil.

44 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

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

By the way, his own franchise 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. 

fixed it for you

32 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

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.
 

Garry Lyon was all over the Newman and Murphy examples

10 minutes ago, sue said:

Doesn't mean the AFL isn't stupid enough to try to use it.

If I was the AFL (thankfully I'm not that stupid) I'd be more worried about allowing someone like Paddy McCartin back onto the field with his clear history of vulnerability to concussion - seemed like a very big call at the time and in hindsight perhaps not a good one 

3 minutes ago, AshleyH30 said:

Exactly what we've been saying. It won't stop with the spoil.

And its almost as if the player going for the mark has first mover advantage. Why not the other way around?

Silly question - what is this infatuation with keeping eyes on the ball? And that when you take yours eyes off. Surely you cannot plead ignorance because you had eyes for the ball - because there is something called peripheral vision. 
Couldn’t you argue that eyes on the player is exercising a duty of care by trying to understand where the player is to minimise / avoid contact?

I mean when you drive a car and run a red light - because your eyes were on the road - doesn’t really hold up in court when you are facing charges for manslaughter.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Gawndy the Great

17 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

18.5.3 on 'Permitted Contact':

"Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark."

Gleeson conceded that JVRs intent was to spoil but adds that any reasonable player couldn’t spoil without causing impact.

I wonder whether we are all being played for fools here and this will be successfully appealed under error of law, however the AFL will then initiate an immediate revision of this and other rules like it where any football action that a reasonable player performs will be done with a duty of a care.  
 

Previously any football action was a grey area and somewhat protected can now have a definitive line where players can now be suspendable performing football acts that are not reasonable in their endeavour. 

But this is actually where the AFL argument massively fails. They're admitting it was an attempted spoil, so the whole thing should be thrown at, as he's been charged with striking. It isn't striking if it's spoiling.

Please share this petition with all Melbourne supporters. The AFL need to know that we aren't going to back down and the fabric of our game is at stake.

 

https://chng.it/HNsHFvggB4

14 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

On the Reddit AFL page there are 248 comments from supporters of all clubs. After scrolling through I saw maybe four that were pro-suspension, and the rest were all completely appalled by the decision. 

I can’t remember the last time a suspension was so unpopular amongst fans of the game. 

If the AFL have any sense of this they’re obliged to make it right, not just to Jacob and the Demons supporters, but AFL supporters at large. 

I do.

It was Jack Viney 2014

19 minutes ago, BigBadBustling said:

I do.

It was Jack Viney 2014

Yeah surprised few people have mentioned this.

34 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Silly question - what is this infatuation with keeping eyes on the ball? And that when you take yours eyes off. Surely you cannot plead ignorance because you had eyes for the ball - because there is something called peripheral vision. 
Couldn’t you argue that eyes on the player is exercising a duty of care by trying to understand where the player is to minimise / avoid contact?

I mean when you drive a car and run a red light because your eyes were on the road doesn’t really hold up in court when you are facing charges for manslaughter.

Yes, it is counter intuitive because it is against intuition.

We either want people to show a duty of care and look for those to show that care, or we want to stick to ancient football universal ‘intent’ and tell players to throw themselves around with a single focus on the ball.

Jacob looked where the ball will land and then looked at the player that was there to ensure that he didn’t make contact with his fist to the head of the player in his attempt to spoil. Free kick Ballard. No report. 

GET ME A WIG AND PUT ME IN COACH!

We should have used Port’s defence in the current Rioli case

 

2 hours ago, Nascent said:

What did Powell do/say?

Who is Powell..never heard of him.

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

Who is Powell..never heard of him.

He's a damn good footballer.

3 minutes ago, rjay said:

Who is Powell..never heard of him.

Will Powell, defender from Gold Coast. Quietly putting together a good season.

I don't think what he said was too inflammatory to be honest. He was asked the question and he gave his opinion. Not everyone has to have the same opinion.

1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

He's a damn good footballer.

If I recall, Powell was on our draft radar a few years back.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

16 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. 

It’s absurd to think that it’s nothing but a coincidence, but FMD - I’m going to finish my thoughts on the conspiracy thread. 

This! , if Fogarty gets away without even giving a free kick last week when he almost decapitates a bloke how is this a 2 week suspension?!

2 hours ago, Red and Blue Flame said:

https://chng.it/Cpn9tjkZSc

 

sign the petition, folks!

I've signed, made a financial contribution, but was only the 33rd signature. Not all that positive me thinks.

Signed.

5 hours ago, DubDee said:

Siri - define a strike 

“I’m sorry, I’m too busy trying to educate Jeff Gleeson”

18 minutes ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

This! , if Fogarty gets away without even giving a free kick last week when he almost decapitates a bloke how is this a 2 week suspension?!

Interstate club's are likely higher in the AFL's pecking order.

The AFL most likely has an internal code of who is to come under scrutiny and who isn't as well as severity of punishment, regardless of the act and related outcomes to the player on the receiving end.

Why do you think the AFL doesn't allow the 'doctrine of precedent' to be used when deciding on outcomes?

Signed the petition 

 

Honestly could there be a dumber instance of bloody-mindedness by the AFL...  and many many to choose from.

Its a travesty of common sense .( rare commodity given.. )

The action is JUST footy ffs.  

Theyre truly destroying this great game.

What a bunch of [censored]