2 hours ago, JTR said:

Am I correct in understanding that had JVR actually touched the ball, even by a whisker, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation and it'd simply be put down as a "football incident" ?

That's where I think the majority of the confusion is coming from, the Tribunal ruled that it was a football action but that any "reasonable player" would know that he had a chance to cause injury.

 

However they accept that it has an attempted spoil, but the charge was for striking?! very confusing overall

3 hours ago, Red and Blue Flame said:

Petition @ 88 sigs...need to get all supporters, members and general footy supporters to sign this! reckon there were 1,000s of people commenting on social media. Get behind this and share

https://www.change.org/p/free-jacob-van-rooyen

JVR did nothing wrong. He was trying to spoil with eyes on the ball in a football action and was only millimetres away from making contact with the ball to prevent Ballard from taking a mark. In the process, his right bicep made contact to Ballard's head. Whilst Ballard was removed from the field on a stretcher (as a precaution) he was not concussed and is available to play this week. Fair dinkum, if Patrick Cripps can get off for concussing Callum Ah Chee who missed weeks of football, and Tom Hawkins can get off for an accidental elbow to Steven May's eye causing a fractured eye socket and causing him to miss a month of footy, the precedent is well and truly set for JVR to be let off to play given that his accidental hit on Ballard has not caused him to miss any football. Free JVR!

Sign the petition, I did. It's now at 577. Lets support JVR

https://www.change.org/p/free-jacob-van-rooyen

 

 

Change petition now garnering worldwide attention with my signature in England. Forwarded it to my mate who’s a North London Lions player who’s passing it on to their squad WhatsApp group. 😁

Free the Roo One. Am so glad the club has appealed this. 

I fear that with the ground-swell of negative comments about how this decision has been adjudicated, and for the AFL to ‘just stick with their process’ and at the same time not realise how fragile this game is right bloody now!
So many disgruntled supporters right now, [censored] off with what they’re used to barracking for and understanding of within the rules, somehow will absolutely have a an immediate and severe impact on its brand. 
 

I represent what you’ve read above. 

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by McQueen
I am also quite baked

3 hours ago, chookrat said:

Does anybody know if the club has managed to track down this so called reasonable person the Tribunal keep referring to. I have a feeling that if we can find him/her they might be able to clear up this matter rather quickly.

Redleg? :-)

16 hours 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 

Concise, theatrical, humorous.

 

meh

17 hours 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 

24 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Concise, theatrical, humorous.

 

meh

Also inaccurate, unjust and obsequious.

Livid, (and corrected for you @McQueen)

On 5/9/2023 at 6:18 PM, adonski said:

Get onto the CIA, the FBI, the men in Black, the ACDC, B1 & B2, whoever will listen cause this is corrupted! Bad to the bone!

Unfortunately though, the AFL slipped us B1 last night, so let's just hope that B2 isn't available Thursday night and they have to free Rooey.

7 hours ago, Brownie said:

So far so good. 

Even if he gets off, nothing will really change unless people stop attending or watching.

If it wasn't for my passion for the MFC, there's no way I would be watching or attending this weird circus.

The official media (at least those on the broadcast rights gravy train) are part of the circus Brownie, albeit a few are somewhat lower down the pecking order, hence they're able to speak a bit more of their mind on rare occasions.

& ex-player uproar via social media chanels...doubt that even gets a mention inside the 4 walls.

Can't see Joey getting off.  At best maybe a reduction from 2 to 1

The ring masters won't like losing too much face and having their agenda completely quashed, seemingly in a trial by media.

As is most things Barnum & Bailey, it's mostly about optics & looking after/growing the core parts of their brand (read Big 4 Melb Clubs, Geelong, interstaters & players they consider marquee or requiring special protection/treatment).

There's always the Casey option which is sometimes a better day IMHO.  Less of the AFL insanity/circus, more old school grass roots.  Casey also a VG side of course, especially once moose comes back.

Whatever happens I'm very proud of the way MFC has handled this. I know some people were worried we may not appeal and demanded we 'show some balls' but I never really doubted we'd do the right thing on this one.

 

On 5/8/2023 at 4:33 PM, DeeSpencer said:

JVR definitely gives him a good coat hangering around the head which causes the neck concern. Let's not deny that. But that's a risk when any player makes a spoil.

The thing that never gets discussed in incidents like this because people fear that it's victim blaming is how many players have lost the ability to protect themselves.

Ballard should've turned his body away from JVR, jumped to get to the ball early and stuck his backside out to protect the space. 

Had he done even part of that the worst he would've got is the arm in to his guts.

Sorry Dee but your assertion that Ballard should have approached his attempt at marking by turning etc. is as ludicrous as the AFL asserting that "a reasonable player" should have ...( we are talking about a free jumping and wheeling 20 yo in his sixth game ffs) who goes for the ball and nothing else. 

The  ball in fact was a floating type of kick that ended up nearer the boundary than both players Ballard and Rooy originally realised ( another GC player No 4 was also close in the area but played an extra role only ) and that's why the contest untimately occurred. 

Also  that footage the AFL just released (from behind the goals) in close up and real speed shows a distorted view of the incident. It looks as though Rooy just flew at Ballard and hit him squarely in the head. 

Now from the 3 million replays since Sat night IMO it is clear that Rooy's fist did just touch the ball and Ballard received a glancing incidental ( ie accidental) low impact but high speed touch from Rooy's left arm above the elbow. 

Free kick above the shoulder once he was taken off the ground. Move on and let the off field check in his health.

Now we have 5 days later the revelation that Ballard us fighting fit and will be easily fit enough to fly 5 hours both ways and lead the GC defence against the hapless WC on Friday night (6 days only!!!).

Contrast this with Junior Rioli getting downgraded to TWO matches by The Tribunal ( same as Rooy is facing with no resultant injury from a Football act) when concussion occurred and Ridley is missing  at least ONE Match this week and Ballard is playing.

Also as Gerard Whately said from Monday on that this is not a real strike in the end that caused any damage that was only apparent but not real in the end. 

The Appeal Tribunal are in the spotlight to clean up this AFL contrived mess and this time a NOT GUILTY verdict is reached for all the RIGHT reasons not the ridiculous call in the Cripps for Brownlow case which 17 Clubs and millions of fans regard as another AFL contrived result. Too bad the Blues couldn't even take advantage of it wasn't it? 

Our No 2 should be free to play this Saturday if common sense is king. 

2 minutes ago, 58er said:

Sorry Dee but your assertion that Ballard should have approached his attempt at marking by turning etc. is as ludicrous as the AFL asserting that "a reasonable player" should have ...( we are talking about a free jumping and wheeling 20 yo in his sixth game ffs) who goes for the ball and nothing else. 

The  ball in fact was a floating type of kick that ended up nearer the boundary than both players Ballard and Rooy originally realised ( another GC player No 4 was also close in the area but played an extra role only ) and that's why the contest untimately occurred. 

Also  that footage the AFL just released (from behind the goals) in close up and real speed shows a distorted view of the incident. It looks as though Rooy just flew at Ballard and hit him squarely in the head. 

Now from the 3 million replays since Sat night IMO it is clear that Rooy's fist did just touch the ball and Ballard received a glancing incidental ( ie accidental) low impact but high speed touch from Rooy's left arm above the elbow. 

Free kick above the shoulder once he was taken off the ground. Move on and let the off field check in his health.

Now we have 5 days later the revelation that Ballard us fighting fit and will be easily fit enough to fly 5 hours both ways and lead the GC defence against the hapless WC on Friday night (6 days only!!!).

Contrast this with Junior Rioli getting downgraded to TWO matches by The Tribunal ( same as Rooy is facing with no resultant injury from a Football act) when concussion occurred and Ridley is missing  at least ONE Match this week and Ballard is playing.

Also as Gerard Whately said from Monday on that this is not a real strike in the end that caused any damage that was only apparent but not real in the end. 

The Appeal Tribunal are in the spotlight to clean up this AFL contrived mess and this time a NOT GUILTY verdict is reached for all the RIGHT reasons not the ridiculous call in the Cripps for Brownlow case which 17 Clubs and millions of fans regard as another AFL contrived result. Too bad the Blues couldn't even take advantage of it wasn't it? 

Our No 2 should be free to play this Saturday if common sense is king. 

You know what they say about common sense. It isn't common

Selection, appeal, busy night coming up on DL. Maybe the quick little site update yesterday afternoon was to prepare for tonight.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

You know what they say about common sense. It isn't common

Perhaps BM but that isn't really the situation and it only needs the right decision for CS to occur.  The CS is mainly fir the regard to the AFL rules and control of the game which is getting the picture of putting out bush fires and making up rules or interpretations on the run to try and appear caring on head and resultant concussion issues. 

What ever happened to their rule about no damage done no report!!! 

Oh it's now the "potential to cause damage" even when it didn't!!!!  They also want to have the rule that a " reasonable player " should be able to predict danger and not contest!!!

Its now almost a joke what goes in at the MRO Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal now. That's not common sense either I can certainly tell you. 

 

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

He missed the most important part..... "Selective" risk mitigation.

It is applied either more rigorously in some cases or alot less / not at all, depending on the player/club in question.

1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Selection, appeal, busy night coming up on DL. Maybe the quick little site update yesterday afternoon was to prepare for tonight.

 

 

I heard the bandwidth was upgraded specially 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Love the summation 

that Will Powell must be brain dead - what he said will surely come back to bite him big time.

3 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

that Will Powell must be brain dead - what he said will surely come back to bite him big time.

Even if it is his opinion, there were a number of different and less hostile ways to say it. 

7 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Redleg? :-)

It gets a little harder, as in law there is the “reasonable man” test, but here we are talking about the “reasonable footballer” test.

Who is the easiest “ reasonable footballer “ to locate I wonder.

14 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

that Will Powell must be brain dead - what he said will surely come back to bite him big time.

The very next time we play him ;) 

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The very next time we play him ;) 

Jack Viney come on down

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The very next time we play him ;) 

Jordan Lewis was very angry about his comments on 360 last night.

Thought they were just wrong and also probably breaking the player code.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Redleg

1 hour ago, 58er said:

Perhaps BM but that isn't really the situation and it only needs the right decision for CS to occur.  The CS is mainly fir the regard to the AFL rules and control of the game which is getting the picture of putting out bush fires and making up rules or interpretations on the run to try and appear caring on head and resultant concussion issues. 

What ever happened to their rule about no damage done no report!!! 

Oh it's now the "potential to cause damage" even when it didn't!!!!  They also want to have the rule that a " reasonable player " should be able to predict danger and not contest!!!

Its now almost a joke what goes in at the MRO Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal now. That's not common sense either I can certainly tell you. 

It does seem that “ potential to cause injury “ is now penalised harsher than    “  actual injury “.