2 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

100% this. The suspension is classified as a strike, which it is not. Let's examine it like a legal eagle [censored].

A physical strike is defined as a directed physical attack with intention to cause blunt trauma or penetrating trauma upon an opponent. A strike can be performed with hands, arms, legs, feet or head.
In this case, it was JVR's arm, so the other body parts are ruled out.

The type of strikes that can occur with the hands or arms are palm strike, closed fist punch, elbow or shoulder charge.
He didn't palm strike or punch him. They're out.
An elbow strike is performed by folding the forearm towards the bicep, and then swinging the arm in a circular motion with intention to cause impact with the elbow area. He didn't do this. That's out
Shoulder charge is performed by tucking the arm into the body, lowering centre of gravity, and then propelling yourself with intention to impact using the shoulder. He didn't do this either. That's out.

JVR did not perform any defined method of "striking". Contact was incidental with his inner bicep making contact with the opponents head after his straight extended past him. This was part of an attempted football spoil, not an intended strike to the head.

On another note, the opponent (Ballard) received a knee to the back of the head earlier in the match and was off the ground for that injury. After JVR's bicep made contact with the front/side of his head, he went down and grabbed the back of his head. That we know of, no serious injury occurred from either blow to the head, as Ballard has been confirmed as fine and will be playing this weekend. The short term damage he sustained though appeared cause by an earlier incident.

If this suspension is not overturned, then the rules of the game are now void, and the English dictionary is deemed false.

MRP and tribunal system, go [censored] yourselves. You are a disgrace to the country.

That's right and if it isn't overturned then I'd like to see them announce that the English dictionary is wrong. 

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

That's right and if it isn't overturned then I'd like to see them announce that the English dictionary is wrong. 

And isn't it pathetic that we've reached the stage where they're arguing over the definition of a word, rather than the actual incident. The whole process is absolute rubbish and makes me ashamed to breath the same air as the idiots running it.

7 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

And isn't it pathetic that we've reached the stage where they're arguing over the definition of a word, rather than the actual incident. The whole process is absolute rubbish and makes me ashamed to breath the same air as the idiots running it.

Could it be that this is what happens when lawyers get involved?

Apologies in advance to any of our learned friends on Demon land

7 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

And isn't it pathetic that we've reached the stage where they're arguing over the definition of a word, rather than the actual incident. The whole process is absolute rubbish and makes me ashamed to breath the same air as the idiots running it.

That’s our legal system…. Sad 😞 

2 hours ago, kev martin said:

Unacceptable risk, the CTE is a horrible injury.

Don't play! Wow, The rules can be tinkered with to create a safe game.

My problem is how they are going about it. 

The players need clear, consistent instructions,  not what is happening via the Tribunal. 

It is not Rollerball, a 1975 movie, a bloodsport. AFL has much more beauty, than it has what you advocate.

CTE is horrible - agreed. But the risks are known and accepted by all. In most cases the head can tolerate and recover from concussion if left to heal.

If the AFL is serious about concussion then it needs to consider a minimum 1 month or even 2 month absence from footy following a concussion and that accumulated concussion incidents force players into early retirement.

That is an alternative way to deal with it rather than tinker with the game rules too much.

Now I’m not saying certain rules cannot be tightened up - all for penalising players for potential to cause injury for non football actions as opposed / in addition to actual outcome, but it still won’t prevent all concussions and hence to make the decisions for players who are more concussion prone or have more concussion incidents for them.

In due time we will have better techniques and tools to assess the accumulated trauma , which can be used to greater effect when making those decisions as well. 

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

And isn't it pathetic that we've reached the stage where they're arguing over the definition of a word, rather than the actual incident. The whole process is absolute rubbish and makes me ashamed to breath the same air as the idiots running it.

It's all just technicalities, hot air, towing the company line, virtue signalling and semantics rolled into one. 

1 minute ago, Gawndy the Great said:

CTE is horrible - agreed. But the risks are known and accepted by all. In most cases the head can tolerate and recover from concussion if left to heal.

If the AFL is serious about concussion then it needs to consider a minimum 1 month or even 2 month absence from footy following a concussion and that accumulated concussion incidents force players into early retirement.

That is an alternative way to deal with it rather than tinker with the game rules too much.

Now I’m not saying certain rules cannot be tightened up - all for penalising players for potential to cause injury for non football actions as opposed / in addition to actual outcome, but it still won’t prevent all concussions and hence to make the decisions for players who are more concussion prone or have more concussion incidents for them.

In due time we will have better techniques and tools to assess the accumulated trauma , which can be used to greater effect when making those decisions as well. 

 

I read this and think...how on earth do we still allow boxing as a sport? The sport is all about attempting to inflict harm to another person's head.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I read this and think...how on earth do we still allow boxing as a sport? The sport is all about attempting to inflict harm to another person's head.

By striking or spoiling though? 😉

Do we know if Michael Christian's been sacked by the AFL for the incorrect charge against Nic Newman, allowing him to walk from a striking charge?

 

Yes. Tongue is in cheek....

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

I was suggesting that you might be the said reasonable man. Failing that, Chunk or Robbo seem good choices ... 😃

1 minute ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

I was suggesting that you might be the said reasonable man. Failing that, Chunk or Robbo seem good choices ... 😃

dermie?

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

dermie?

Is the reasonable man a self opinionated, narcissistic, former thug?

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

allow boxing as a sport?

Because much like prostitution and drug use, it’s obviously historically pointless to make it illegal. We HAVE to accept that humans will ALWAYS engage in certain things whether they’re illegal or not. It’s simply juvenile not to accept this. Better that you de-criminalise them, regulate and educate. In the case of boxing and footy, there must be an educated acceptance of the risk, whilst putting things in place to minimise harm (which the JVR suspension will NOT do), and then it comes down to personal choice. Rendering these things illegal is plainly ridiculous, if only for the fact that it doesn’t work, and thus makes ‘illegal’ outcomes worse. 

Does the appeals board have the discretion to downgrade it to 1 week?

Would like him available for Port.

 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

its a bit soft, but It’ll make a headline either way so just doing the team thing.

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

You could potentially read the tea-leaves of 'towing the line'... only if McRae (and presume it's the coach not the player) has gravitas within the power brokers determining the best optics for the AFL. I know where my next pay cheque is coming from...

Gosh an unbeliever

Thanks to everyone for signing this - let's try get to 1,500 at least before the hearing!

Please sign and then share to your socials!

https://chng.it/HNsHFvggB4

Petition signed!

So at what time will the appeal take place tonight?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/afl-2023-jacob-van-rooyen-appeals-board-hearing-live-updates-blog-suspension-video-highlights-latest-news/news-story/ee4509ed79011f75e2b446f90505b8d4

The live fox blog

Quote

Will Houghton KC (Melbourne) is now referencing a court case from 1909. We may be here a while, folks.

wtf .... better be good

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

wtf .... better be good

We are trying to bamboozle them with lawyer talk 😂

We should just go in there and tell them they’re wrong and stupid