JvR Free!!!

[Slartibartfast 17,518]

The thread title is a little off-putting.  

[McQueen 17,867]

If the ban stays upheld my phone and the wall will meet. 

[Jaded No More 68,972]

The AFL is arguing that JVR injured Ballard. 
Since when does free to play next week = injured?

 

[Demonland 73,128]

 Is the player not playing this week?

[McQueen 17,867]

David Zita

@DavidZita1

·

3m

Woods (AFL): He needed to take care, he failed to take reasonable care and he injured another player and that was appropriately found to be careless.
 

There was no definitive injury was there?

[dazzledavey36 55,315]

He won't get off.

This Woods guy is too much of a defence of duty of care for the player.

 

[DubDee 26,114]

would be funny if he gets off and we rest him for Satdy

[layzie 33,989]

If I hear the word upheld tonight I will throw a brick through my radio screen 

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

He won't get off.

This Woods guy is too much of a defence of duty of care for the player.

 

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 

[DutchDemons 1,430]

Where do I watch this?

[BigBadBustling 386]

Just now, Jaded No More said:

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 

Exactly. This [censored] used the words 'the rules explicitly require a duty of care'. Oh really. Which exact rules are these?

[Scoop Junior 3,513]

12 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

 

Andrew Woods (AFL): If the AFL's proposition isn't accepted, the result is that players essentially have a blank cheque. They've got no obligation to take reasonable care of their fellow players, so long as their sole objective is a lawful action.

 

Even if that is accepted, that only goes to them having a duty of care. Whether or not they breach that duty of care (i.e. fail to exercise reasonable care / act carelessly) then comes down to the reasonable person test. I would have thought the reasonable person test used by the Tribunal and its application to the fact can still be attacked.

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Surely we get a right of reply to this lying sack of [censored] making up rules and concocting imaginary injuries. 

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

[layzie 33,989]

It's really hard to be on DL, Fox Sports news and Zita's Twitter while trying to do a workout at the gym 

[Nicko 1,382]

“Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

[kev martin 10,404]

10 minutes ago, DutchDemons said:

Where do I watch this?

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

Scroll down to the live blog

Edited May 11, 2023 by kev martin

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Just now, Nicko said:

“Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

That’s the dude doing the live reporting from the hearing. Not the actual lawyers. 

[kev martin 10,404]

6 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Except nowhere in the law does it say that you have a duty of care when going to contest the ball. 
Where is that specific law? 

His only other choice was to not contest, the ball or the spoil.

[Nicko 1,382]

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

That’s the dude doing the live reporting from the hearing. Not the actual lawyers. 

Gotcha….thanks 

 

[layzie 33,989]

That's it, play the nice guy approach!

[Jaded No More 68,972]

Ok Melbourne is back up on the stand

This is juicier than an episode of Judge Judy after school

[kev martin 10,404]

3 minutes ago, Nicko said:

“Please note I am aware Charlie Ballard will play this week. I am merely a messenger.”

what the???

 

Trained as well from what I understand. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,624]

8 minutes ago, Scoop Junior said:

Even if that is accepted, that only goes to them having a duty of care. Whether or not they breach that duty of care (i.e. fail to exercise reasonable care / act carelessly) then comes down to the reasonable person test. I would have thought the reasonable person test used by the Tribunal and its application to the fact can still be attacked.

the standard of care would be quite high in the area of possible concussion so I'm not sure it helps

The framing of the charge on grounds similar to a tortious complaint is perhaps a dangerous misconception in the area of a disciplinary tribunal.

I see Houghton just made the same point...

Houghton (Melbourne): This attempt to impose a regime of health and safety upon players when construing a rule like 18.5 is quite wrong. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Diamond_Jim

[layzie 33,989]

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Ok Melbourne is back up on the stand

This is juicier than an episode of Judge Judy after school

I'm looking forward to 11:58pm tonight when you post the 'wrap it up' one!