JvR Free!!!

[#11-TonyAnderson 868]

10 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Is this good or bad or is everyone drunk? 

The appeals board has to finish their 10 course meal and wine so it looks like they took a great deal of time to set a precedent that applies to most clubs except Carlton and Collingwood for a start. By the way does Christian ever charge a Collingwood player?

[Deemania since 56 6,808]

20 minutes ago, BigBadBustling said:

Well it's not actually in the rules, so precedent or not, any player could be rubbed out at any time, for anything

JVR took off to spoil as he was not able to access the flight point to mark. He went up with some force to effectively reach the incoming ball - no contact at that point - but in that split second of hitting the ball (no contact at that point) he was already obeying the laws of gravity (he was already coming down) and a reversing opponent moved into his soft inner arm (not bent or braced) as JVR was descending (by the way, JVR did all that is possible in avoiding deliberate contact or enacting injury to his opponent). That is evident from watching the event, from watching the replays ad nauseum, from an understanding a basic knowledge of the physics of moving matter. JVR is therefore being penalised for what? Taking off the ground and following Newton's laws of gravity? If he had wings or a jet engine strapped for ignition on his back, it would not be an issue....

Edited May 11, 2023 by Deemania since 56

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

The AFL clearly unhappy that we are not taking this on the chin and threatening with a fine for Greens comments. 

Probably didn’t expect the uproar from the club. 

[watchtheeyes 1,429]

Just now, John Demonic said:

Well if we're being honest. This whole circus is about getting him out there for the Port game where he could make a difference, if Port come to play. Pricinples and Fair defence of our aside

For me it’s as much about removing any doubt rooey has about how he should approach the contest. His greatest attribute and we have a league telling him it’s all wrong.

I have no doubt the coaches have the arms all around him on this fear, but it would be nice for the AFL to send him on his way and say carry on lad

[dees189227 12,512]

I thought our hearing was at 5. I've just come out of work looking for the result. What has happened 

[In Harmes Way 7,869]

Maybe they’re reading DL getting the various feedback on the possible outcomes they might hit us with

[deva5610 970]

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Typical AFL. Redefining words to suit their agenda again.

Nothing Brad said was unfair, unreasonable or excessive. It was in fact fair, reasonable and once. ;)

Edited May 11, 2023 by deva5610

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

3 minutes ago, Monbon said:

I agree: the real meaning of Cognitive Dissonance is a mind enclosed and moated by its superstitions, values, and beliefs, beliefs usually instilled from the onset of consciousness. In other words, if you are brought up to believe, just say, that there is a Holy Trinity, then, only intelligent people question this possibility. In other words, its an academic term for a very closed mind.

Is that like an Appeals board?

[BDA 23,048]

Why can’t Brad green voice his opinion. It’s called free speech.

[BigBadBustling 454]

1 minute ago, Deemania since 56 said:

JVR took off to spoil as he was not able to access the flight point to mark. He went up with some force to effectively reach the incoming ball - no contact at that point - but in that split second of hitting the ball (no contact at that point) he was already obeying the laws of gravity (he was already coming down) and a reversing opponent moved into his soft inner arm as JVR was descending (by the way, JVR did all that is possible in avoiding deliberate contact or enacting injury to his opponent). That is evident from watching the event, from watching the replays ad nauseum, from an understanding a basic knowledge of the physics of moving matter. JVR is therefore being penalised for what? Taking off the ground and following Newton's laws of gravity? If he had wings or a jet engine strapped for ignition on his back, it would not be an issue....

He's being penalised for the AFL allowing the Fogarty spoil the week before

[daisycutter 30,021]

what did brad green tweet?

 

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,819]

2 minutes ago, AmDamDemon said:

I bloody love how we've come out swinging. [censored] the lot of 'em

If he was playing for a Cats,Pies,Tiges,Carl,GC,Syd or GWS this wouldn't even be an issue.

What better club to issue a perfect test case to than the Demons.

[Little Goffy 14,963]

5 minutes ago, McQueen said:

These guys must be on their 4th Pint easily by now. 

If they finish their degustation before the hearing finishes, it is a tax-deductible work expense.

[Stu 1,072]

2 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Vicki Pollard

No, but yes, but, no, but yes

[Demonland 74,429]

75 minutes and counting

[Diamond_Jim 12,772]

have sympathy for them

writing reasons to defend the indefensible takes time

[Deefender 254]

Brad Green issue is a distraction.

[Queanbeyan Demon 7,023]

2 minutes ago, deva5610 said:

Typical AFL. Redefining words to suit their agenda again.

Nothing Brad said was unfair, unreasonable or excessive. It was in fact fair, reasonable and once. ;)

Actually, Brad's behaviour is governed by corporate law, not the bloody AFL.

[Mazer Rackham 14,972]

4 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Is it possible the Appeals Board decided it was all to difficult and snuck out the back way.

They're watching Twelve Angry Men for clues on how to decide

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what did brad green tweet?

 

 

 

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,508]

8 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Charged with striking

Did not strike

QED

A few years back I think before the 2004 GF, Jonathan Brown was charged with rough play after putting someone in a headlock than swinging them to the ground and landing on them with his body, ultimately a stupid, dangerous and thug act. A Lions member who was also a lawyer contacted the club and told them to argue he couldn’t be charge with rough play as play had technically stopped because it was 3/4 time. He was free to play, this is a prime example why sport’s tribunals need to be run differently from courts of law.

[McQueen 17,867]

6 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

who's actually deliberating?

Helen Keller. 

[Damo 3,466]

Website doing a great job with all us on it, refreshing

[Redleg 42,156]

Interesting thought.

It takes over 75 minutes for 3 ex player lawyers to decide if a player did the wrong thing in one second.

Makes the whole thing seem totally ridiculous.

 

[Deebymistake 790]

7 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

I'm really happy you said afterthought after slip in!

Oh no. See what this case is doing to our brains.  The AFL have dragged us all to their gutter level.