Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 minutes ago, DeeMee said:

Umpires relieved they wont have to make 10 reports per game this weekend.

The AFL can sneak off and change the rules now and that's fine. Just let the players know first.

 

Great play Jacob.  Great play MFC!  ❤️💙

 
1 minute ago, Stu said:

When I heard the good news I literally flexed like JVR did after he goaled against the tigers! 

Has an Ambulance been called?

12 minutes ago, picket fence said:

AFL NEED NOW TO TAKE A VERY HARD LONG FREAKIN LOOK AT CITATIONS, APPEALS ETC ETC BASKET CASE PROCESS !!!

...and the anointed people, their preferences and  behaviours that impose such misery on the general public. You can fool the people above you some of the time, but you cannot fool the general public.


Finally common sense has prevailed.

It's absolutely embarrassing that he even got reported for it.

Edited by Jibroni

2 minutes ago, Kiss of Death said:

Hello old friend, I remember you from many close defeats snatched from the jaws of victory. 

now that’s settled let’s get on with trouncing the poos and pees by 120 points, we owe them multiple times over 

IMG_7893.jpeg

We busted it 

 

I luv how they considered only the first ground and left remaining grounds verdicts unknown. Basically saying to the AFL if you don't get your rules correct, we'll be back here again ... on a very similar case.

$$$ thank you very much now and in the future!!


5 minutes ago, layzie said:

Probably no better song to finish tonight off with.

 

 

Sorry buddy, here's the correct version

#ShannonNoll_AustralianIdol
 

 

7 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Spot on. Appeals board rules that the Tribunal is not permitted to make up the rules as it goes along...

And don’t forget dimwit Christian who takes his prompts from sensationalist media commentators. He can’t make up rules on the run either. 


I went to the match on Saturday thinking it was going to be a nothing game tucked away at the Gold Coast. I guess I ended up seeing a bit of football history.

1 minute ago, Winners at last said:

Whoever drafted the rule/s in question will get a 'please explain' from the AFL!! 

Scott?

Reasons from Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam:

Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.

These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.


Serious question . . . is there a worse professional sporting site on the web than the AFL's?

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That will help culture and show the players they are always supported by their club and fans.

Don't underestimate how all of the boys would be feeling now, especially JVR.

May i say, some handy feedback & LEG work

Read the tea leaves well 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Big boys stand up and the Club stood up big time tonight, well done to the MFC.

No longer the doormat.

#Justice

#Roofree

 

 
3 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:

Probably been said somewhere here but hanging out to play GC again and see Will Powell 'get what he deserves' 😈

Will Powell has to wake and look in the mirror every single day - I think that’s punishment enough 

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Absolutely.

The Chairman on tuesday at the Tribunal made it up as he went along.

He added things to the rules, that weren't there.

Actually pretty simple.

Correct - as you and some others have pointed out this process was an appeal and the advocate for the MFC had the task of convincing the appeals board that Tuesday’s Tribunal erred in their interpretation of the AFL’s rules. 

“The tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC said that although it was reasonable for the young Demon to assess the situation in the way he did they decided ‘a reasonable player would have seen that in spoiling the ball in the way he did would almost inevitably have resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head’”.

Besides being complete and utter gobbledygook, Gleeson was attempting to rewrite the rule book. If allowed to stand, the Tribunal’s decision would have forever stood as a grave injustice. 


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 528 replies