6 hours ago, Winners at last said:

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

No problem with the Rule.

The problem is Gleeson decided he would wrongly add a bit in where the Rule was clear.

6 hours ago, DeeVoted said:

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.

I will interpret that for you.

The chairman, Gleeson,  was completely wrong. But he is still a nice chap.

In the penultimate paragraph of the above quote there is an important typographical error. "Whereby" should be "Where".

3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Well… it was clear Dill, until the MRO and Tribunal made it unclear. But yes, tap yourselves on the back and tell each other you’ve done an amazing job. 

You'd think given he's just been promoted to CEO-elect from General Counsel that he'd understand the most basic function of the appeal tribunal is to assess the legal application of the AFL rules for legal error 🙄 If it's not very clear to him, he should head back to law school

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

I thought you said it wasn't looking good!

There's a hint of sarcasm in that comment 'Red' 😁

 

Demonland this morning

Don't forget to submit your feedback to getstuffedmro.com

Will be a sweet tasting brekkie for JvR this morning.

Well there's 4.5 days I won't get back!

42 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

And How I’ll sleep next Thursday night before the big prime time game against Port!

Nothing personal against Junior Rioli but I was a little peeved that he copped a two week suspension (reduced from 3) at the Tribunal the other night. How could they have applied the same punishment in a situation where a player caused an opponent to be concussed and miss at least the following week to one where his club gives him the all clear?

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

Why? The AFL is thrilled with his work.

Exactly why he should consider resigning.

3 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Exactly why he should consider resigning.

I don’t understand.

Why would someone resign if their employer was thrilled with their work?

Winners and losers.

WINNERS

Football, MFC, Jacob van Rooyen 

LOSERS

Adrian Anderson, Will Powell.

The number of successful appeals in the MRO process is outrageous given the cards stacked against the suspended player. It just shows what a kangaroo court the whole process is.

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I don’t understand.

Why would someone resign if their employer was thrilled with their work?

Because even if your employer is thrilled with your work, it might not necessarily mean you’ve done the right thing. Richard Nixon might have been thrilled with the plumbers at Watergate but that means Jack [censored].

Told you our lawyers were good.

I'm curious to know why it took 2 hours of deliberation to come to a conclusion that 99% of people took about 2 minutes to get to.

16 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm curious to know why it took 2 hours of deliberation to come to a conclusion that 99% of people took about 2 minutes to get to.

I imagine it had to do with the Appeals Board reviewing the rulebook in its entirety to see if there was a rule anywhere that could override rule 18.5 for the Tribunal to have come to the outcome it did. Once it was determined that there wasn't, the finding was clear. Unlike us, Lawyers, Barristers and Judges understand the importance of reading all the Terms and Conditions because sometimes there can be a condition that overrides another.

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by AshleyH30

Jeff Gleeson has left unbelievable, law-based opportunities to appeal in the two most high-profile tribunal cases in recent memory (both involving contact to the head).

He either isn’t very good at his job or there is a conspiracy to get these players off (Cripps for finals/Brownlow reasons, JVR for common sense reasons) whilst also being able to demonstrate the AFL had done everything within its power to stamp out head contact.

I’m not a conspiracy type of guy but it is curious such an experienced legal type is making such enormous errors.

8 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Have the Dees ever  been beaten abroad? 
I know we’ve won in NZ, Canada, USA, China ,England and Tasmania(!) Anywhere else?

I know we won the '87 World Series.

9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

This is a classic legal pronouncement.

If you want the tribunal to depart significantly from existing interpretations Parliament (in this case the AFL) needs to make it clear.

Rule change coming.. (I pity the draftsperson )

Personally i don't think they'll change it.

I reckon they just tried to make it up as they went along using us (Joey) as the whipping boy.

Hoping we would roll over and / or the Board would follow their lead in lock step.

The idea being to use us as one example / demonstration of how seriously they're now taking their OH&S for potential concussion / injury law suits / claims down the track.

Our response as a club was first rate.  We stood our ground and finally had the balls to call this chirade out for what it was.

.."Feel free to try your shenanigans on someone else if you wish.  Oh, and close the door on your way out!"

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

9 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Have the Dees ever  been beaten abroad? 
I know we’ve won in NZ, Canada, USA, China ,England and Tasmania(!) Anywhere else?

We've conquered the world from Milan to Minsk but the one hole we haven't been able to fix is the one in the AFL's soul. 

I'd like to see them clarify something like this:

"Swinging arms and fists that connect directly with the head or face in an attempt to spoil is not incidental contact. Straight arm spoils where there is no contact between the first and head, will be considered incidental contact, where the sole objective is spoiling or contesting the mark."

Overhead marking contests means high contact will occur. As it does in netball. But swinging fist style spoils probably void the duty of care to the other player, where that swinging fist is aimed at the head and not the ball.

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by deanox

1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Will be a sweet tasting brekkie for JvR this morning.

I'll have what he's having. 

11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

The only ones celebrating harder than us are the lawyers who’s picnic is full of caviar and Grange. 

https://youtu.be/m2VxpTMAbas

I wonder if the Club has to bare the cost of this defence. I know they don’t have to pay the $10,000 AFL charge but what about two nights of senior lawyers. It would be a lot of money. 

Edited May 12, 20232 yr by Its Time for Another