On 11/05/2023 at 21:52, Cyclops said:

Winners and losers.

WINNERS

Football, MFC, Jacob van Rooyen 

LOSERS

Adrian Anderson, Will Powell.

Will Powell (AFL)

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:10, 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.

Because it's all about pride and power. They can't be seen to backflip so quickly on something like this so they just hang out and shoot the breeze, smash a few cans, order Chinese food. You know, that sort of stuff. 

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:22, AshleyH30 said:

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.

Oh don't worry, most of us lawyers don't read the T&Cs until we have to provide advice or there is a dispute 😂 I write contracts for a living, including ones which are covered by the Australian Consumer Law.  But generally I value receiving the goods or service and my time more!

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:55, DeelightfulPlay said:

Oh don't worry, most of us lawyers don't read the T&Cs until we have to provide advice or there is a dispute 😂 I write contracts for a living, including ones which are covered by the Australian Consumer Law.  But generally I value receiving the goods or service and my time more!

Oh whoops, I may have thought you were a graphic designer DeelightfulPlay. Hence why I said you were a stickler for detail on the Naarm beanies!

We wake to a new dawn.

Well done MFC. You grew some,  put the Big Boy pants on and went out to suggest to those Clowns we arent to be used as doirmats. No longer will you [censored] with the MFC . 

Off you go lad. Keep playing as you do.

The whole thing was ridiculous.  Just simple general play.. Nothing in it...play on. Nothing to see here.

Go Dees

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:59, beelzebub said:

We wake to a new dawn.

Well done MFC. You grew some,  put the Big Boy pants on and went out to suggest to those Clowns we arent to be used as doirmats. No longer will you [censored] with the MFC . 

Off you go lad. Keep playing as you do.

The whole thing was ridiculous.  Just simple general play.. Nothing in it...play on. Nothing to see here.

Go Dees

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:26, Demon Dynasty said:

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!"

If it's all about covering their [censored] for litigation, you'd think that not changing the rules after this outcome would show the AFL is not upholding its duty of care.  The tribunal pointed out to the AFL that if it wants to change a rule then it must actually do so - in clear legalese (what an oxymoron) that any Judge would understand immediately

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:58, layzie said:

Oh whoops, I may have thought you were a graphic designer DeelightfulPlay. Hence why I said you were a stickler for detail on the Naarm beanies!

I thought you were alluding to our shared passion for art, Layzie!  Regardless your statement was accurate... in another life I might have taken the less stable career path of artist!

  On 11/05/2023 at 23:02, DeelightfulPlay said:

I thought you were alluding to our shared passion for art, Layzie!  Regardless your statement was accurate... in another life I might have taken the less stable career path of artist!

Well, that too of course haha. 

  On 11/05/2023 at 11:50, Leopold Bloom said:

I’m not sure by what right the AFL had to sanction Brad Green for speaking the truth but if there’s been a financial sanction, we should all kick in whatever’s necessary to ensure he’s not out of pocket.

 I think everyone at the club should be buoyed by the support JvR received from the club, the players including many former players, the supporters and most of the football world. I reckon this is the sort of experience that will help JvR mature and grow as a player before our very eyes.

It's also the sort of intangible support that younger players in the club will look at and be more motivated to extend their contracts. This is what a true destination club does for its players. Well played Mfc.

A worthy four points.

  On 11/05/2023 at 23:01, DeelightfulPlay said:

If it's all about covering their [censored] for litigation, you'd think that not changing the rules after this outcome would show the AFL is not upholding its duty of care.  The tribunal pointed out to the AFL that if it wants to change a rule then it must actually do so - in clear legalese (what an oxymoron) that any Judge would understand immediately

If they want to change the rules that’s fine. But ideally they shouldn’t do it in season, they should do it pre-season so every club can respond and train and figure out the new way. They have to do it BEFORE they charge someone with it though. As this was [censored] backwards, you can’t institute a new expectation on marking contests retrospectively as they tried to, the players need to know and understand what is expected. They’d have to word it very carefully though, to avoid defenders being complete bystanders and to preserve the pack mark and speccy. There is so much incidental contact in fair marking contests that any change to this rule is an absolute minefield for the game.

I’m also genuinely shocked that this was the case they chose to try to push a rule change through on, if anything it was the Fogarty case the week before. JVR’s was pretty clearly a fair straight arm spoil and there was no injury. The Forgarty one had far more of the round arm strike action it seems they want to get rid of and it broke someone’s nose. 
 

Very proud of the club today. Glad we stuck it up them and that common sense prevailed. Also very happy to see Green, Goodwin and Trac show some mongrel about it. No more nice guys.

Edited May 12, 20231 yr by deejammin'

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:21, deejammin' said:

If they want to change the rules that’s fine. But ideally they shouldn’t do it in season, they should do it pre-season so every club can respond and train and figure out the new way. They have to do it BEFORE they charge someone with it though. As this was [censored] backwards, you can’t institute a new expectation on marking contests retrospectively as they tried to, the players need to know and understand what is expected. They’d have to word it very carefully though, to avoid defenders being complete bystanders and to preserve the pack mark and speccy. There is so much incidental contact in fair marking contests that any change to this rule is an absolute minefield for the game.

I’m also genuinely shocked that this was the case they chose to try to push a rule change through on, if anything it was the Fogarty case the week before. JVR’s was pretty clearly a fair straight arm spoil and there was no injury. The Forgarty one had far more of the round arm strike action it seems they want to get rid of and it broke someone’s nose. 
 

Very proud of the club today. Glad we stuck it up them and that common sense prevailed. Also very happy to see Green, Goodwin and Trac show some mongrel about it. No more nice guys.

Fogarty case?  No stretcher.

Petracca’s response is priceless.

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:34, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Petracca’s response is priceless.

Where is it?

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:35, Redleg said:

Where is it?

Just saw it on FB.

Just said “Got what he deserved”.

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:37, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Just saw it on FB.

Just said “Got what he deserved”.

What is FB?

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:35, Redleg said:

Where is it?

If you go back to page 83 it’s there.

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:39, Redleg said:

What is FB?

Facebook, I tried up loading the photo but it won’t let me on my phone.

  On 11/05/2023 at 22:49, ElDiablo14 said:

Will Powell (AFL)

Don't forget Christian and Gleeson

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:35, Redleg said:

Where is it?

I posted it on page 83

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:48, FritschyBusiness said:

I posted it on page 83

Yes thanks.

  On 11/05/2023 at 23:01, DeelightfulPlay said:

If it's all about covering their [censored] for litigation, you'd think that not changing the rules after this outcome would show the AFL is not upholding its duty of care.  The tribunal pointed out to the AFL that if it wants to change a rule then it must actually do so - in clear legalese (what an oxymoron) that any Judge would understand immediately

If the AFL keeps adjusting rules in an attempt to eliminate as much risk / exposure to litigation as possible DP the game as we know it will be unrecognisable at some point.

And if that is their ultimate agenda going forward they might need to consider going back to AFL X or a variant thereof and disband the present game.

Of course we all know how well the X experiment went last time.  A resounding success!  Well at least for us anyway 😄

  On 12/05/2023 at 00:42, Kent said:

Don't forget Christian and Gleeson

And Damian Barratt

As good as this outcome was, it should never have gone this far and I hope it doesn't impact on the young player this round or nibble at his confidence in the way he plays I the future which is hard and fair.