JvR Free!!!

[DeelightfulPlay 2,263]

Just got off work... the title of this thread has given me a heart attack each time I've paused to check Demonland in the past two hours 😬

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,088]

1 minute ago, layzie said:

The difference is I'm not pretending to know at all how this works or what it means.

What are you doing on 'Land then @layzie?

[monoccular 16,365]

Charged with striking

Did not strike

QED

Edited May 11, 2023 by monoccular

[Redleg 37,971]

2 minutes ago, McQueen said:

So the example could/should have been presented in the first appeal?

Yes if allowed which I think Gleeson generally doesn’t. I am not sure on that though.

[DutchDemons 1,273]

This is going longer than the last quarter against Brisbane.

[picket fence 15,464]

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Just saw that McDonald is the sole tall being named as emergency 🤮🤮

Please for the love of God now another reason for JVR not to be suspended. 

 

[Hawny for Gawny 403]

8 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I suspect the high impact grading would not likely change due to the potential for serious injury and that a downgrade to medium would still mean a 1 week sanction.

We are quite right to argue that the rough conduct provisions do not apply to a legitimate spoil which is protected as per rule 18.3. This defense is clever in that if the AFL uphold the suspension then they are also saying a player could face suspension for marking the ball if he doesn't take reasonable care.

That's why I think its such an important case, if we lose then it doesn't matter if you take mark of the year if you concuss the "injure" to any extent as you've said the guy in front of you, your done. 

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,088]

4 minutes ago, Colm said:

I’m on ferry and will soon be out of signal. Any chance of a decision soon???

I used to be on a Ferry - got assistance from the  local bishop.

[YearOfTheDees 3,111]

8 minutes to go. I'm told 40 minutes is the average time for deliberating. 

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by YearOfTheDees

[Redleg 37,971]

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I know you said you haven’t read the proceedings, but once you do I would be interested in your opinion of our defense. I’m not a lawyer but I wasn’t impressed. AFL seem to have made a stronger argument. 

Will do, I am out for dinner. Soon as I get home. Japanese delicious.

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,088]

I've just come out of my own tribunal - so haven't been able to read all tonight's pages.

1. Who's sitting on the Tribunal?
2. Who is representing the parties?

 

[Demonland 66,312]

The Appeal Board is still deliberating.

— David Zita (@DavidZita1) May 11, 2023

[McQueen 17,864]

This is excruciatingly long. 

[YearOfTheDees 3,111]

2 minutes ago, DutchDemons said:

This is going longer than the last quarter against Brisbane.

Lets face it the lights have been off at the Tribunal for years now.

[Jaded No More 58,872]

Just now, Demonland said:

[Demonland 66,312]

40 mins and counting 

[deva5610 970]

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes if allowed

I think not. The AFL has a list of "reportable offences" with which videos can be requested to use as evidence and you can present videos of similar offences that have been cited or explained by the MRO.

Apart from that I believe it's a no go.

Quote

The Player or Tribunal Counsel may rely before the Tribunal on any incident contained in that AFL Season’s prescribed video examples (refer Schedule 2) that is said to be comparable to the incident in respect of which the Player is charged or otherwise relevant to a matter in issue. The prescribed video examples are examples only and the Tribunal is not bound by any previous decision of a Tribunal with respect to a vision example

and

The Player or Tribunal Counsel may also seek leave to rely on video examples of incidents charged by the MRO and/or determined by the Tribunal, and incidents which were not charged by the MRO but for which a public explanation was provided by the MRO as to why no charge was laid, within the same season as the relevant incident which are truly comparable to the incident in question. Where the Player or Tribunal Counsel seeks to rely on a video example of an incident which is not truly comparable, the Chairperson may either refuse leave to rely on it, or grant leave and instruct the Tribunal Panel members to disregard it.

and

The Tribunal will not receive video evidence of any other incidents.

Wouldn't want to be able to point out the ridiculousness of the system would we? :D

Edited May 11, 2023 by deva5610

[Monbon 1,527]

7 minutes ago, Bystander said:

Who is Adams?

Some Biblical character: to do with Apples and snakes, I believe...

[Demon_spurs 1,706]

2 minutes ago, Hawny for Gawny said:

That's why I think its such an important case, if we lose then it doesn't matter if you take mark of the year if you concuss the "injure" to any extent as you've said the guy in front of you, your done. 

Problem is, it is not necessarily so, After the Kosi incident I was hoping all "potential injuries" would be cited, but they don't follow up with like type incident reports. it seems make a scapegoat of this incident and then everything goes back to the way it was.

[Diamond_Jim 11,981]

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

This is excruciatingly long. 

ahh the pendulum of indecision

phd theses have been written on these things

[Brownie 5,397]

Are they sitting down to dinner? Or doing buckets bongs or both?

[Deebymistake 657]

12 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Your priorities are the same as my wifes. Dog first, children second. And sometimes as an afterthought me. 

Exactly the pecking order in my family.  My husband is a hawk.  If a disaster happens on Saturday afternoon, he will be lucky to even slip into an afterthought.  

[Hawny for Gawny 403]

Just now, Demon_spurs said:

Problem is, it is not necessarily so, After the Kosi incident I was hoping all "potential injuries" would be cited, but they don't follow up with like type incident reports. it seems make a scapegoat of this incident and then everything goes back to the way it was.

I think that's the way it will end up but I think it sets a precedent that if they want they can. I also think they are going at us so hard because they absolutely dropped the ball with the Fogarty incident.

[Jaded No More 58,872]

 

Just now, Deebymistake said:

Exactly the pecking order in my family.  My husband is a hawk.  If a disaster happens on Saturday afternoon, he will be lucky to even slip into an afterthought.  

Anyone who doesn’t have their dog on top of pecking order is a psychopath.

Dogs > Melbourne > children > spouse > AFL tribunal 

[chookrat 3,778]

Does anyone know when the suspension is withdrawn does the AFL pay costs?