JvR Free!!!

[leave it to deever 17,511]

48 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Has there been any media chatter about this hit?

Thanks. Good point. Same contact

Except this one there was no going at the ball so it's worse.

[DeeZee 7,376]

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

[daisycutter 29,612]

19 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Underside of his upper arm connects,  as his fist is trying to connect with ball.

Jonathan Brown has said a suspension would be the worst tribunal decision ever. Pretty strong.

yes, and i fail to see how that part of the arm could do much damage, esp when glancing

suspect he was still a bit off from the earlier accidental kozzie hit

[leave it to deever 17,511]

You know your team is a threat to others by the selective outcry on things like this.

[daisycutter 29,612]

Just now, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

that's [censored] ralph for you

[Jibroni 5,002]

We need the Cripps QC if JVR gets done for this.

The system has more flaws than the AFL fixture.

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

First of all, it’s great that Ballard is ok. The more I watch it the more no case to answer for imo. I can’t see a swinging arm anywhere. 

[Cyclops 507]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

that's [censored] ralph for you

It is Demon case...straight to the tribunal.

[dazzledavey36 54,807]

12 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

 

Jesus.. 😳

[demosaw 1,024]

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Jesus.. 😳

At least he only got 3 days!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 minute ago, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

The Match Review Panel (the TV commentators) have assessed the incident and found the player guilty. The incident will now be referred to the Match Review Officer for sentencing.

Having lost control of the tribunal, as evidenced by the Cripps farce last year, the AFL have now lost control of their match review process. Evidently they have outsourced it to the TV channels. All Christian has to do is rock up on a Monday morning and have a gander at who's been condemned by the review shows. All incidents pre-highlighted and assessed for him. Ten minutes later, off for an early lunch, leaving the rest of the week free for golf. Easier job ever. 

How can the AFL allow it to be hijacked and polluted in this way?

[dice 704]

25 minutes ago, Deestinga2 said:

Pretty simple, MFC player, automatic 4 weeks down to 3 with early plea.

 

And don't forget first time to tribunal (e.g. Trengove, Nibbler, etc.). You need to be a marquee AFL identity and serial offender like Franklin, Tom Lynch, etc. to avoid suspension

[Roost it far 8,235]

What happened to Ballard post incident?

[Little Goffy 14,514]

If Van Rooyen had kept his eyes on the ball it is likely Ballard would have been much more seriously injured.

#paradox

[SPC 3,549]

26 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

Hate to say it, but Ralphy generally has good mail. 

[whatwhat say what 22,732]

Firmly believe it’ll be straight to the tribunal, so starting at 3 weeks

[Deebauched 1,220]

27 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

Trial by media. Always the case with MFC players. Jvr definitely had eyes only for the ball. No intent.  Suns Chol had no interest in the ball just coat hangered Bowey. No media reaction. .... crickets. They'll go after Pickett too.

[drysdale demon 4,830]

16 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

What happened to Ballard post incident?

Nothing

[Gorgoroth 12,942]

As Dunstall said “there is no rule about taking your eye off the ball”

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

11 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Firmly believe it’ll be straight to the tribunal, so starting at 3 weeks

Lynch was sent to the tribunal and was cleared a few weeks ago. The three weeks isn’t guaranteed.

[whatwhat say what 22,732]

Just now, Dee Zephyr said:

Lynch was sent to the tribunal and was cleared a few weeks ago. The three weeks isn’t guaranteed.

True

But my MFCSS says JVR being ‘made an example of’ is a fait accompli 

[Monbon 1,840]

1 hour ago, SPC said:

The notion of taking your eyes off the ball is a joke. He was 10m away when he looked to see where the player was. He then tried to connect with the footy. If taking your eye off the ball is the trigger for suspension- how far back can you go? 20m? 50m? 

And he actually DID connect with the ball...

[Cyclops 507]

22 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Trial by media. Always the case with MFC players. Jvr definitely had eyes only for the ball. No intent.  Suns Chol had no interest in the ball just coat hangered Bowey. No media reaction. .... crickets. They'll go after Pickett too.

What and when was the Pickett incident?

[titan_uranus 24,990]

This Twitter thread shows examples of how some spoils can cause high contact but are not reportable offences:

 

[BW511 2,668]

46 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

If Van Rooyen had kept his eyes on the ball it is likely Ballard would have been much more seriously injured.

#paradox

This is the crux of it, Van Rooyen did the right thing to take his eyes off the ball and assess the best way to get near the ball. 
 

If he ran at the flight of the ball ala Jonathon Brown or Riewoldt in their famous marks, he would have absolutely murdered him