3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Appeal Appeal Appeal 

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”.

But that’s wrong. I’d agree if there was a swinging arm. I’d agree if he looked directly at Ballard.  JVR is clearly trying to spoil. Ballard was not concussed. He hurt his neck on falling.  The fact that a stretcher came out seems to be a major factor.  

How could JVR stop ? He’s in the act of contesting the mark.  Last week the Fogarty spoil was play on.  That was worse than the JVR incident.  

WTF? that doesn't make any sense 

So in the case of Mabior Chol there wasn't a hint of almost - but nothing to see there 🙁

I say we just play mMax at ff or chf the whole game. We've won without him so it can work. 

22 minutes ago, Sydee said:

WTF? that doesn't make any sense 

So in the case of Mabior Chol there wasn't a hint of almost - but nothing to see there 🙁

Agree. Gleeson is a mad man. Fogarty. Chol. You could name 5-6 every week.  MRO and Gleeson have lost it in the views of all the footy public.  #FreeJVR

And I thought the coronation was bad comedy 

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

No.

He's allowed to have an opinion. 

Of course Dazzle.  Great that he is but...

just not sure the AFL/7 (pretty much in lock step) will be looking at it the same way as reasonable/ fair minded folk are.

The tribunal outcome is yet another huge 'tell' for me as to their line of thinking and directives being sent down the line to their circus masters

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

Demonland this mornin

8 hours ago, DemonWA said:

I'm in the minority here. It's a terrible decision but it seemed obvious to me that this would be the outcome so im not shocked. As soon as a stretcher was pulled out this was destined to be the result, regardless of the actual action or injury. 

Who knows how they will adjudicate the 20 odd similar incidents each round ongoing. 

I dont think Roo being out for 2 weeks (with one of them being the a Hawthorn game) hurts is that badly tbh. 

Agree. Terrible decision. But an inevitable one. If Bowey had been stretchered Chol would have got the same (tough little bugger, Bowey)...which of course highlights the nonsense of Gleeson's reasoning about taking 'reasonable' action. The AFL and its little world is awash with [censored]. But we knew that. In the meantime Jacob has 2 weeks off to work on his game. He'll be back!

The bigger picture story is that the AFL's entire tribunal/enforcement system is in crisis. From the MRO who seems take his cues on what to cite/not cite from the outrage or complacency of TV commentators, to the tribunal itself who seem to have lost sight of what they're supposed to be doing. How can you allow evidence to be tendered and then completely disregard it? The tribunal members are bamboozled and don't know what is up and what is down. The quasi-legal approach has been a disaster.

11 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

All I can think of is that dude in the video…

This is democracy manifest! I was just enjoying a Chinese meal, a succulent Chinese meal… GET YOUR HANDS OFF
MY PENIS

Ah, I see you know your judo well.

The tribunal system is like this

 

33 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I say we just play mMax at ff or chf the whole game. We've won without him so it can work. 

It’s no longer that we’d be without JVR. It’s now become about principle

I will throw in another grenade.

The Tribunal was until this year made up of 3 ex players.

Gleeson was the AFL Prosecutor who was directed by the AFL on what to do in cases.

He is now on and the Chairman of the Tribunal, who can obviously influence the 2 ex footballers on each hearing, as to what to decide. Why are the 2 ex players on the Tribunal the only ex players to say this was reportable? 

This hasn’t been decided on vision or evidence, but rather some abstract, specifically created conclusion, as to what a person can do in .8 of a second, even though it is outside the rules of the game.

This has been made up by the Chairman, to get a specific outcome.

The whole footy world says on the vision it is not reportable, but this Chairman seems to be the only one who disagrees and creates a narrative to get his way.

 

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Redleg

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision.  Baloney.  No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'.  It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

BTW, what about the mental health of a young kid, being used as a Pawn, to create a PR narrative for an organisation in litigation crisis.

This is disgraceful.

Edited May 9, 20232 yr by Redleg

12 hours ago, jules7 said:

Unbelievable!

He recklessly hit a player high in the head enough for that player to be subbed out. Lucky not to get more weeks 

"However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head."

With Gleeson stating that they deemed the spoil a "football action" and to then follow up with the above statement could open a can of worms for the AFL. It won't happen tomorrow, but with this statement, the Tribunal have basically said that any football action that results in a hit to the head must be cited. That means that if you go for a speccy and knee a player in the head, you'll be liable. If you attempt to tackle you must foresee that your attempt may hit the player in the head when they drop their knees. Any football action can now be a reportable offence under this finding.

I can't see how we don't appeal on that alone.

I don't think having a lawyer/QC as chairman is helpful. You just need someone, preferably a former player, who is literate and fair. ( The rules here were simple and jvr's actions were within those rules ).

We lawyers, on the other hand, have the capacity to distort plain words to get a result.

This is more important than jvr missing a couple of games. If this decision stands there will be 20 plus players a week there on Tuesdays plus a radical change to the way the game is played.

It would be interesting to hear how coaches are explaining this ruling to players today! Don't spoil if the opposing players head is near his outstretched arms? Arms are attached to shoulders upon which the noggin sits.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

BTW, what about the mental health of a young kid, being used as a Pawn, to create a PR narrative for an organisation in litigation crisis. 

Certainly put JVR in an unnecessary spotlight for a 6th gamer to deal with. 

Goody holding a presser at 9.30

Anyone else hear Jake Lever on Garry and Tim this morning? Only caught half of it but it sounded like he was hopeful the club won't let it end there. 

This from Fox website:

Asked whether the ruling would change the way they play, both Riewoldt and Geelong superstar Tom Hawkins said it would not.

Of course not - they'd never be cited in the first place (especially Hawkins).

I am surprised at the anger on this thread. It was as sure as the sun rising that this would be the result. The system is not fair we have known that for years, some teams always get a better run than others. We are among the ones that get used to show the league's intent to eliminate certain actions from the game. Suck it up and move on. 

9 minutes ago, sue said:

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision.  Baloney.  No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'.  It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

Get woke , go broke.

1 minute ago, old dee said:

I am surprised at the anger on this thread. It was as sure as the sun rising that this would be the result. The system is not fair we have known that for years, some teams always get a better run than others. We are among the ones that get used to show the league's intent to eliminate certain actions from the game. Suck it up and move on. 

I also thought this would probably be the result but for some reason I'm even angrier than I thought I'd be. 

7 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am surprised at the anger on this thread. It was as sure as the sun rising that this would be the result. The system is not fair we have known that for years, some teams always get a better run than others. We are among the ones that get used to show the league's intent to eliminate certain actions from the game. Suck it up and move on. 

Sad but true.