1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

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

Max gets thumped in the back of the head week after week after week 

Not even a free kick - sorry mate can't agree with you

Listen to Jono Brown , Riewolt and Hawkins - players are told to make all efforts to bring the ball to ground (spoil) that was his only focus - in the process of spoiling the mark a glancing blow to the head, the damage was way overstated with the abundance of caution / stretcher. Not concussed, fine to play next week. Sensible cautious approach when he thought he heard a crack in the neck, but no damage done. If he had of got up just like Bowey, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

This process needs to be less obscure.

How does this panel work?

Do they have to be unanimous or is it a majority?

Or does the chair override and it's a panel in name only?

I have the impression it's the latter.

1 minute ago, AshleyH30 said:

 

 

Anyone with half a legal brain knows the judgement is complete hogwash. As I have said since last night, bringing in 'reasonable foreseeability' and 'reasonable person tests' is the greatest load of rubbish. This is a contact sport. You cannot use Civil Law principles. Even the whole 'duty of care' stuff is rubbish. If the AFL really wants to legal protect themselves, get a contract signed with players that includes a voluntary assumption of risk clause. FFS. These clowns at the AFL have lost the plot. 

 

Lastly, any reasonable player does what he can to win the ball. That's the object of the game. He was competing for the ball. This nonsense about duty of care and reasonability can be saved for off the ball stuff like Nic Newman, oh wait ! It's a complete farce. And 2 weeks! 2 weeks !

 

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Its insane how Chol's action is not then also worthy of a 2 week suspension - yet not even reported.

And if its because of a stretcher that is ridiculous as Ballard was not injured, nor concussed and will play this week. It was purely precautionary according to the Suns because he said he heard a 'crack'.

Max Gawn should lie on he ground and call for a stretcher every single time he gets whacked in the head.

The AFL/tribunal needs to explain how this can possibly be so. And explain to players how things will be adjudicated. It is as it always has been - a complete [&^%^%$#&^$#&#] lottery, with big name players and big name clubs having all the good tickets.

It’s all optics. If Bowser has gone down for awhile even without being stretchered off Chol probably would have been cited. He might still have got off but he most likely would have at least faced MRO scrutiny. 

SEN just played Goody's presser. Said they hope they appeal, sounds like they will and when asked who will come in for Jacob, Goody said I'm picking Jacob in the team and thats all I'm thinking about. 

He just sounded bewildered still he got 2 weeks. 

Goodie seems rightfully annoyed by it. 

I'd say about 90% of the general footy public are in disbelief about last night's decision and are in support of Rooey. That says more than enough. 

I couldn't listen live on SEN, where else can I find the presser?

2 minutes ago, deeTRACted said:

Goodie seems rightfully annoyed by it. 

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 

I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 

I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

There was no concussion here 

1 hour ago, Bystander said:

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.

I doubt this will be the case as the AFL choose who to cite and who not to via the MRO (eg. Chol vs van Rooyen).

4 minutes ago, Deestiny Awaits said:

I couldn't listen live on SEN, where else can I find the presser?

It presumably will be posted later on the Dees website and their YouTube channel. I’ll post here when it becomes available

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Because he’s an ex footballer, and a coach, not some washed up lawyer who doesn’t understand football. 
Anyone who has ever played the game at this level is genuinely bewildered by this result. The only people who got on their high horse and tried hanging JVR are weasel commentators who would [censored] their pants if they had to play AFL. 

I am all for stamping out dangerous and unnecessary actions in our game. No player should suffer concussion as a result of an off the ball hit. That’s not fair play. 

But every player is well aware of the risks involved with playing the game at any level, let alone at the highest level. And no player would ever think twice about reasonably assessing in the 0.6 seconds they realize they need to spoil a high ball, that they might get hurt or their opponent might get hurt in doing so. 

Not to mention the fact that a player that intentionally elbowed another player in the head got off just minutes later. 

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

Not to mention the fact that a player that intentionally elbowed another player in the head got off just minutes later. 

Or the fact that Lynch got off a few weeks ago for a much cruder spoil, or the fact that Fogarty wasn’t even cited in a spoil that resulted in a facial injury to his opponent.

Let’s just conveniently shaft a player that has played 6 games playing for a club that traditionally doesn’t pull the big angry mob crowds. Nobody will notice. Nobody will care. 

AFL read the room wrong. I hope we fight this and I hope we get a decent bloody lawyer not another AFL fanboy. 

Many years ago the tribunal was labelled chook lotto and unfortunately it is still chook lotto to this day. Players are cited depending on their status in the game, who they play for etc. Then you have this tribunal chairman who seems very happy with his own self importance giving reasons for the suspension that are totally contradictory . FMD

Can anyone with knowledge tell me if we appeal this outcome, is it only about the hearing, the evidence provided, and the rationale around the decision? ie. doesn't take into account other past incidents, reported or not?

What happens to the ruck contest from now on?

There’s always the reasonable possibility of a ruckman legitimately going for a hit out accidentally making contact with an opponent and therefore, every time this happens from now on the offending ruckman will according to the newly minted Gleeson doctrine be liable for a two week suspension.

I was surprised at the people having a go at Anderson last night after the failed appeal. I found his argument to be on point and showed that the contest was within the rules of the game. It was Gleeson who managed to somehow pull an argument "out of somewhere not so bright" to get the outcome we got. This is why everyone in the community is so flabbergasted by the result.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by AshleyH30

Just now, DemonicFinalFantasy said:

Can anyone with knowledge tell me if we appeal this outcome, is it only about the hearing, the evidence provided, and the rationale around the decision? ie. doesn't take into account other past incidents, reported or not?

I have no special knowledge but I don't think relying on things that players have got away with in the past is a wise line to take.  All the AFL has to say is that things are changing and while the rules have not been changed, the interpretation has.  After all, the AFL specialise in that.

35 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Its insane how Chol's action is not then also worthy of a 2 week suspension - yet not even reported.

And if its because of a stretcher that is ridiculous as Ballard was not injured, nor concussed and will play this week. It was purely precautionary according to the Suns because he said he heard a 'crack'.

Max Gawn should lie on he ground and call for a stretcher every single time he gets whacked in the head.

The AFL/tribunal needs to explain how this can possibly be so. And explain to players how things will be adjudicated. It is as it always has been - a complete [&^%^%$#&^$#&#] lottery, with big name players and big name clubs having all the good tickets.

Look back at Danger's elbow to the face of Vlastuin. Got off because of an argument as to who got to the ball first.

A completely irrelevant reason to let off a blatant elbow to the face, but of course, committed by a star from a big club.

3 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

What happens to the ruck contest from now on?

There’s always the reason possibility of a ruckman legitimately going for a hit out accidentally making contact with an opponent and therefore, every time this happens from now on the offending ruckman will according to the newly minted Gleeson doctrine be liable for a two week suspension.

Exactly.  If make me wonder if the AFL has leant on Gleeson or he has just gone feral.  Or a more likely third option, the AFL has not thought things through (as they often fail to do with rule changes) and in leaning on Gleeson (or merely creating an atmosphere where he felt he had to act as he did), they have thrown the whole game into chaos.

But most likley they will ignore this as a precedent so that the game does not become touch football.  And they may merely be content to use JvR's suspension to show to a court in 10 years time how they didn't tolerate anything that could cause a concussion.

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Look back at Danger's elbow to the face of Vlastuin. Got off because of an argument as to who got to the ball first.

A completely irrelevant reason to let off a blatant elbow to the face, but of course, committed by a star from a big club.

Dangers was actually two actions One a spoil, two lifting his elbow up and thrusting it in the face of Vlastuin - al in the name of 'bracing for contact'

AFL Pick n Mix!

18 minutes ago, loges said:

Many years ago the tribunal was labelled chook lotto and unfortunately it is still chook lotto to this day. Players are cited depending on their status in the game, who they play for etc. Then you have this tribunal chairman who seems very happy with his own self importance giving reasons for the suspension that are totally contradictory . FMD

Crooks Lotto...

1 hour ago, sue said:

That sort of defeatist attitude would leave us all still being ruled by kings OD.  Oh, wait.

It comes with age sue.