JvR Free!!!

[Dodos Demons 235]

What is the risk if the suspension is challenged? The club should realise there is a PR angle to demonstrate to supporters that the club is p’d off too. Crows did it recently with McAdam. The MFC needs to harden up. 

[dazzledavey36 52,884]

We'll appeal.. surely?

[Redleg 40,219]

2 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Had Ballard not been accidentally hit in the head earlier in the game by Pickett’s knee (and allowed to continue by the Suns), I’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t have been so badly injured by JVR trying to spoil. Just saying…

He isn’t badly injured.

No concussion, bone break, just a sore neck.

[Neil Crompton 5,311]

Feel so sorry for JVR. The stretcher was simply a precaution because he claimed he heard a crack in his neck, but I think the stretcher was the optic that got him the suspension.
If there is a positive from this, it’s that JVR may have been in line to be managed soon anyway - now he will come back refreshed and raring to go.

[Jibroni 4,929]

AFL GAGF

[Seraph 1,776]

Challenge the high impact for sure. Just because he went off on a stretcher does not make it high impact. He had no concussion and would likely have walked off had he not apparently felt something in his neck. As soon as the doctor hears that they essentially have to call the stretcher which means he can't come back on the field.

[david_neitz_is_my_dad 4,083]

I seriously don't even think he did anything wrong the contact was minimal it's just the player's head was in an awkward spot

[Nascent 8,646]

Not even a strike or high impact, taken off for precaution due to it being around the neck. No injury sustained. Surely we appeal.

[gs77 3,931]

Appeal that [censored]. He wasattempting a spoil and his arm got tangled with the oppo player when the flight of the ball, Roo and the GC player all intersected.

Not even a citation for Chol is a farce. 

[Damo 3,254]

When do we ever challenge?

 

[Jaded No More 67,772]

We won’t challenge. We never do. But we absolutely should. A complete disgrace. 

[Return to Glory 8,232]

Just now, Jaded No More said:

We won’t challenge. We never do. But we absolutely should. A complete disgrace. 

I think we will. Decision that’s farcical.

[leave it to deever 17,462]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

one got stretched off on a stretcher and one got caught a high tackle and played out the game with absolutely zero issues. 

So by this  logic if Bowie was taken off in a golf cart it's to be looked at?

Edited May 7, 2023 by leave it to deever

[Return to Glory 8,232]

Cripps knocked a bloke out and played the next week. This is horse 💩and I’m not buying the impartiality of some of these jive 🦃s

[Demon Disciple 11,680]

12 minutes ago, gOLLy said:

Straight to the Supreme court.

Must challenge 

Christian to pay Court costs 👍

[Demonstone 21,825]

7 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

We won’t challenge. We never do.

The last one I can recall is Jack Viney in 2014 (!!!).  We won that appeal.

[Dee Zephyr 19,173]

We will absolutely challenge this. 

[Scoop Junior 3,395]

When talking about the MRO, Brad Scott on AFL 360 a few weeks ago said something like the MRO has the AFL’s medical and legal departments looking over it.

We’ve long suspected interference from the AFL in MRO decisions to try to future proof themselves from potential lawsuits. This stunning comment from not only a coach but someone who was the head of footy operations really confirmed what we already suspected.

Even the concept of upgrading the impact due to “capacity to cause injury” is completely flawed. How does Christian have any sort of qualifications to form an opinion on the “capacity” of an act to cause injury? Surely that would require some sort of panel of experts to make a proper informed judgment. It’s just a perfect grey area to enable the MRO to classify impact in whatever way it wants.

The system is a farce. And it’s not just Melbourne. Players getting suspended for fairly regulation tackles is just as bad. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Scoop Junior

[leave it to deever 17,462]

2 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

We will absolutely challenge this. 

Yea they'll probably make it a double jeopardy. 

[Dr. Gonzo 23,723]

So every time someone attempts to spoil now and glances someone in the head they'll be suspended? FMD, MFC must appeal

Edited May 7, 2023 by Dr. Gonzo

[BDA 22,289]

5 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

The last one I can recall is Jack Viney in 2014 (!!!).  We won that appeal.

We challenged a Fritsch suspension. 2020 i think it was.

[Demonstone 21,825]

1 minute ago, BDA said:

We challenged a Fritsch suspension. 2020 i think it was.

Yes, you're right.  We won that one, too.

[Demon Disciple 11,680]

I’d appeal just on the suspension for striking alone. Striking? GTFO. JVR’s bicep made the contact. Rough conduct maybe, but not striking.

[defuture15 891]

Wow. It just gets worse. VINEY would have got a life ban!

[kev martin 9,514]

The suspension doesn't worry me as the head should be sacrosanct. I want to see consistency, and MFC seems to regularly be the scapegoat without the other teams being scrutinised for similar actions.

Clumsy attempt to spoil, though what is he meant to do when charging to the contest and the follow through of his upper arm, not his fist, impacts.

No player should hit the head of opponents. I notice it just about every time the scrum forms, after a tackler brings someone to the ground, or, as many have said, hits to the back of the head when marking. 

Goody could use it as Hardwick would, "us against the world". 

Edited May 7, 2023 by kev martin