From The Age: " Gleeson said the potential to cause serious injury to the neck and the spine was considered in deciding the force was high, and not incidental, upholding the suspension."

That makes no sense.  How can 'potential to cause injury' indicate the strength of a force?  A certain amount of force could cause potential injury but you can't estimate the actual  strength of a force by saying some level of force has the potential to cause injury, therefore this force was high .    Beyond belief. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

36 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Yes. Although the word ‘woke’ has now so many meanings - it is the word of the lazy in this country and the malevolent in the US. I would suggest people using actual words with actual meaning but whatever - I am not here to tell people not to use a word, only that they are damned in eternal hellfire if they do use it…

There are a lot of words in the recent lexicon RPFC. I tend to ignore all of them for lack of  context. Most are used by lazy word users who never realize how meaningless they are and that they cant use this beautiful language that is ours.

58 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Bar Carlton, they must be over the moon with the way the MRO adjudicates their players. 

Not really...been on the receiving end of nice outcomes for decades.  No doubt a number of friends / supporters / influencers in high places

Members of the Appeal Board for a hearing cannot be the same members that sat on the matter at the Tribunal.

 

Ego is the reason the tribunal upheld the ban. 

THE MELBOURNE Football Club confirms it will appeal the decision made by the AFL Tribunal, in relation to the striking charge against key forward Jacob van Rooyen.

Melbourne will now fight the charge, which was graded as Striking – Careless Conduct, High Contact, High Impact, at the AFL Appeals Board on Thursday night.

The club initially contested the sanction on Tuesday night at the AFL Tribunal, arguing that van Rooyen’s sole intention was to spoil the ball, and that the incident was simply a football accident. After deliberation, the AFL Tribunal decided that van Rooyen’s two-match suspension for Striking would be upheld.

Great news the club is appealing this incorrect decision.

Regardless of the outcome, it's great to see the club stand up to the idiotic liars trying to ruin the game. It's great the club is throwing their support behind young JVR. Hopefully it gives him a lot of confidence and further strengthens the bond he has with his coaches, teammates, and the club.

7 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Members of the Appeal Board for a hearing cannot be the same members that sat on the matter at the Tribunal.

 

The one and only thing in this whole corrupted process that makes any sense at all.

Please remind us of the wording of the official charge?  Wasn't it striking, which clearly did not occur.

I recall it cited high impact - yet they ignored all the words from then Suns that the stretcher was precautionary and that there was no injury sustained.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by monoccular

Also, if he doesn't get off, anyone have Jeff Gleeson's address? With how quickly AI has progressed this year, surely we can get some AI bot to run a 24/7 stream of boos and insults to play on loud speaker for eternity until he decides to [censored] off 😈

A few folk saying we should just show this

 

 

I [censored] love my football club!!!!!!!!!!

19 minutes ago, gs77 said:

Just watched Goody's presser.  Wow!  I'm delighted to hear how strongly Simon Goodwin is supporting JVR in this - stridently refusing to entertain a selection scenario where JVR is not available this weekend.  Fantastic stuff.  Repeated emphasis that the fabric of the game is in question.  And now we have confirmation we are appealing. BRING IT ON!!!   

yep he was perfect. this will drive the media discussion now. not us just caring about our player - it’s the fabric of the game! perfectly played

Sorry if I’ve missed this on here (busy of late frantically studying the law) but;

a) isn’t David Neitz a tribunal member?

and 

b) David Neitz has, overnight, slid three spots on my list of all-time favourite Melbourne players.

I’ve always loved the game and our great Club!  My love for the Club went to a new level with this morning’s decision to challenge the JVR decision …………. for the sake of justice and the integrity and good of the game.

I still don't understand why there's a three step process. I fully understand why there needs to be a second process to allow for natural justice. Why don't MRO appeals go straight to the Appeals Board. What's the point of an appeal against an MRO decision going to the Tribunal at all?

Does anyone know if JVR has to attend and face the music again in the appeal?

Not the greatest preparation for the young fella from a head space point of view.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

21 minutes ago, sue said:

From The Age: " Gleeson said the potential to cause serious injury to the neck and the spine was considered in deciding the force was high, and not incidental, upholding the suspension."

That makes no sense.  How can 'potential to cause injury' indicate the strength of a force?  A certain amount of force could cause potential injury but you can't estimate the actual  strength of a force by saying some level of force has the potential to cause injury, therefore this force was high .    Beyond belief. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

shove your potential up your [censored] Gleeson! 

just deal with the incident

Like Monday I was pretty confident we would take this on. Kudos MFC

8 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Please remind us of the wording of the official charge?  Wasn't it striking, which clearly did not occur.

There wasn't even a blow. I see the force to Ballard's neck coming from JVR falling onto his head via that upper arm. A blow requires more leverage/centripetel force than what occurred. 

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I still don't understand why there's a three step process. I fully understand why there needs to be a second process to allow for natural justice. Why don't MRO appeals go straight to the Appeals Board. What's the point of an appeal against an MRO decision going to the Tribunal at all?

You get to except a ban or fight in at the Tribunal. " sometimes you get a discount if you except" If you take it to the Tribunal and you lose you can appeal. There are rules around the appeal that you have to meet. 

1 minute ago, kev martin said:

There wasn't even a blow. I see the force to Ballard's neck coming from JVR falling onto his head via that upper arm. A blow requires more leverage/centripetel force than what occurred. 

Siri - define a strike 

3 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Sorry if I’ve missed this on here (busy of late frantically studying the law) but;

a) isn’t David Neitz a tribunal member?

and 

b) David Neitz has, overnight, slid three spots on my list of all-time favourite Melbourne players.

If he is  and I do not know     He would have had to stand aside,  clear conflict of interest 

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

You get to except a ban or fight in at the Tribunal. " sometimes you get a discount if you except" If you take it to the Tribunal and you lose you can appeal. There are rules around the appeal that you have to meet. 

By why not change the system to say you can accept the ban or take your chances with an appeal? Why go via the Tribunal?

1 hour ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Nothing he wrote is bad for 7 or the AFL

If we were speaking about an organisation that had a reasonable and logical track record, providing generally fair outcomes for all clubs on such matters you would be 100% correct Neitz.

JVR's attempt to spoil was not bad for the AFL / game nor Ballard either but here we are.

The AFL's internal agendas and power brokers / influemcers determine these outcomes that in select cases and for select clubs/players appear to be very unfair. 

However from an AFL perspective (and for select powerful clubs) they obviously feel they made the right decision in the interest of how they like to run the game and who they see as the wheat vs the chaff.

The outcome of the appeal will be a big tell as to whether we have moved up a little in their pecking order.

Until then we retain our status as one of the AFL's whipping boys who will continue to be treated unfairly / inconsistently in our tribunal forays.

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

15 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Does anyone know if JVR has to attend and face the music again in the appeal?

Not the greatest preparation for the young fella from a head space point of view.

It’s not ideal but it’s also a good builder of resilience. 
Sometimes your preparation is compromised and you need to adapt. JVR strikes me as a very strong minded kid. He will be ok.