I've been thinking of how we can voice our frustration should this last appeal be upheld too. 

My suggestion: A minute before bouncedown at the next game (there are timers on the scoreboard, aren't there?), ... all Demon ... or for that matter, any football supporter with a brain ... wave their scarf (or any "fabric" ... thank you Goody!!!) in circles, while shouting: "Rrroooooooooooooooo!!!

Straightfoward, relevant, and simple enough for the AFL to get the message.

It would not be appropriate for the following Sir Doug Nicholls Round, as much as I would like to see a protest for the duration of Rooyen's penalty.

Traction anyone? Or other suggestions? Its all just in case!!

Edited May 10, 20232 yr by DemonicFinalFantasy

Haven’t  been posting on this one as I’m trying my best not to get to sucked in to [censored] poor decisions by AFL. 
Came to the conclusion a little while ago that the AFL is more than happy with the extra attention that a controversial decision like this brings.

Who needs Thursday night footy when you can have everybody talking about the footy by making poor decisions. 
Can’t tell me with the amount of money at the AFLs disposal that they couldn’t make the game easier to umpire and also improve the standard of umpires   

 

Has this now evolved into a Rosa Parks moment for the Game ?

Make a stand....or else...

1 minute ago, Colm said:

Haven’t  been posting on this one as I’m trying my best not to get to sucked in to [censored] poor decisions by AFL. 
Came to the conclusion a little while ago that the AFL is more than happy with the extra attention that a controversial decision like this brings.

Who needs Thursday night footy when you can have everybody talking about the footy by making poor decisions. 
Can’t tell me with the amount of money at the AFLs disposal that they couldn’t make the game easier to umpire and also improve the standard of umpires   

 

A certain sense of reality to all of that. Just further proof those empowered to oversee our game are just the wrong people.

Instead of maintaining the fabric of the game they are just constantly  cutting and slicing at the game. 

Not interested in actually refining and improving the game...  just stuffing it around virtue signalling.

Frustrates and dusgusts me.

I'm generally not impressed by Damien Barret (my nickname for him is 'The Nosy Vicar') but one thing he has definitely always been consistent on is the importance of protecting the head. He was one of the earliestto talk about it seriously and has been actively pushing for better protection of the head for a decade now.

My point being; if the most persistent campaigner on the matter in the entire AFL media is staying pretty quiet about this case, you know there's an issue. I think Barrett understands that this is all being done to coddle a handful of helicopter parents on the Gold Coast who the AFL desperately need to engage if they are going to save their dying franchise. It is 100% 'optics' and very little about actual protection of players.

Having the protection mandate misused in this way undermines the genuine effort.

The future of the game is on trial tonight. Let's see which way they go.

5 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I'm generally not impressed by Damien Barret (my nickname for him is 'The Nosy Vicar') but one thing he has definitely always been consistent on is the importance of protecting the head. He was one of the earliestto talk about it seriously and has been actively pushing for better protection of the head for a decade now.

My point being; if the most persistent campaigner on the matter in the entire AFL media is staying pretty quiet about this case, you know there's an issue. I think Barrett understands that this is all being done to coddle a handful of helicopter parents on the Gold Coast who the AFL desperately need to engage if they are going to save their dying franchise. It is 100% 'optics' and very little about actual protection of players.

Having the protection mandate misused in this way undermines the genuine effort.

Well, he did mention it on AFL Daily this morning (right at the very end of the Podcast which probably shows where the AFL want this issue to sit in the overall scheme of things). He stated he supported the decision but thought it should be 1 rather than 2 weeks. He also said that there is a process and made the ridiculous comment that if you follow the process you'll end up with the result you want!

The justification for the suspension seems to be that JVR took his eye off the ball. If he'd kept his eye on the ball obviously he wouldn't have had time to get back and attempt the spoil but that seems to be what he was expected to do. So I think its a bit more nuanced than he was attempting to play the ball so it shouldn't be a suspension.

Can any body point me to the actual statement of judgement from Gleeson

I would like to try and understand the matter

35 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Has this now evolved into a Rosa Parks moment for the Game ?

Make a stand....or else...

I'd like to think I'm as passionate a Melbourne supporter as there is, but a Rosa Parks moment? FGS. 

Eye on the ball!

Can I presume that you can run into a player at any time and cause as much damage as you like if you are looking at the ball with no penalty? Ludicrous!

A duty of care surely involves checking the whereabouts of other players (& umpires) prior to attacking the ball so as not to harm others.

JVR did not harm but may have hurt.

JVR clearly set out to spoil.

If JVR had intended to hurt he could have done so easily. 

JVR was concerned after the spoil as can be seen from his reaction. 

The AFL I believe want it on record that they tried to stamp out head impact but may have been thwarted by clubs appealing. 

Free  JVR!

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Eye on the ball!

Can I presume that you can run into a player at any time and cause as much damage as you like if you are looking at the ball with no penalty? Ludicrous!

A duty of care surely involves checking the whereabouts of other players (& umpires) prior to attacking the ball so as not to harm others.

JVR did not harm but may have hurt.

JVR clearly set out to spoil.

If JVR had intended to hurt he could have done so easily. 

JVR was concerned after the spoil as can be seen from his reaction. 

The AFL I believe want it on record that they tried to stamp out head impact but may have been thwarted by clubs appealing. 

Free  JVR!

Yep, and most of the time these tribunal decisions seem to be geared towards saving their behinds in any future concussion lawsuits. 

I just watched the replay for the first time and my first thought was what an effort to cover that much ground to get in the contest. JVR is the kind of player we want.

The oh so obvious inconsistencies of interpretations of what was okay or not okay in ‘incidents’ across all teams does my head in.

The only consistency that I could pick up to date is that if you are an established high profile player, you have a far better chance of getting off (same for not being given free kicks against). If you are a no name player the odds tend to go against you.

Nowhere have I seen comments about Ballard being accidentally kneed in the head a few mins beforehand (and potentially suffering some neck/head response) and when the JVR spoils Ballard holds the back of his head. He isn't holding his face where JVRs bicep brushed it.

It seems relevant to me as Ballard said he heard a crack - hence the stretcher and an abundance of caution.

But there was no neck damage, nor concussion and he will play this week. So he wasn't hurt in the JVR incident. To say there was potential is also patently ridiculous as there are 100 other footy actions that fall into the same category

Also to call it striking is bizarre and clearly incorrect - If he had hit the ball first it could not be striking. And he missed it by mm. Plus the tribunal admitted it was a genuine spoil.

The case has so many holes it is difficult to see how he can't get off

32 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

The justification for the suspension seems to be that JVR took his eye off the ball. If he'd kept his eye on the ball obviously he wouldn't have had time to get back and attempt the spoil but that seems to be what he was expected to do. So I think its a bit more nuanced than he was attempting to play the ball so it shouldn't be a suspension.

This is stupid by the tribunal. Any person running full tilt has to look u p and see where they are running and where to spoil etc. Its a BS argument.

If he KEEPS his eyes on the player that might constitute an argument

But how many times do you see a player running with the flight to spoil a mark by placing his fist in the place were the player marking has his hands. Its totally legitimate to do that.

I would have thought it was ‘lack of duty of care’ by not looking at who is in front of you. Who knows what sort of damage you could do without assessing all factors when confronting contact. 
 

its like saying keep your eyes on the road when crossing a country railway intersection knowing the train is coming 🫣

47 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

The justification for the suspension seems to be that JVR took his eye off the ball. If he'd kept his eye on the ball obviously he wouldn't have had time to get back and attempt the spoil but that seems to be what he was expected to do. So I think its a bit more nuanced than he was attempting to play the ball so it shouldn't be a suspension.

34 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Eye on the ball!

Can I presume that you can run into a player at any time and cause as much damage as you like if you are looking at the ball with no penalty? Ludicrous!

This "eyes on the ball" thing is a childlike oversimplification. Yes, juniors get told "keep your eyes on the ball"; it's fundamental to any ball sport.

These are not junior players, they are the best in the land. They continually take their eyes off the ball to see what's going on around them. And I don't mean swivelling their heads around; it's a small movement and only takes a split second. Most probably aren't even aware they do  it. It's part of what makes them better than players who "keep their eyes on the ball".

This is a reverse engineered justification shoehorned in backwards to give plausibility to the ridiculous overlawyered tribunal decision.

22 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The case has so many holes it is difficult to see how he can't get off

I think you're overlooking one thing ... it's the AFL tribunal! Where common sense goes to die.

21 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

The oh so obvious inconsistencies of interpretations of what was okay or not okay in ‘incidents’ across all teams does my head in.

The only consistency that I could pick up to date is that if you are an established high profile player, you have a far better chance of getting off (same for not being given free kicks against). If you are a no name player the odds tend to go against you.

I agree with you. I'm still [censored] off that Lance Franklin only got a week in Round 1 where he unnecessarily bumped Sam Collins and left him dazed. Naturally the commentators referred to it as a hip and shoulder. The ball was about 10 metres away.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lane+franklin+round+1+2023&rlz=1C1UEAD_en-GBAU987AU987&oq=lane+franklin+round+1+2023&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.8951j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:294d8f23,vid:B2QH_vjFsqQ
 

16 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This is stupid by the tribunal. Any person running full tilt has to look u p and see where they are running and where to spoil etc. Its a BS argument.

If he KEEPS his eyes on the player that might constitute an argument

But how many times do you see a player running with the flight to spoil a mark by placing his fist in the place were the player marking has his hands. Its totally legitimate to do that.

I wasn't saying I agreed with the tribunal's interpretation. Personally I can't see how this was classified as striking. Surely rough conduct and a fine (at worst). 
 

57 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I'd like to think I'm as passionate a Melbourne supporter as there is, but a Rosa Parks moment? FGS. 

Its nothing about Melbourne....everything about the game.

If the AFL prevails in this blanket bs ambiguity then everything....EVERYTHING  about the game can be got at. 

I make no apology for supposing the gravity of this is huge.

This is not about one instance of incidental contact...its everything about ratifying nonsense.

If this gets up ( for the AFL )... what next.

Nearly at 1k signatures. If everyone could share the petition in their social networks, amongst football fans. We are really only going to make a difference if we are 100k+

https://www.change.org/p/free-jacob-van-rooyen?redirect=false

Thanks to all who have signed so far :)

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Can any body point me to the actual statement of judgement from Gleeson

I would like to try and understand the matter

In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball.

 

"We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. 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.

Just now, beelzebub said:

Its nothing about Melbourne....everything about the game.

If the AFL prevails in this blanket bs ambiguity then everything....EVERYTHING  about the game can be got at. 

I make no apology for supposing the gravity of this is huge.

This is not about one instance of incidental contact...its everything about ratifying nonsense.

If this gets up ( for the AFL )... what next.

Sorry, I'm not saying this isn't important in the context or how Australian Rules is played. What I was saying is that maybe, just maybe, a defining moment in the US Civil Rights Movement is marginally more important!!!

1 hour ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I'd like to think I'm as passionate a Melbourne supporter as there is, but a Rosa Parks moment? FGS. 

I thought it was more a Norman Gunston moment.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

IHowever 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.

BS, garbage, rot and unspeakable nonsense. Whether or not he made contact with the head would depend on so many variables, even in the split second before contact, that the desire to spoil would have overcome any possible (??) doubts.

According to the tribunal, any "reasonable" player would have (could have) had the time and the inclination to weight up the risks of contact to the head. I am staggered that the former players on the panel did not see through the fallacy of this stupid proposition. Only a legally trained person could run this argument, not a former player, and so the lawyer prevailed.

Time to remove the lawyer chair from the decision making panel. At the moment there is a severe conflict of interest between him as interrogator and as decision maker.