41 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The critical issue is the Tribunal's elevation of the foreseeability of harm above the reasonable action of the player.

This is a contact sport. Suspending players who engage in reasonable football actions simply because it is foreseeable that the action might cause injury is antithetical to the sport. It is also, I expect we'll argue tonight, an error of law because the AFL's Laws of the Game make it clear that players should be entitled to reasonably contest the ball. Once it is accepted that JVR reasonably looked at Ballard for the purpose of contesting the ball, and reasonably attempted to spoil, it should not matter that it was foreseeable he might hit Ballard in the head.

Extrapolate this into every contest and you dont have a game of footy any more. Every single contest has potential for someone to get hurt. Gawn would get 300 frees a game

Imagine players going to tackle and not being committed because they are worried about repercussions. Possibly more injuries would occur because natural instinct and ingrained actions over 15-20 years will be second guessed.

Just now, jnrmac said:

Extrapolate this into every contest and you dont have a game of footy any more. Every single contest has potential for someone to get hurt. Gawn would get 300 frees a game

Imagine players going to tackle and not being committed because they are worried about repercussions. Possibly more injuries would occur because natural instinct and ingrained actions over 15-20 years will be second guessed.

Exactly... 

The entire game is essentially a collision of teams. 

The AFL is playing with dynamite. 

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Jordan Lewis was very angry about his comments on 360 last night.

Thought they were just wrong and also probably breaking the player code.

Sorry, I missed it -what did he say essentially?

Goodwin's proposition that if this is upheld, it would change the nature of the game - an insight shared by a lot of ex- and current players, is a profound one. It would reduce the game to something like netball with an oval ball....

Of all the grounds that are available to appeal on it seems we could probably claim all of them.

12 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Sorry, I missed it -what did he say essentially?

Will Powell said JVR deserved his suspension.

Lewis said he should be embarrassed and he was plainly wrong. 

4 minutes ago, loges said:

Of all the grounds that are available to appeal on it seems we could probably claim all of them.

I would even add Denuto’s “vibe” ground as well.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Once it is accepted that JVR reasonably looked at Ballard for the purpose of contesting the ball, and reasonably attempted to spoil, it should not matter that it was foreseeable he might hit Ballard in the head.

It should not have mattered in the original gearing, but the tribunal members are escapees from Alice in Wonderland.

7 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It should not have mattered in the original gearing, but the tribunal members are escapees from Alice in Wonderland.

I think they may have failed at escaping, too.

At that time of the game and with the result up for grabs van Rooyen had to make a contest. 

If he is suspended for that then he rightly or wrongly has done the team thing. Twice, if he is suspended.

 

 

2 hours ago, Hawk the Demon said:

I also find it amusing that one of the grounds we will rely upon tonight is that "the decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal could have come to that decision having regards to the evidence before it".

The Tribunal said that Roo, being a reasonable player, could have foreseen that he would make forceful contact to Ballard's head.

Reasonable is key....

the 'reasonable player' argument was just the tribunal chairman's weak narrative. it was not the reason the mro decision was upheld. the afl was not happy about the lynch and fogarty decisions (mainly about liigation and optics considerations) and decided the next bunny would not be so lucky and jvr suited their desires being young and not a star of the game or from a big powerful club.

if the afl were genuine they would have been more transparent and changed the rules/interprtation around spoiling situation, publicly giving video examples and education. except they didn't have the guts to be upfront and transparent, so chose the backdoor, mates method.

2 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

I do. 

I’m really not a fan of this burgeoning mindset that people should be able to enter things without taking any risks. 

Aspiring AFL players should know that they’re signing up for a physically-fierce competition, and that serious injury is a potential factor. Don’t like the sound of that? Don’t play. 

Unacceptable risk, the CTE is a horrible injury.

Don't play! Wow, The rules can be tinkered with to create a safe game.

My problem is how they are going about it. 

The players need clear, consistent instructions,  not what is happening via the Tribunal. 

It is not Rollerball, a 1975 movie, a bloodsport. AFL has much more beauty, than it has what you advocate.

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by kev martin

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

The critical issue is the Tribunal's elevation of the foreseeability of harm above the reasonable action of the player.

This is a contact sport. Suspending players who engage in reasonable football actions simply because it is foreseeable that the action might cause injury is antithetical to the sport. It is also, I expect we'll argue tonight, an error of law because the AFL's Laws of the Game make it clear that players should be entitled to reasonably contest the ball. Once it is accepted that JVR reasonably looked at Ballard for the purpose of contesting the ball, and reasonably attempted to spoil, it should not matter that it was foreseeable he might hit Ballard in the head.

Agree.

The Tribunal used the words "a reasonable person would have foreseen almost inevitable head contact". I suppose it could be argued that the words "almost inevitable" were added to distinguish a situation where a player contests the ball and should have foreseen "possible" head contact...perhaps it could be argued that the Tribunal is saying that the latter situation ("possible" head contact) would not be a reportable offence.

But even if this were accepted, I think there is still the argument that the "almost inevitable" reasonable person test is just plainly wrong. How can it be said that the reasonable player, whose objective is to contest the ball, can, in a split second, make a determination that head contact will be "almost inevitable." Not only is there almost no time to make that determination, along with the many variables that could influence whether or not there is contact (e.g. opponent jumps, twists, turns), but it seems incongruous to expect a player, in circumstances where their objective is the ball, to foresee almost inevitable head contact. A player who it is accepted is going for the ball does so because they feel they can win it. Why would such a player foresee almost inevitable head contact?

One of the key things that our lawyer the other night didn't mention and should've (what the hell are we paying for), is how can the action be classified as a 'strike'?

He either touched the ball or was cms off punching the ball away, so how can it possibly be classified as a strike.

At worst it could be classified of careless conduct which would totally change the grading.

7 minutes ago, loges said:

Of all the grounds that are available to appeal on it seems we could probably claim all of them.

One of the ground is that there has been an error of law which is your first clue that the entire tribunal process went off the rails some time ago. IT's not a court. No-one's going to the electric chair. It's a sporting tribunal.

It really is the antithesis of sense. 

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Sorry, I missed it -what did he say essentially?

His parting comment was the statement was "...embarrassing..."  for Powell.

1 hour ago, Scoop Junior said:

Agree.

The Tribunal used the words "a reasonable person would have foreseen almost inevitable head contact". I suppose it could be argued that the words "almost inevitable" were added to distinguish a situation where a player contests the ball and should have foreseen "possible" head contact...perhaps it could be argued that the Tribunal is saying that the latter situation ("possible" head contact) would not be a reportable offence.

But even if this were accepted, I think there is still the argument that the "almost inevitable" reasonable person test is just plainly wrong. How can it be said that the reasonable player, whose objective is to contest the ball, can, in a split second, make a determination that head contact will be "almost inevitable." Not only is there almost no time to make that determination, along with the many variables that could influence whether or not there is contact (e.g. opponent jumps, twists, turns), but it seems incongruous to expect a player, in circumstances where their objective is the ball, to foresee almost inevitable head contact. A player who it is accepted is going for the ball does so because they feel they can win it. Why would such a player foresee almost inevitable head contact?

Exactly, with JVR's inside bicep grazing the side of his head.

Ballard then goes down clutching the back of his head which suffered no contact.

jacob should have changed his name by deed poll to patrick cripps before tonight's hearing

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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

Afl360 was interesting last night.

Robbo seemed to be surprisingly on point. He asked Whateley the question, so if a defender comes from behind with a swinging arm to the head in an attempt to spoil, which happens all the time, that should be banned?

Whateley said no!

Yet JVR went in with a straight arm and glanced him with his bicep and that's not ok?

Whateley said no, that's not ok.

They both were puzzled over the charge of striking. 

I think this will be how he gets off. He never swung an arm to strike at any point.

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

Unacceptable risk, the CTE is a horrible injury.

Don't play! Wow, The rules can be tinkered with to create a safe game.

My problem is how they are going about it. 

The players need clear, consistent instructions,  not what is happening via the Tribunal. 

It is not Rollerball, a 1975 movie, a bloodsport. AFL has much more beauty, than it has what you advocate.

Good film though 😉

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the 'reasonable player' argument was just the tribunal chairman's weak narrative. it was not the reason the mro decision was upheld. the afl was not happy about the lynch and fogarty decisions (mainly about liigation and optics considerations) and decided the next bunny would not be so lucky and jvr suited their desires being young and not a star of the game or from a big powerful club.

if the afl were genuine they would have been more transparent and changed the rules/interprtation around spoiling situation, publicly giving video examples and education. except they didn't have the guts to be upfront and transparent, so chose the backdoor, mates method.

It is really interesting that generally the grey area re suspensions comes down to how rules are interpreted while the JVR case seems to challenge the rules themselves where the tribunal accepts that JVR was only trying to spoil the ball, which is allowed, but because the spoil was reasonably foreseeable to cause harm they are treating it as a strike which falls under rough conduct. The rough conduct provisions specifically cater for bumps (which are deemed a football act that must be executed correctly) and strikes (not a football act) but do not address the need to perform spoils with any degree of care. I'm wondering if we will see a specific provision for spoils to be added under the rough conduct provisions at seasons end.

The Lynch and Fogarty cases are particularly relevant and it is difficult for the AFL to apply its flimsy reasonably foreseeable argument to JVR, which opens a can of worms in that it could be applied to any action on the field, without explaining at the same time why the Lynch and Fogarty incidents were not reasonably foreseeable. Also because the AFL specifically looked at the Fogarty incident and that it was a mistake not to award a free, they must have also decided not to report it from an MRP perspective only 3 weeks ago.  It is an even flimsier argument that the interpretation has changed in the past week especially given the lack of communication and training to clubs. There is a strong argument that clear communication, training and education are much more effective tools to prevent incidents than waiting for things to go wrong and then sanction employees with vague interpretation changes from week to week.

If his ban isn't overturned, part of me would like to see the club protest by not contesting any marking contests against the hawks. Run at the ball then back off with arms raised and concede the mark.

The other part of me wants to smash hawthorn at every opportunity, both in-game and on the scoreboard. Think the latter is better.

How can a football act (a spoil) also be a non-football act (a strike)? Makes no sense to a reasonable fan….

27 minutes ago, Brownie said:

...

I think this will be how he gets off. He never swung an arm to strike at any point.

100% this. The suspension is classified as a strike, which it is not. Let's examine it like a legal eagle [censored].

A physical strike is defined as a directed physical attack with intention to cause blunt trauma or penetrating trauma upon an opponent. A strike can be performed with hands, arms, legs, feet or head.
In this case, it was JVR's arm, so the other body parts are ruled out.

The type of strikes that can occur with the hands or arms are palm strike, closed fist punch, elbow or shoulder charge.
He didn't palm strike or punch him. They're out.
An elbow strike is performed by folding the forearm towards the bicep, and then swinging the arm in a circular motion with intention to cause impact with the elbow area. He didn't do this. That's out
Shoulder charge is performed by tucking the arm into the body, lowering centre of gravity, and then propelling yourself with intention to impact using the shoulder. He didn't do this either. That's out.

JVR did not perform any defined method of "striking". Contact was incidental with his inner bicep making contact with the opponents head after his straight extended past the opponent, with no swinging motion occurring. This was part of an attempted football spoil, not an intended strike to the head.

On another note, the opponent (Ballard) received a knee to the back of the head earlier in the match and was off the ground for that injury. After JVR's bicep made contact with the front/side of his head, he went down and grabbed the back of his head. That we know of, no serious injury occurred from either blow to the head, as Ballard has been confirmed as fine and will be playing this weekend. The short term damage he sustained though appeared cause by an earlier incident.

If this suspension is not overturned, then the rules of the game are now void, and the English dictionary is deemed false.

MRP and tribunal system, go [censored] yourselves. You are a disgrace to the country.

Edited May 11, 20232 yr by Lord Travis