Its no good for the kid in his 5th game. He looked all at sea after it. He did a fantastic diving tackle in the last few minutes which helped save the game.

Stupid ban.

We dont negotiate with Terrorists.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Wadda We Sing

And of course Chol isn’t even cited for a round house smack to Bowey’s head because Bowey had the nerve to get straight back up. 

btw the mro didn't let cripps walk free, it actually gave him 2 weeks.

it was the tribunal appeal that let him off

I’ve been a Demonland member since early 2008, and never gone on a rant, but ……….. bloody hell!

Fans should boycott, game is rooted if we are suspending players for that.

Time to put your big boy pants on Perty. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by McQueen

Kev: please! This is a contact sport. Every time you step out to play there is the possibility that someone will make contact with your head - many spoils from behind mean some kind of head contact. 

Had Van R's contact been malicious or intended, sure, you do the crime, you do the time. However, this was a clear example of accidental contact and to punish a player who accidentally makes contact is criminal. 

The other aspect is that spoiling someone from taking a mark is one of the fundamental aspects of AFL. What was Van R supposed to do- just allow him to mark the ball uncontested? It doesn't work that way.

Sure, in closing, 'the head should be sacrosanct' but we need to distinguish between deliberate and accidental contact.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

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

we have in the past.

Must appeal. 

Some demand an appeal and this does.

Very shirkulatory if not. We must have his back on this. 

This is not acceptable. The Club has to stand up for JVR and challenge the decision.

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

btw the mro didn't let cripps walk free, it actually gave him 2 weeks.

it was the tribunal appeal that let him off

on a technicality

If the commentators supporting the suns wasn't bad enough they have now contributed to this kid getting suspended.

They overreacted to the whole thing. 

Dees must challenge or we will continue to be one of the clubs who is made an example of.

higgins got hit in the head by norf player coming in late, today in a marking contest.

higgins marked it but didn't get a 50m, i.e. no penalty

15 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Kev: please! This is a contact sport

CTE is real.

The consequences of not showing duty of care can destroy our game.

Parents will be reluctant to let their children play and the cost from being sued can destroy the financial viability. 

No one wants dementia, especially early (age) onset symptoms. 

We have a contact sport, though a little tweek here and there, can reduce the incidents and severity of potential injury.

Can't see how that effects the enjoyment of our game. Limit hits to head and high velocity hits that shake the brain about.

I want consistency and that the MFC doesn't becomes a scapegoat without the follow up to other teams.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by kev martin

it was the optics of the stretcher that got jvr done over

even though stuie dew said it was just precautionary by the doctors and turned out unnecessary and no concussion or injury.

I am absolutely disgusted with this decision. For the sake of the Melbourne Football Club this decision must be appealed. Also by appealing this rubbish decision we will be sending  strong support to one of our young up and coming players. 

20 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

U were spot on Gawndy. 

If it were any other player in another team it would be a non issue. Bloody pathetic. 

There's another forum here on conspiracies. I think your post belongs there. I really don't believe the AFL are targetting Melbourne specifically. What I do think though is there are different standards for less prominent players and for recognised champions of long standing e.g. Lance Franklin.

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

100% - if Smith was KO'd Kozzie would've got 4-6 weeks easy.

Yes. No doubt. I think they upgraded Kozzie's bump because of potential to caiuse serious injury. But in general I think this is as problem. Why should the level of impact matter? That is a random outcome beyond the control of the culprit. The AFL needs to change this component of the penalties handed down.

6 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Kev: please! This is a contact sport. Every time you step out to play there is the possibility that someone will make contact with your head - many spoils from behind mean some kind of head contact. 

Had Van R's contact been malicious or intended, sure, you do the crime, you do the time. However, this was a clear example of accidental contact and to punish a player who accidentally makes contact is criminal. 

The other aspect is that spoiling someone from taking a mark is one of the fundamental aspects of AFL. What was Van R supposed to do- just allow him to mark the ball uncontested? It doesn't work that way.

Sure, in closing, 'the head should be sacrosanct' but we need to distinguish between deliberate and accidental contact.

I think front-on contact should be treated differently than spoils from behind but in general I agree with your analysis. There are clearly situations where the spoils are late and high but this was not a situation where he was trying to make his opponent earn the mark. He was genuinely trying to spoil.

2 minutes ago, Adzman said:

If the commentators supporting the suns wasn't bad enough they have now contributed to this kid getting suspended.

They overreacted to the whole thing. 

Dees must challenge or we will continue to be one of the clubs who is made an example of.

I agree the commentators over-reacted and were incorrect in their responses (apart from Jonathan Brown apparently) but I have no idea whether they contributed to the suspension.

I was totally fine with Kosi getting two weeks. His was not a necessary footy action or even in play and had the potential to cause a very serious injury. 
The reality is tho, that basically every action on a footy field can cause serious injury. A spoil, a diving mark, a tackle, a speccy. If we start penalizing every action that ends in injury, whether accidental or not, whether in play or not, we are changing our game.

We have to minimize risk by taking out actions that don’t contribute to the game. But we can never take the risk away from the game, and if you can’t even spoil a ball with the game on the line, then what can you even do? 
If Rivers dives for a spoil and the player chasing him accidentally trips over him and hits his head on the ground does Rivers get suspended? What if you go to spoil and break someone’s leg? Does Lever get suspended because he went for a spoil and his opponent landed badly and broke his leg?
A split second in play decision to try and spoil cannot and should not result in suspension when 9 times out of 10 it won’t even result in a free kick. 
Just because Ballard felt something in his neck and a stretcher was called as a precaution, doesn’t mean JVR now has to miss two weeks of football. 
The AFL, as per usual, have taken it so far the other way, for fear of being sued, they are changing the game. For the worse. 

it looks like a dumb charge but he was probably going to be dropped anyway

not delivering imo

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

There's another forum here on conspiracies. I think your post belongs there. I really don't believe the AFL are targetting Melbourne specifically. What I do think though is there are different standards for less prominent players and for recognised champions of long standing e.g. Lance Franklin.

Yes. No doubt. I think they upgraded Kozzie's bump because of potential to caiuse serious injury. But in general I think this is as problem. Why should the level of impact matter? That is a random outcome beyond the control of the culprit. The AFL needs to change this component of the penalties handed down.

I think front-on contact should be treated differently than spoils from behind but in general I agree with your analysis. There are clearly situations where the spoils are late and high but this was not a situation where he was trying to make his opponent earn the mark. He was genuinely trying to spoil.

I agree the commentators over-reacted and were incorrect in their responses (apart from Jonathan Brown apparently) but I have no idea whether they contributed to the suspension.

I agree with much of what you said but I think your remark about conspiracy is a bit off. Favouring certain well known players and clubs with big membership, ie $$ for the AFL empire seems corrupt and to have media complicit smells of conspiracy to me. 

10 minutes ago, kev martin said:

CTE is real.

The consequences of not showing duty of care can destroy our game.

Parents will be reluctant to let their children play and the cost from being sued can destroy the financial viability. 

No one wants dementia, especially early (age) onset symptoms. 

We have a contact sport, though a little tweek here and there, can reduce the incidents and severity of potential injury.

Can't see how that effects the enjoyment of our game. Limit hits to head and high velocity hits that shake the brain about.

I want consistency and that the MFC doesn't becomes a scapegoat without the follow up to other teams.

In a high contact game like AFL, you cannot ever hope to avoid contact to the head: it is basically unavoidable: that's one of the risks you take for playing the game. JvR did not deliberately make contact with whoever it was, and, to repeat, had he not tried to spoil he would have been derided by his team mates and coaches. Like I say, there is a difference between deliberate contact and accidental contact.

58 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

And the week before, this wasn't even a free kick.  Consistency please!!!!!!

 

 

The moving footage makes it even more stark.  Yet nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Yep, the umpire may have got it wrong, but total silence from the MRO?  Beggars belief really

 

https://www.afl.com.au/video/917096/murphy-down-in-huge-clash-after-tremendous-courage?videoId=917096&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1682845734001&tagNames=AppNewsFeed:Yes&tagNames=AppNewsFeed:Yes

4 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

The moving footage makes it even more stark.  Yet nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Yep, the umpire may have got it wrong, but total silence from the MRO?  Beggars belief really

 

https://www.afl.com.au/video/917096/murphy-down-in-huge-clash-after-tremendous-courage?videoId=917096&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1682845734001&tagNames=AppNewsFeed:Yes&tagNames=AppNewsFeed:Yes

This is almost identical, Fogarty takes his eyes off the ball for a second to assess and goes for the footy. Fogarty is probably worse because he’s going with the flight, JVR was coming from 90 degrees to the ball so a more realistic attempt.

Ballard had no injuries at all - albeit assessed after the stretcher

Murphy had a broken nose and blood everywhere 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by BW511

It doesnt matter if MFC club appeals. All that matters is the AFL and former  VFL hate Melbourne. Coll Ess Haw  could beat the living soul out of  Melbourne. You get physical you will get hit.  Chandler and Pickett now VDR have been hit hard by the corporate MRO. They dont want Melbourne to get physical. Hawthorn know this. Melbourne will win but theyre going to get hit. It could get brutal on Saturday.

3 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

……

How can the AFL allow it to be hijacked and polluted in this way?

The TV rights have a huge say despite denials. And the in game TV guys (who were seriously rooting for GC$ all game) said JVR would be in trouble, so he is.  

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

Should be considered serious, as the consequences for repeated hits to head, no matter the consequences of the impact, can lead to CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).

You mean like the repeated AND DELIBERATE punches and forearms to the back of players heads in marking contests. Max gets this most weeks. Never a free let alone a report. 
 

Open your bloody eyes Christian. 

55 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

This is not acceptable. The Club has to stand up for JVR and challenge the decision.

 

44 minutes ago, dl4e said:

I am absolutely disgusted with this decision. For the sake of the Melbourne Football Club this decision must be appealed. Also by appealing this rubbish decision we will be sending  strong support to one of our young up and coming players. 

Seriously if MFC don’t come out all guns blazing who could blame JVR for wanting to leave the club at his earliest opportunity    
 

We must pursue this to the end. 
 

PS. It is no wonder that some believe that the AFL at large, and this lazy MRO in particular (who seems to sit back and wait for media referrals) are as corrupt as most African republics. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by monoccular