Jump to content

JvR Free!!!

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

6 hours ago, Winners at last said:

Whoever drafted the rule/s in question will get a 'please explain' from the AFL!! 

No problem with the Rule.

The problem is Gleeson decided he would wrongly add a bit in where the Rule was clear.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Angry 1
     
    6 hours ago, DeeVoted said:

    Reasons from Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam:

    Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.

    These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

    We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

    However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

    It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

    Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.

    I will interpret that for you.

    The chairman, Gleeson,  was completely wrong. But he is still a nice chap.

    In the penultimate paragraph of the above quote there is an important typographical error. "Whereby" should be "Where".

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Love 1
    3 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

    Well… it was clear Dill, until the MRO and Tribunal made it unclear. But yes, tap yourselves on the back and tell each other you’ve done an amazing job. 

    You'd think given he's just been promoted to CEO-elect from General Counsel that he'd understand the most basic function of the appeal tribunal is to assess the legal application of the AFL rules for legal error 🙄 If it's not very clear to him, he should head back to law school

  • Quote
    • Like 4
     
    6 hours ago, Redleg said:

    I thought you said it wasn't looking good!

    There's a hint of sarcasm in that comment 'Red' 😁

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Will be a sweet tasting brekkie for JvR this morning.

  • Quote
    • Love 1
     
    42 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

    And How I’ll sleep next Thursday night before the big prime time game against Port!

    Nothing personal against Junior Rioli but I was a little peeved that he copped a two week suspension (reduced from 3) at the Tribunal the other night. How could they have applied the same punishment in a situation where a player caused an opponent to be concussed and miss at least the following week to one where his club gives him the all clear?

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Love 3

    3 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

    Exactly why he should consider resigning.

    I don’t understand.

    Why would someone resign if their employer was thrilled with their work?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    The number of successful appeals in the MRO process is outrageous given the cards stacked against the suspended player. It just shows what a kangaroo court the whole process is.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Love 1
    8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

    I don’t understand.

    Why would someone resign if their employer was thrilled with their work?

    Because even if your employer is thrilled with your work, it might not necessarily mean you’ve done the right thing. Richard Nixon might have been thrilled with the plumbers at Watergate but that means Jack [censored].

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1

    I'm curious to know why it took 2 hours of deliberation to come to a conclusion that 99% of people took about 2 minutes to get to.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    16 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

    I'm curious to know why it took 2 hours of deliberation to come to a conclusion that 99% of people took about 2 minutes to get to.

    I imagine it had to do with the Appeals Board reviewing the rulebook in its entirety to see if there was a rule anywhere that could override rule 18.5 for the Tribunal to have come to the outcome it did. Once it was determined that there wasn't, the finding was clear. Unlike us, Lawyers, Barristers and Judges understand the importance of reading all the Terms and Conditions because sometimes there can be a condition that overrides another.

    Edited by AshleyH30

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Haha 1

    Jeff Gleeson has left unbelievable, law-based opportunities to appeal in the two most high-profile tribunal cases in recent memory (both involving contact to the head).

    He either isn’t very good at his job or there is a conspiracy to get these players off (Cripps for finals/Brownlow reasons, JVR for common sense reasons) whilst also being able to demonstrate the AFL had done everything within its power to stamp out head contact.

    I’m not a conspiracy type of guy but it is curious such an experienced legal type is making such enormous errors.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 1
    8 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    Have the Dees ever  been beaten abroad? 
    I know we’ve won in NZ, Canada, USA, China ,England and Tasmania(!) Anywhere else?

    I know we won the '87 World Series.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    This is a classic legal pronouncement.

    If you want the tribunal to depart significantly from existing interpretations Parliament (in this case the AFL) needs to make it clear.

    Rule change coming.. (I pity the draftsperson )

    Personally i don't think they'll change it.

    I reckon they just tried to make it up as they went along using us (Joey) as the whipping boy.

    Hoping we would roll over and / or the Board would follow their lead in lock step.

    The idea being to use us as one example / demonstration of how seriously they're now taking their OH&S for potential concussion / injury law suits / claims down the track.

    Our response as a club was first rate.  We stood our ground and finally had the balls to call this chirade out for what it was.

    .."Feel free to try your shenanigans on someone else if you wish.  Oh, and close the door on your way out!"

    Edited by Demon Dynasty

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2

    9 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    Have the Dees ever  been beaten abroad? 
    I know we’ve won in NZ, Canada, USA, China ,England and Tasmania(!) Anywhere else?

    We've conquered the world from Milan to Minsk but the one hole we haven't been able to fix is the one in the AFL's soul. 

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    I'd like to see them clarify something like this:

    "Swinging arms and fists that connect directly with the head or face in an attempt to spoil is not incidental contact. Straight arm spoils where there is no contact between the first and head, will be considered incidental contact, where the sole objective is spoiling or contesting the mark."

    Overhead marking contests means high contact will occur. As it does in netball. But swinging fist style spoils probably void the duty of care to the other player, where that swinging fist is aimed at the head and not the ball.

    Edited by deanox

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
    • Love 2
    1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

    Will be a sweet tasting brekkie for JvR this morning.

    I'll have what he's having. 

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
     

    I wonder if the Club has to bare the cost of this defence. I know they don’t have to pay the $10,000 AFL charge but what about two nights of senior lawyers. It would be a lot of money. 

    Edited by Its Time for Another

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Like
      • 133 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 393 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All