AFL Circus constantly setting examples of 'MFC players' in situations where no serious injury or concussion eventuates

Eg; Smith/Kozzy & now Ballard /JVR.

Yet others we know are love children of the AFL (and their mouth piece commentators... Cornes a major one) either don't even get free kicked/looked at or decisions are reversed or severly reduced (in some cases to just a fine) on appeal.

How often do you hear commentators say of other big Vic Club or interstate players "nothing in that, move on" or "he'll get off that's incidental contact" yet if it's an MFC player "oh boy likely to be in trouble there", "looks bad", "will probably get looked at", "at least 1 or 2 weeks maybe worse"? Etc.

And even if it should be looked at... often just glossed over during the week and no MRO action.

In particular Kozzy.  Even after the verdict...."should've been three!", "lucky to only get two".  Laughable as no concussion / no injury & Smith played out the match yet here we have the AFL circus trying to crucify (and did) another MFC player.

It's because the MFC is obviously not on the Circus's (read Chanel 7/SEN's)  protected species list and are free game.

The Cripps fiasco last year a classic example, which also resulted in him winning the Chas with almost everyone in the entire circus going along with the ring master's directive, including zero controversial comments on the award night.

Imagine if that had've been ANB, Harmes or May etc.  There's no way that hearing and eventual technicality verdict even gets to court lol.

Had JVR wanted to take him out he could've coat hangered him but no, fist went straight ahead at the ball drop.  The rest was incidental contact and GC has officially said "no damage/concussion".

Sounds like we going to push back on this one.  Fine at worst using the Lynch/Cripps/others precedents.

"No more Mr nice guy" MFC.  Must act as the other Circus favourites often do & take this all the way.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

6 hours ago, McQueen said:

What mail do you have mate?

Someone posted on one of the fan Facebook pages an article from the Herald Sun stating that we're going to 'strongly appeal' and use the Tom Lynch incident as an example of a case.

I'll try and find it..

Found it. Article by Jay Clark. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by dazzledavey36

10 hours ago, bing181 said:

Will turn on whether or not he took his eyes off the ball. From the footage that they're showing (from behind) it looks like he did, and that's why there's the penalty. If the club can show otherwise I'd imagine that they'd appeal.

Regardless of whether he took eyes off the ball I think the real test is whether JVR was attempting to spoil vs carelessly or intentionally taking out the player. If you look at Brandon Ellis's response, who would have a good sense of the feel of the incident at the time, its pretty obvious he saw no malice in the incident and it seemed like an attempted spoil. JVR was pretty close to actually spoiling the ball so its probably a test of whether JVR's action was reasonable vs careless.

We saw what happened with Kozzie in Rd 1 and when he seemed to get caught in two minds when bumping after that. Decisions like this are going to turn an amazing young prospect in JVR with great endeavour into someone who will second guess that contest next time. It's rubbish 

23 hours ago, BDA said:

I muted the commentary in the 2nd quarter. Dunstall was painful to listen to and always barracks for the opposition against us. Dermie is the same when commentating on Dees games. What is it with those ex-Hawks and the Dees. They are definitely biased against us.

Dunstall still remembers Earl Spalding’s accidental knee to his head, fracturing his sinuses and resulting in his having to wear that silly looking headwear.  Hates Melbourne because of that. 

7 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

JVR is obviously expected, in the split second that he has to spoil a high ball, to take out a calculator and calculate the exact timing and angle at which he is to hit the ball in order to avoid touching his opponent while also ensuring his fist hits the ball directly into the hands of Kosi who then goes on to kick a banana from the pocket 🙄

Quite honestly the AFL is absolutely cooked. 

“…Quite honestly the AFL is absolutely cooked. ”.  Cooked or crooked?

The problem is giving to the MRP the ability to upgrade the impact to high based on capacity to cause injury even when the injury actually incurred is minor. This has led to the ludicrous situation whereby any hit on a player can potentially be graded high impact and lead to a two or three week suspension. They are virtually turning the game into a non contact sport.

18 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Dunstall still remembers Earl Spalding’s accidental knee to his head, fracturing his sinuses and resulting in his having to wear that silly looking headwear.  Hates Melbourne because of that. 

“…Quite honestly the AFL is absolutely cooked. ”.  Cooked or crooked?

3 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

How often do you hear commentators say of other big Vic Club or interstate players "nothing in that, move on" or "he'll get off that's incidental contact" yet if it's an MFC player "oh boy likely to be in trouble there", "looks bad", "will probably get looked at", "at least 1 or 2 weeks maybe worse"? Etc.

It's not that it always seems to us like it's MFC players getting the rough end of the pineapple.

It's that the TV commentators seem to be doing a semi-officlal "first cut" assessment of these incidents. Christian then seems to follow their lead. I can't recall a "nothing in that" incident getting charged by the MRO, and all the "gee, that'll be looked at" incidents get looked at.

Is the MRO allowing himself to be prejudiced by the open slather trial by jury conducted by the TV shows? Is he doing his job and watching each match in isolation, without commentary (and without watching the Sunday star chamber panel shows)? Or does he take the lazy way out and let the media inquisitors make the decisions for him?

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Someone posted on one of the fan Facebook pages an article from the Herald Sun stating that we're going to 'strongly appeal' and use the Tom Lynch incident as an example of a case.

I'll try and find it..

Found it. Article by Jay Clark. 

Wtf is this absurdity that you can only take your eye off the ball if you have ill intentions, and not because you're momentarily tracking where your opponent is out of duty of care?

Are they actively encouraging endangering yourself and your opponent by turning yourself into a missile by recklessly going back with the flight like Nick Riewoldts and Brown did? They were lucky they didn't kill themselves or their opponent. And lucky they marked the ball.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by John Demonic

I'm still shocked that the incident was replayed as much as it was and then to hear it was going to the MRO was shocking. It was a bad accident, players get hurt. 

3 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Someone posted on one of the fan Facebook pages an article from the Herald Sun stating that we're going to 'strongly appeal' and use the Tom Lynch incident as an example of a case.

I'll try and find it..

Found it. Article by Jay Clark. 

Do you smell a rat, in that Jay Clark and Ralph pushed for a suspension and then as soon as it was announced, before the Dees could have met to decide what action they would adopt, they have written again immediately, that the club will strongly defend him, meaning appeal and citing other cases and reasons why he should get off.

How many clicks will this now all lead to?

 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Redleg

44 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The problem is giving to the MRP the ability to upgrade the impact to high based on capacity to cause injury even when the injury actually incurred is minor. This has led to the ludicrous situation whereby any hit on a player can potentially be graded high impact and lead to a two or three week suspension. They are virtually turning the game into a non contact sport.

But being very very selective in doing this. 

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Do you smell a rat, in that Jay Clark and Ralph pushed for a suspension and then as soon as it was announced, before the Dees could have met to decide what action they would adopt, they have written again immediately, that the club will strongly defend him, meaning appeal and citing other cases and reasons why he should get off.

How many clicks will this now all lead to?

 

Yeah I thought it was odd myself considering this article was printed last night.

I mean there's still no official word from the club yet but Jay Clark does have a good track record when it comes to the Dees.

The Brad Close tackle also a farce.. 

9 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

What if he looked at Ballard to assess his positioning to avoid a head clash or protecting his own body?

He didn’t line him up off the ball ffs. He made a split second decision to try and impact the contest. If he doesn’t do that he gets called soft. 

i wonder how bing can tell where jvr eyes are looking from that video? bing must have supernatural powers.

it's pretty clear however that jvr was only going for the ball under a difficult hospital kick

31 minutes ago, John Demonic said:

Wtf is this absurdity that you can only take your eye off the ball if you have ill intentions, and not because you're momentarily tracking where your opponent is out of duty of care?

Are they actively encouraging endangering yourself and your opponent by turning yourself into a missile by recklessly going back with the flight like Nick Riewoldts and Brown did? They were lucky they didn't kill themselves or their opponent. And lucky they marked the ball.

Absolutely this.

His duty of care was to look at Ballard once he committed to the spoil to assess where both the player and the ball were likely to land. If he blindly goes for the spoil both players could have clashed heads and both would have ended up with bad concussions. How the [censored] is this a better result than JVR taking a split second to look at Ballard to ensure his own safety, as well as the safety of his opponent?

We really think Foggerty has no peripheral vision and didn't know he was about to hit a Collingwood player when he went for that spoil last week?

This notion of eyes for the ball is frankly idiotic. JVR didn't line him up off the ball. And honestly if that was Lever or May executing the spoil, their fist would have likely connected perfectly and nobody would even speak of it. But a 6 game forward who is a big boy goes for it and stuffs up, and he deserves 2 weeks off. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Jaded No More

10 hours ago, kev martin said:

I'm not so set on JVR, as he is being scapegoated. It is the inconsistency that concerns me. I also assume that concerns the players as well.

If they are serious about reducing brain damage, then he shouldn't hit the player with such force.

Given that if he put a knee into his head it would be deemed in the act of the game, within the rules of the game. Such is JVR's, within the rules of the game, as I interpret them.

They are attempting to change the rules, so as to reduce brain injuries, which I believe is warranted. Just a funny way to go about it. Scapegoat a MFC, non-establshed player.

 They have done it, so now I expect consistency. 

No hits to head or heavy impacts when playing.

That includes whacks to Gawn's head, players knocking the packs hard, knees to the head when marking, straggling the head when on the ground, (elbows such as what Gotchin does). Complete duty of care, otherwise JVR takes a fall that no other players will take. 

 

Yeah well just watch the AFL be consistently inconsistent and uphold the ban. Seriously it aint netball. It is a CONTACT sport and accidents do happen. TERRIBLE If he gets outed on this!

1: A player is allowed to take their eyes off the ball, they’ll just come under more scrutiny for doing so;

2. What was JVR suppose to do in that position? He should also be allowed to protect himself. Anyone remember that time Jordan Lewis was knocked out when at Hawthorn? If JVR turns to keep his eyes on the ball, he puts himself into a really dangerous (potential injury wise) position. 

3. I haven’t watched a replay of the incident, but I thought JVR’s fist made contact with the ball, I could be wrong. 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by Ethan Tremblay

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

1: A player is allowed to take their eyes off the ball, they’ll just come under more scrutiny for doing so;

2. What was JVR suppose to do in that position? He should also be allowed to protect himself. Anyone remember that time Jordan Lewis was knocked out when at Hawthorn? If JVR turns to keep his eyes on the ball, he puts himself into a really dangerous (potential injury wise) position. 

3. I haven’t watched a replay of the incident, but I thought JVR’s fist made contact with the ball, I could be wrong. 

I thought it did too and it was his forearm or bicep that collected Ballard's head as secondary contact. Defenders would be rubbed out every week if this was a crime. 

14 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

1: A player is allowed to take their eyes off the ball, they’ll just come under more scrutiny for doing so;

2. What was JVR suppose to do in that position? He should also be allowed to protect himself. Anyone remember that time Jordan Lewis was knocked out when at Hawthorn? If JVR turns to keep his eyes on the ball, he puts himself into a really dangerous (potential injury wise) position. 

3. I haven’t watched a replay of the incident, but I thought JVR’s fist made contact with the ball, I could be wrong. 

Taking your eyes off the ball LOL, it would be reckless not to do so to check the other players position so you just don't dangerously cannon into him.

The short article on the MFC website gives me confidence that we will appeal.  Nothing definite, but not the usual 'we will accept'.

Melbourne will provide an update on its position regarding the incident in due course.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by sue

Interesting take in the Like/Dislike section of the Hun today. 

I'm unsure Demon youngster Van Rooyen's spoiling attempt on Gold Coast's Ballard should earn a ban

Van Rooyen was offered two matches after it was deemed he was careless and hit Ballard with high impact rather the\an severe.

Yes, he has a duty of care to opponents, but if Ballard didnt suffer an injury the spoil would have  been deemed high and simply a free kick paid.

Van rouen had every right to contest the ball and while it's been said he didnt have eyes for the ball, there is no rule that says your eyes have to be on the ball when contesting it. 

The fact is, players competing under a high ball like these two did are in the lap of the gods when it comes to injury, Ballard was unlucky.

Van Rooyen's action was not malicious. Accidents do happen in footy. 

That's by Mark Robinson. 

There appears to be a strong media element this morning pushing for us to appeal. Even Robbo mentioned we should in his Tackle.

14 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I believe the decision is just plain silly but how often has that been said about the match review/ tribunal system over the years, yet nothing changes.

But ... what  implications for the game itself does this decision open up?

It seems to me that a spoiling situation always has the potential to result in high contact. In an overhead marking contest the spoilers arm, fist , forearm will always be close to the maker's head. As we see in the JVR situation where the spoiler has to move at speed to make the contest the possibility of high contact is increased.

If JVR is suspended what will this mean for attempting to spoil the mark. Is this leading closer to a non contact game?

 

PS. If someone could find the footage of the incident where Mitch Robinson poleaxed Pedo in a game at the G a few years ago it would make a very interesting comparison. If I remember correctly a free may have been paid but there was certainly no tribunal or suspension.

 

How do you reconcile it with Fogarty smashing Murphy last week and breaking his nose, with blood everywhere and not even a free kick and no citing, or even screaming by the media?

He hit him like a train crash, front on. Injured. Off the ground. Nothing to see here boys.

 

He'll get off if we appeal. Simple as that.