Leaderboard

Just heard the most sensible comment on this matter. Jordan Lewis on 360 - " They are making it up as they go along " Can't argue with that !!!

No matter what happens tomorrow I am very proud of the way we’ve handled this as a club, not just for baby Roo but for the whole competition. As always we do all the bloody hard work so everyone else can benefit…. Made the game, now we are saving it from itself.

Quote from Will the Dill “It’s widely covered now that if you make contact with the head and don't make contact with the footy, you're going to be in a bit of trouble. “I think the MRO is doing a really good job of staying on top of (these incidents) which is perfect. “He didn't make contact with the footy, didn't have eyes with the footy and smacked Charlie in the side of the head. “I think he got what he deserved, the MRO is doing a good job.” Now compare the pair 1. Not watching the ball (tick) 2. No contact with the football (tick) 3. Smacked opposition player in the head (tick) 4. Seems he didn't get what he deserved (tick)

BTW, what about the mental health of a young kid, being used as a Pawn, to create a PR narrative for an organisation in litigation crisis. This is disgraceful.

We’ve got this

it needs an enema

Now we've seen that......please never do it again !!!

Absolutely not. We owe it to JVR and the game to get this disgraceful miscarriage set aside and we will.

Jeff Gleeson is a major problem and is ruining the tribunal process. He essentially accepted that what JVR did was not unreasonable and was in the play, but then found some way to make out that he was unreasonable, which is totally contradictoray. He then quite obviously held sway over Johnson and Williams, who let' be honest are just token tribunal members to make it look like it isn't just Gleeson calling the shots.

Demonland this mornin

Members of the Appeal Board for a hearing cannot be the same members that sat on the matter at the Tribunal.

I was surprised at the people having a go at Anderson last night after the failed appeal. I found his argument to be on point and showed that the contest was within the rules of the game. It was Gleeson who managed to somehow pull an argument "out of somewhere not so bright" to get the outcome we got. This is why everyone in the community is so flabbergasted by the result.

I think the issue we’re so rightfully angry about is that this WON’T happen. It WOULD fundamentally destroy the game if it was enforced, making this decision a ‘bubble’ precedent. This incident is scapegoating for appearances only. If the AFL, or the tribunal were accountable in any way, they would have to explain why dozens of incidents this coming round alone don’t result in suspensions. They’re in a position of not having to explain or justify anything to anybody. Much like the ongoing umpiring malaise. One complaint from anybody in clubland about any umpiring decision, or a publicly heard negative value judgment on anything to do with umpiring, and the AFL penalises the complainant, with absolutely no obligation to discuss the complaint or judgement. AFL house is simply a collective autocracy.

I will throw in another grenade. The Tribunal was until this year made up of 3 ex players. Gleeson was the AFL Prosecutor who was directed by the AFL on what to do in cases. He is now on and the Chairman of the Tribunal, who can obviously influence the 2 ex footballers on each hearing, as to what to decide. Why are the 2 ex players on the Tribunal the only ex players to say this was reportable? This hasn’t been decided on vision or evidence, but rather some abstract, specifically created conclusion, as to what a person can do in .8 of a second, even though it is outside the rules of the game. This has been made up by the Chairman, to get a specific outcome. The whole footy world says on the vision it is not reportable, but this Chairman seems to be the only one who disagrees and creates a narrative to get his way.

Always was and always will be my all time favourite Demon. Love Robbo!

You can see why so many of us on DL and in the broader footy community are angry with this. Gleeson is an intelligent man I would assume and to come up with his sort of garbage, just causes real angst, as to where this is all coming from. He finds on the same night, that Neale was hit forcibly to the jaw by a left forearm of Newman and that Neale was also hit by the right forearm of Newman to the chest. He finds the chest hit not a strike and chooses not to amend the charge to left forearm and lets another Carlton player off. We all know about the Cripps rubbish. Then despite video showing McKay hits Sheezel with a forearm to the neck and lower jaw, he accepts that McKay's version that he was intending to push, not strike. I thought usually pushing involved hands and not forearms. Third Carlton player let off. Despite accepting JVR intended to spoil, he brings in foreseeabilty, which is not in the rule. He doesn't allow previous incidents to be shown or compared or discussed. What the hell is going on here?

From The Age: " Gleeson said the potential to cause serious injury to the neck and the spine was considered in deciding the force was high, and not incidental, upholding the suspension." That makes no sense. How can 'potential to cause injury' indicate the strength of a force? A certain amount of force could cause potential injury but you can't estimate the actual strength of a force by saying some level of force has the potential to cause injury, therefore this force was high . Beyond belief. Don't they teach logic in schools anymore?

The answer is spread over the 3 pages of this thread. Those saying we are a forward half team or slow movement intercept team are drinking Goody's Kool aid and stuck in 2021, fixated on what we once were. I suspect the club hopes many opposition coaches are thinking the same way. We are now a turnover & transition team that can on it's day, win contest and clearance. But we don't have to. See GC17. When the whips are cracking at the end of the year, you may see us revert to type. Or flit between Plan A and Plan B. The FD is coaching flexibility, adaptability and multiple ways to win. I think they're showing great maturity and reflection after a very dogmatic approach in 22. In the meantime as the season progresses, we are: -Rotating more players through the midfield, keeping players fresher for longer (Goody couldn't care less about Rowell/Anderson - he more or less suggested a fresh Clarry & Track won us the game as we rotated when they did not) -Deliberately conceding outnumbers at centre clearances (our wings no longer tuck in - even if their opponents join the centre to handball receive, ours rarely follow), stoppage clearances and drop of ball, in so doing training our clearance players (across a broader player cohort) to deal with outnumber situations and punch above their weight whilst also leaving other players open for effective turnover scoring, as we've shown so far -Relying on our defensive strength, 1v1 ability and nature to limit the impact of conceded clearances on the scoreboard (this is risk/reward - Essendon the example of how it looks when our defenders aren't up to the task) I agree it's not entirely comfortable to watch as a supporter, but we all said we needed change to succeed again. This is a change that still relies on our ability to win contests - perhaps more so by emphasising winning contests despite outnumbers - whilst also weaponising it into an effective and highly accurate scoring method, rather than a means to keep the ball forward in a predictable, clogged and ultimately ineffective way (It was once effective (21) but has been worked out) Conceding slightly more scores is a byproduct and there will be weeks that look ugly - but there is always a give to get. The FD are banking on us winning say 35-40% of the contests we're outnumbered in, for a far greater scoring yield as we can move the ball quicker / less contested post-clearance - instead of 60% contest wins for stagnant field progression and lower scoreboard yield. There are analogies to financial markets - less trades for bigger wins rather than more trades of smaller value. Every trade comes with a cost & an opportunity cost. The world is full of subscribers to both schools of thought - the best are the ones who understand which style suits their strengths and weaknesses.

A review from a BF poster: K. Brown is a workhorse. His decision making is really good. I love how he values a HB as much as a kick, there aren’t too many that I can confidently say have this mindset. He spent time in the midfield and across HB, but his mid work was strong with 6 clearances. Brown is definitely one that doesn’t get the plaudits he deserves. Dees recruitment staff would be happy with how Brown is progressing. I see him starting as a nippy back pocket like his dad was, but eventually spending time as one of the Dees mids. It doesn’t matter where his selection comes from, he will definitely land a spot on the Dees list.

Including that rat Powell who casually went over to pick up the ball, when Ballard was lying on the ground, to ensure that he got another kick for his stats and SuperCoach profile

Don’t worry, the little schmuck will hear plenty of boos this weekend, they’re at Optus against the Eagles.

His actions were reasonable but a reasonable player would deem them to have been unreasonable. Are we living in a simulation? This can’t be real.

Great news the club is appealing this incorrect decision. Regardless of the outcome, it's great to see the club stand up to the idiotic liars trying to ruin the game. It's great the club is throwing their support behind young JVR. Hopefully it gives him a lot of confidence and further strengthens the bond he has with his coaches, teammates, and the club.

Just watched Goody's presser. Wow! I'm delighted to hear how strongly Simon Goodwin is supporting JVR in this - stridently refusing to entertain a selection scenario where JVR is not available this weekend. Fantastic stuff. Repeated emphasis that the fabric of the game is in question. And now we have confirmation we are appealing. BRING IT ON!!!

Good work Goody. Time to stand up to this corrupt organisation.

A couple of posters have groaned about woke-ism in this decision. Baloney. No matter how right wing you are this is not anything to do with being 'progressive'. It is Corporation AFL trying to protect its future $.

It’s no longer that we’d be without JVR. It’s now become about principle

interesting stat from champion data (via david king) - van rooyen is the #1 target in the competition at getting a goal from his targeted entries; 55% of the time

This gets better by the minute, you seriously can’t script this garbage.

Silly question - what is this infatuation with keeping eyes on the ball? And that when you take yours eyes off. Surely you cannot plead ignorance because you had eyes for the ball - because there is something called peripheral vision. Couldn’t you argue that eyes on the player is exercising a duty of care by trying to understand where the player is to minimise / avoid contact? I mean when you drive a car and run a red light - because your eyes were on the road - doesn’t really hold up in court when you are facing charges for manslaughter.

“He got what he deserved” Will Powell from the GC is now in the firing line for next time we play GC.

Curtin is 196cm, He is playing for the AIS this weekend against Carlton’s VFL side - well worth a look I have seen both Ginbey and Curtin up close and in their preparation and training. Love everything Ginbey brings, however Curtin has far greater scope to reach elite level as KPP or even as a big mid

SEN just played Goody's presser. Said they hope they appeal, sounds like they will and when asked who will come in for Jacob, Goody said I'm picking Jacob in the team and thats all I'm thinking about. He just sounded bewildered still he got 2 weeks.

Every other commentator who hung JVR prior to the suspension was allowed to have an opinion. So can Jones post tribunal I guess. And for those saying it’s a good chance to rest Roo, this is completely besides the point. What if this weekend was a final and the player in question was Oliver? If we don’t fight this charge we are setting a precedent we don’t want to deal with later down the track when it really matters.

On the Reddit AFL page there are 248 comments from supporters of all clubs. After scrolling through I saw maybe four that were pro-suspension, and the rest were all completely appalled by the decision. I can’t remember the last time a suspension was so unpopular amongst fans of the game. If the AFL have any sense of this they’re obliged to make it right, not just to Jacob and the Demons supporters, but AFL supporters at large.

Our former Captain and number 2 doesn’t seem to agree with the decision either. 🔴🔵

This must increase the odds of JvR beating the charge. So far, I would estimate that about 98% of football people who have expressed a view on the charge against him have called it out as absolute BS. The other 2% sat on the Tribunal. The law of averages says he’ll be good to play on Saturday. So does plain logic. Bring it on!

What happens to the ruck contest from now on? There’s always the reasonable possibility of a ruckman legitimately going for a hit out accidentally making contact with an opponent and therefore, every time this happens from now on the offending ruckman will according to the newly minted Gleeson doctrine be liable for a two week suspension.

Anyone with half a legal brain knows the judgement is complete hogwash. As I have said since last night, bringing in 'reasonable foreseeability' and 'reasonable person tests' is the greatest load of rubbish. This is a contact sport. You cannot use Civil Law principles. Even the whole 'duty of care' stuff is rubbish. If the AFL really wants to legal protect themselves, get a contract signed with players that includes a voluntary assumption of risk clause. FFS. These clowns at the AFL have lost the plot. Lastly, any reasonable player does what he can to win the ball. That's the object of the game. He was competing for the ball. This nonsense about duty of care and reasonability can be saved for off the ball stuff like Nic Newman, oh wait ! It's a complete farce. And 2 weeks! 2 weeks !

Max gets thumped in the back of the head week after week after week Not even a free kick - sorry mate can't agree with you Listen to Jono Brown , Riewolt and Hawkins - players are told to make all efforts to bring the ball to ground (spoil) that was his only focus - in the process of spoiling the mark a glancing blow to the head, the damage was way overstated with the abundance of caution / stretcher. Not concussed, fine to play next week. Sensible cautious approach when he thought he heard a crack in the neck, but no damage done. If he had of got up just like Bowey, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I want us to appeal for the sheer fact that no big club would stand for this rubbish. I am sick of no name players from smaller clubs being used as a pawn in the AFL's latest games. If we don't stand up against this and fight it, we are saying to the AFL that they can keep using our players to make an example, when the reality is, not a single AFL player is watching this suspension and thinking next time they won't go for the spoil.

This from Fox website: Asked whether the ruling would change the way they play, both Riewoldt and Geelong superstar Tom Hawkins said it would not. Of course not - they'd never be cited in the first place (especially Hawkins).

The bigger picture story is that the AFL's entire tribunal/enforcement system is in crisis. From the MRO who seems take his cues on what to cite/not cite from the outrage or complacency of TV commentators, to the tribunal itself who seem to have lost sight of what they're supposed to be doing. How can you allow evidence to be tendered and then completely disregard it? The tribunal members are bamboozled and don't know what is up and what is down. The quasi-legal approach has been a disaster.

Agree. Gleeson is a mad man. Fogarty. Chol. You could name 5-6 every week. MRO and Gleeson have lost it in the views of all the footy public. #FreeJVR