Redleg

How many games have been on TV since tuesday?

Adams 196 Schache 199 K. Turner 193 D. Turner 194 Tomlinson 194 other than Tommo, none of them big bodied yet. We possibly need another big one, who can slot in when needed, until others develop.

Have we ever considered trying D. Turner forward?

I hear an echo.

The Tribunal has found that it was a genuine spoiling attempt, as allowed in the rules. The spoil was either made by touching the ball, or being within mm's of it. He was charged with striking. The Tribunal then found and this is the critical point, that in his genuine legal attempt to spoil, a "reasonable player" would have determined, that contact with the potential to cause injury was inevitable. They then found that the contact with the underarm of the bicep and arm pit, was in fact a strike, as because it was "inevitable" it wasn't incidental contact, which is allowed. They then found, that the alleged sore neck was a severe injury, even though the Suns said he was fine and trained and would play friday. They have in fact found that potential injury, should be graded as severely as actual injury, like concussion for example in the Rioli case yesterday and also in play no different to off the ball. The decision is a nonsense, as the rules say nothing about the reasonable player determining outcomes in a legal action. All done in a split second too, without a computer to carry around and feed info into. They have simply made this up on the night. I find it pathetic. Illegal actions are defined in the rules and they have just made up completely new law. If this stands, any player involved in a legal action, must instantly determine if there is potential for injury in the action before committing to it and if there is, presumably walk away. Therefore flying for a mark from behind, could see a knee to the head of the guy in front. This then is banned. Kicking the ball, could see a follow through of the boot, hurting a player, or the ball being kicked into someone's body or head causing injury. This must be banned. Tackling can obviously cause injuries, so it must be banned. All of these things and many others are clearly foreseeable and must/would be banned. They have found that legal actions could cause injury, that a reasonable player would know that, evaluate that and then not do the action. In other words every action allowed on the field is banned, if it has the potential to cause injury and the reasonable player should then not do it. I think you get the drift. Footy could only continue as a "completely non contact " game and even where no contact, in my examples above, if possibility of injury, that action would also be banned. I think the AFL understand this now and I would be very confident of a successful appeal. How much are the TV rights for a non contact footy game worth? When you talk about bad AFL Tribunal decisions, this is arguably the worst of all time, as Jono Brown predicted.

I thought it was more a Norman Gunston moment.

In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball. "We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head.

Of straight.

Yes and I also wonder if bananas curve from the top down, or the bottom up.

It does seem that “ potential to cause injury “ is now penalised harsher than “ actual injury “.

Jordan Lewis was very angry about his comments on 360 last night. Thought they were just wrong and also probably breaking the player code.

It gets a little harder, as in law there is the “reasonable man” test, but here we are talking about the “reasonable footballer” test. Who is the easiest “ reasonable footballer “ to locate I wonder.

I wonder if more bananas curve to the left or the right?

No. That is not part of the decision.

Interstate club as a starting point.

Off the ball block and resultant victim concussion, gets 2 weeks, the same as an in play spoil, with no victim concussion or game missed. This Tribunal is a blight on the game. Clearly we have now added another ground to our appeal, that the penalty was way out of line with the offence.

First you dump me and now you want to sleep with me!

Smith was really poor against the Suns. Kicked a goal in the first and then sprayed a couple of shots badly, hardly having any involvement in the last 3/4 as I recall. BBB would have to be in before him. I think WJ suggested to me, bringing in Howes and playing him hff for bits. He is 190 cms and can take a mark and is mobile. This is probably the game to try him.

Welcome aboard Ethan. It's the type of garbage your avatar would spout in one of his films or interviews and we would all be laughing hysterically.

That is the way the AFL has set it up. The MRO officer initially lays the charge and penalty, unless it is a serious matter, requiring it to go directly to the Tribunal, like the Junior Rioli case later this afternoon. If unhappy with the MRO finding, a player can appeal to the Tribunal to downgrade the charge/penalty or to have it completely overturned. If unhappy with the Tribunal decision, a player can appeal to the Appeals Board, which is more of a review of the Tribunal decision, as to whether it is correct in law, was conducted appropriately and that on the evidence, it was a decision that the Tribunal could reasonably have arrived at.

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?

Why didn't the Tribunal say, if you raised your forearm and ran into a player to "push" him, it was "foreseeable" if not " inevitable" that you could have hit him high and at the very least, "struck him with your forearm"? This is a strike on any viewing, with the only question being, where was first contact. It's not a push it's a strike. But Tribunal accepts from the Carlton player what his intention was and ignores it in JVR's case. WHY? This Tribunal makes it up as it goes along and one can unfortunately suspect, possibly working to an agenda.

That would guarantee a win.😉

We will appeal and win.

This will be appealed and won.