Redleg

This will get you angrier. In the Carlton charge Gleeson found that Newman hit Neale to the jaw forcibly, with his LEFT forearm. BUT, he was charged with doing it with the RIGHT forearm. He found the right arm hit Neale's chest. He found that was not a strike. Obviously not the underarm and armpit, which we know are lethal weapons. Instead of just amending to the left arm, which they always do, he dismissed the charge. Whately can't believe it. Neither can I. It's like you shot him with a gun in your right hand. No it's the left and therefore not guilty.

Look back at Danger's elbow to the face of Vlastuin. Got off because of an argument as to who got to the ball first. A completely irrelevant reason to let off a blatant elbow to the face, but of course, committed by a star from a big club.

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

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.

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.

I can't believe Gleeson's logic. In the Newman/Neale case there is video and photos of Newman's forearm on Neale's jaw. Then Neale walks away rubbing his jaw. He gives evidence there was contact to his jaw. Gleeson then finds that it was to the chest. He then says, if it was to the chest, it's not a strike. WTF?

This is just plain flawed. What he is saying is that if there is a free kick, it can be reportable, but if there was no free kick, it is not reportable. The rule says nothing about that. He has just made it up. Under “Spirit and Intention” law 18.5.1 reads: “The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so”. Under “Permitted Contact” law 18.5.3 reads: “Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark”. Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson KC credited that as a valid point – but said it created a “complex” issue. “If conduct could not constitute a free kick, it is not presently apparent to me how that same conduct could constitute a reportable offence,” Gleeson said.

Another quiet day on DL.

Yes there is. Murphy got a broken nose.

Why would it be cited, he just jumped off the ground, running as fast as he could and smashed Murphy in the face, breaking Murphy's nose. No reasonable player doing that would have thought that someone might be hurt. Just ask the MRO, he will tell you. Then ask Gleeson and he will agree.

Barry Hall, the Swans Captain, punched a bloke in the guts, 150 metres away from the ball ,in a PF and the Tribunal found it was IN PLAY.

Listen to footy talkback tomorrow.

Actually so is the contested mark and kicking a footy anywhere near another player, where the ball, or your boot, could contact the other player.

I think you can take it to the bank that Gleeson is behind this decision. Not one former player has said JVR should have been reported, so why would these two be any different, unless they were pressured. How was a written decision made in 16 minutes, after the time needed for discussion about the evidence and the rules? I am highly suspicious of this decision. I see an Appeal and a win. I see the AFL then doing the big PR about them doing everything to prevent injuries. I just hope that JVR is alright and not badly affected by this. BTW: anyone see any similarities in recent events, Kozzie bumps, no injury but 2 games, JVR does an action within the rules, no injury, but 2 games, under a duty of care that is not mentioned in the relevant rule.

Same under the decision. It was not based on touching or missing the ball.

Did I tell you about Anderson, he doesn’t win at the Tribunal generally. I am not blaming him of course, as I think he presented a good case. There is something more going on here and as I said in another post it is about litigation. I would think an Appeal gets up and AFL can say we will do everything possible to protect players. How was Fogarty not charged for breaking Murphy‘a nose the week before. To me they have once again gone the non big club, non star player and used him as a PR pawn, to show they are actively doing their best to stamp out head injuries. I am outraged at this blatant PR manipulation affecting a young innocent kid. The AFL should be ashamed of itself. I may boo the AFL at the game this weekend.

Jeff Gleeson imo has possibly convinced the 2 ex footballers to side with him. We now have the situation where apparently the entire football world, except this Tribunal thought he should never have been even cited. You now can’t spoil , bump, tackle, kick the ball anywhere near another player, as you have a duty of care not to hurt or strike or hit anyone. If this is not overturned the game can’t be played in any way other than by touch footy. Whately and Robbo said it must be appealed for the sake of the game.

You have said it again. Twice in one thread you have dumped me.

I thought I was. You are very fickle. You do know that Anderson has lost most of his Tribunal appearances. He was also the bloke that started the Tanking investigation against us.

Who is this Woods? His statement is moronic.

The sort of answer that Gleeson can’t argue with though.

The best answer to “you looked at Ballard” would be “ of course I did, I wanted to make sure I limited contact with him, that is my duty of care”.

Absolutely incorrect. Go back and look at the Grinter hit on Wallace as an example. Chol could have broken Bowey’s jaw or cheekbone too. BTW in the Grinter case, the Dogs doctors said he would miss weeks and he played the next week, with a cracked cheek and starred. That was actually brave of Wallace. Chol had the potential with a head hit from behind to have caused serious injury. As Garry Lyon said , it was aggressive and dangerous. Given the current climate I cannot understand how he wasn’t cited. Cornes is right he is the luckiest footballer this weekend. I actually thought at the time that it was disgraceful, but of course Dunstall and Derwayne would have seen it as a normal footy act.

Which fool came up with the idea for Raspberry bullets?

Phone.