Redleg

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.

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.