Demon Dynasty

We are still deliberating. I wish I was joking

We are still deliberating. This will begin to edge into Cripps levels if they're not careful.

Only if it's anonymous!

Maybe a 2 down to 1 outcome at best

Board can't come to an unanimous decision... CASE DISMISSED!!

They have to 'appear' to be giving it serious consideration, whether that is the case or not

The Appeal Board is back and has no questions. The Appeal Board is NOW deliberating. It appears the Appeal Board has folded and will come back with a ruling in favor of the AFL. Assuming this.... they are now tainted with the AFL's "make it up as you go along" brush and as a club we can expect further unreasonable outcomes such as this in future but ONLY when/where it suits the AFL to do so. A similar occurrence with others (eg; Fogarty) will result in said player not even being sited, cleared even if he is or a minor slap on the wrist depending on the Player/Club in question. The circus rolls on!

Houghton (Melbourne): This attempt to impose a regime of health and safety upon players when construing a rule like 18.5 is quite wrong. We are about to find out whether the appeal board has any skerrick of integrity and independence left.

Showing the Brown vid is ok but wouldve liked to have seen Fogarty's more recent clobbering as well

AFL (Woods) setting Joey up as the scapegoat fall guy with an OH&S overlay in that last statement

He missed the most important part..... "Selective" risk mitigation. It is applied either more rigorously in some cases or alot less / not at all, depending on the player/club in question.

The official media (at least those on the broadcast rights gravy train) are part of the circus Brownie, albeit a few are somewhat lower down the pecking order, hence they're able to speak a bit more of their mind on rare occasions. & ex-player uproar via social media chanels...doubt that even gets a mention inside the 4 walls. Can't see Joey getting off. At best maybe a reduction from 2 to 1 The ring masters won't like losing too much face and having their agenda completely quashed, seemingly in a trial by media. As is most things Barnum & Bailey, it's mostly about optics & looking after/growing the core parts of their brand (read Big 4 Melb Clubs, Geelong, interstaters & players they consider marquee or requiring special protection/treatment). There's always the Casey option which is sometimes a better day IMHO. Less of the AFL insanity/circus, more old school grass roots. Casey also a VG side of course, especially once moose comes back.

JOEY!

Interstate club's are likely higher in the AFL's pecking order. The AFL most likely has an internal code of who is to come under scrutiny and who isn't as well as severity of punishment, regardless of the act and related outcomes to the player on the receiving end. Why do you think the AFL doesn't allow the 'doctrine of precedent' to be used when deciding on outcomes?

The rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostril... but yes that might work

If we were speaking about an organisation that had a reasonable and logical track record, providing generally fair outcomes for all clubs on such matters you would be 100% correct Neitz. JVR's attempt to spoil was not bad for the AFL / game nor Ballard either but here we are. The AFL's internal agendas and power brokers / influemcers determine these outcomes that in select cases and for select clubs/players appear to be very unfair. However from an AFL perspective (and for select powerful clubs) they obviously feel they made the right decision in the interest of how they like to run the game and who they see as the wheat vs the chaff. The outcome of the appeal will be a big tell as to whether we have moved up a little in their pecking order. Until then we retain our status as one of the AFL's whipping boys who will continue to be treated unfairly / inconsistently in our tribunal forays.

Not really...been on the receiving end of nice outcomes for decades. No doubt a number of friends / supporters / influencers in high places

Goody holding a presser at 9.30

Of course Dazzle. Great that he is but... just not sure the AFL/7 (pretty much in lock step) will be looking at it the same way as reasonable/ fair minded folk are. The tribunal outcome is yet another huge 'tell' for me as to their line of thinking and directives being sent down the line to their circus masters

Fits my hypothesis that the AFL are looking after their 'select protected list' of 'nothing to see here' marquee clubs and players Red. Namely their 4 biggest Vic clubs... Pies, Tigers, Bombers & the Blues and all interstates Plus a special list of Marquee players including but not limited to; The Bont, Danger, Hawkins, Buddy (see 1 week vs Kozzy 2 for a much more damaging incident), Dusty (less so now vs when he/Richmond were up and about), Cripps (gets off and wins Chas) etc. That's not to say players from these clubs / marquee list won't get cited or suspended but more often than not they're suspensions are initially not severe eg; sometimes just a week or a fine and/or they quite get often have original finding reduced on appeal or suspension is reversed (Newman vs Roohey just one example).

Pretty ballsy from Chunk given he 'presently' has a chanel 7 contract Has he just kissed any renewal goodbye?

Possibly Gleeson .... or Gleeson (and the others?) coerced by somone upon high within the AFL to deliver a pre-determined outcome?

100% this ☝🏼

Que Mr Leg