Demon Dynasty

deever / Goffy....are you suggesting the Hawks are rotting from the inside here? Pls explain

If the AFL keeps adjusting rules in an attempt to eliminate as much risk / exposure to litigation as possible DP the game as we know it will be unrecognisable at some point. And if that is their ultimate agenda going forward they might need to consider going back to AFL X or a variant thereof and disband the present game. Of course we all know how well the X experiment went last time. A resounding success! Well at least for us anyway 😄

Personally i don't think they'll change it. I reckon they just tried to make it up as they went along using us (Joey) as the whipping boy. Hoping we would roll over and / or the Board would follow their lead in lock step. The idea being to use us as one example / demonstration of how seriously they're now taking their OH&S for potential concussion / injury law suits / claims down the track. Our response as a club was first rate. We stood our ground and finally had the balls to call this chirade out for what it was. .."Feel free to try your shenanigans on someone else if you wish. Oh, and close the door on your way out!"

May i say, some handy feedback & LEG work Read the tea leaves well 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

Thank Lucifer We have now moved up the pecking order somewhat. At least the Appeal Board showed it is willing to act independently and saw this nonsense verdict and Wood's case for what it was. And as for Woods....

Two down but can't sway the third Mr Leg? It needs to be a unanimous decision yes?

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.