chookrat

Harmes is a true clubman and Melbourne person who has ridden the lows and highs and been really important for the team, culture and supporters. This said with our list profile I think it will benefit both parties if Harmes can find a 2 - 3 year deal with another club that needs an experienced midfielder either to provide cover for a young midfield or as depth for another contender. Also he's at 147 games and I'd be all for him having the opportunity to reach 150 if he does want to pursue his career at another club.

Ankle roll in the Sicily tackle. Spoke to Ben Dixon after the game and seemed ok. Should be good to go next week.

The AFL would say that Brad's conduct reflects poorly on the AFL, to which Brad could include a second envelope stating that the AFL's conduct reflects poorly on the AFL.

Maybe Brad green should send another tweet, help hurry things along.

If the suspension is upheld I hope that Tom MacDonald wears a Van Rooyen mask while he plays.

Does anyone know whether Van Rooyen is allowed to play if they are still deliberating come the opening bounce on Saturday?

I think the issue is his use of the facepalm followed by this is ridiculous. I wonder if the AFL will withdraw the please explain should the Appeals Board find that the 2 week suspension is in fact ridiculous.

Is it possible the Appeals Board decided it was all to difficult and snuck out the back way.

Does anyone know when the suspension is withdrawn does the AFL pay costs?

I suspect the high impact grading would not likely change due to the potential for serious injury and that a downgrade to medium would still mean a 1 week sanction. We are quite right to argue that the rough conduct provisions do not apply to a legitimate spoil which is protected as per rule 18.3. This defense is clever in that if the AFL uphold the suspension then they are also saying a player could face suspension for marking the ball if he doesn't take reasonable care.

It is really interesting that generally the grey area re suspensions comes down to how rules are interpreted while the JVR case seems to challenge the rules themselves where the tribunal accepts that JVR was only trying to spoil the ball, which is allowed, but because the spoil was reasonably foreseeable to cause harm they are treating it as a strike which falls under rough conduct. The rough conduct provisions specifically cater for bumps (which are deemed a football act that must be executed correctly) and strikes (not a football act) but do not address the need to perform spoils with any degree of care. I'm wondering if we will see a specific provision for spoils to be added under the rough conduct provisions at seasons end. The Lynch and Fogarty cases are particularly relevant and it is difficult for the AFL to apply its flimsy reasonably foreseeable argument to JVR, which opens a can of worms in that it could be applied to any action on the field, without explaining at the same time why the Lynch and Fogarty incidents were not reasonably foreseeable. Also because the AFL specifically looked at the Fogarty incident and that it was a mistake not to award a free, they must have also decided not to report it from an MRP perspective only 3 weeks ago. It is an even flimsier argument that the interpretation has changed in the past week especially given the lack of communication and training to clubs. There is a strong argument that clear communication, training and education are much more effective tools to prevent incidents than waiting for things to go wrong and then sanction employees with vague interpretation changes from week to week.

Does anybody know if the club has managed to track down this so called reasonable person the Tribunal keep referring to. I have a feeling that if we can find him/her they might be able to clear up this matter rather quickly.

Prior to this was the Trengove sling tackle on Dangerfield but at the time we were very much irrelevant so no-one really cared. Dangerfield miraculously recovered from his concussion and was best on ground the following week. The Viney brace was legendary.

I have it on good authority that the appeals board comprise Sportsbet executives and litigation experts. The real test will be when they hear a case involving head contact, concussion and brownlow contender. I suspect the litigators will fall on behind sportsbet.

Interestingly Carlton also used an incident as evidence involving the same Charlie Ballard as the JVR incident.

In fairness I believe the MRO outcomes are largely predictable, consistent and relatively easy to understand and compare. I also don't mind incidents such as the JVR spoil going to the tribunal on appeal as the MRO grades based on what they see and leave it to the club to argue whether JVR was trying to spoil the ball vs strike the player. While interpretations have changed and the panel may have taken the easy way out when it comes to Brownlow eligibility and finals in years past I think the system has been really good for at least 4 or 5 years now, at least to the point where I could not imagine how a better system would operate. For what it's worth I cannot see the JVR suspension being upheld on appeal but if course we will find out tonight.

Jaded, fully agree with this. I was fully comfortable with the two weeks for Kossie but to accept the JVR suspension would mean not backing in our players to play the game in the right way. If we appeal and lose I'd expect the club to issue a statement that we will continue to encourage our players to contest the ball. This approach is consistent with Goody stating the bump is dead in reference to the Kossie bump, where in this case were stating the contest is not dead and if the Tribunal intends to suspend players for this then we will back in our players.

Regardless of whether he took eyes off the ball I think the real test is whether JVR was attempting to spoil vs carelessly or intentionally taking out the player. If you look at Brandon Ellis's response, who would have a good sense of the feel of the incident at the time, its pretty obvious he saw no malice in the incident and it seemed like an attempted spoil. JVR was pretty close to actually spoiling the ball so its probably a test of whether JVR's action was reasonable vs careless.

Agree re this, I think we now place more emphasis on transition and winning critical contests. Look at Collingwood last year and they would routinely lose clearance and contested ball but when it mattered they won the contest and were good in transition. There is no point winning a clearance only to turn the ball over or create a stoppage in a position you cannot score.

There is no way JVR will be suspended for his attempted spoil. He shouldn't even be reported but I can appreciate they may want to have a close look at it given Ballard went off on a stretcher.

Thanks Cyclops, that makes sense.

Assume he flew up in case we lose a key back before the game, standard practice.

I don't like this, last year we were 10-0 before NARRM and struggled from then on. If we put correlation vs causation aside then NARRM is 100% what derailed our 2022 campaign.

Thanks ET, I tried to activate this offer but I have an existing Kayo subscription and it looks to be for new subscriptions only. Does anyone have experience in how to apply this offer for an existing Kayo customer?

AF I had issues logging on to confirm scarf v $25 voucher option - they won't send you anything if you don't complete this step. I called the club the week before the Richmond game and received it within a couple of days. They did say that if I want a physical membership card then it would take a couple of weeks.