It was interesting to hear from a number of credible, dissenting ‘voices’ such as Archer, Voss, Lewis and even Chris Scott on the Rioli decision. There were probably a number of other dissenters as Robbo implied when he alluded to the many text messages he had received on the subject. The lynch mob were carrying on as though the situation was obvious to anyone with half a brain. The Eagles do not appeal flippantly or reactively, more often than not, they choose not to appeal, the Witherden case is a recent example. They only appeal when they think they have a good case as in this instance, Rioli was clearly trying to contest the ball, not take Rowell out in a bump/illegal tackle. The law is not as obvious or clear as presumed. The overreaction by the Victorian media was insulting and offensive.
The AFL (whoever they are) were sitting on the fence, having a bet each way in saying they disagreed with the decision but were not going to appeal it. They appeased the lynchers by saying they agreed with them and then also those who disagreed (who were probably many) by declining to appeal. If they appealed under the pressure of Whately and others they look weak and are also virtually calling the tribunal they have appointed incompetent. As many have noted, their appeal would probably have lost because it had little or no grounds in their own laws.
The AFL (whoever they are) were sitting on the fence, having a bet each way in saying they disagreed with the decision but were not going to appeal it. They appeased the lynchers by saying they agreed with them and then also those who disagreed (who were probably many) by declining to appeal. If they appealed under the pressure of Whately and others they look weak and are also virtually calling the tribunal they have appointed incompetent. As many have noted, their appeal would probably have lost because it had little or no grounds in their own laws.
