MRP / Trib. Jacob van Rooyen - How many weeks?

[dees arent rabble]

If the exact same incident happened and Ballard didn’t think he heard a crack in his neck (so wasn’t stretchered off) then this incident would never have been looked at.

JVR is effectively being punished because Ballard’s ears malfunctioned and the GC trainers were super precautious.

And I wonder why I’m progressively less passionate about the game year after year.

Ballard should be playing chess.
Soft as butter

 

[PenfoldsFan]

At least. They went soft that week and have screwed it for everyone else

Lets be honest, if that was one of yours or mine they'd have copped more.
The AFL playing favourites only to have it bite them on the arse down the track is habitual.

 

[citizen-erased]

How do Carlton do it every time? Thought that was the most obvious suspension of the night

I think the clubs just need to walk into the tribunal and make up shit. Seems to work

Van rooyen was trying to protect ballards head from the ball hitting it you see. Duty of care and all that

Oh and the head is body and not high contact.
If you could say such contact happened at all....even if there is clear vision of it happening and the player struck is left in obvious pain.

Also, look over there.

 

[Shadow89]

You can't tackle and spoil, but you can hit people.

Straight from the desk of Jeff Gleeson and co.

Where is the 'potential to cause injury' clause when swinging an arm like Chol and Newman have? Pretty sure that's more likely to cause injury than the other incidents from tonight.

Absolute f*cking madness.

 

[citizen-erased]

You can't tackle and spoil, but you can hit people.

Straight from the desk of Jeff Gleeson and co.

Absolute f*cking madness.

Carlton players can hit people.
No one else

 

[Shadow89]

Carlton players can hit people.
No one else

See above edited. Chol swung his arm at Bowey and collected him square in the face - wasn't even cited.

 

[citizen-erased]

See above edited. Chol swung his arm at Bowey and collected him square in the face - wasn't even cited.

Thats a slippery slope the afl may not want to get on unless the player is injured.
When high tackles can be deemed strikes, unless performed by players in navy blue only of course, then the game is done.

 

[Fitzey]

I was confused at this decision before Newman got off, I’m not sure what I am now… I hope the dees challenge and I hope the muppets on this tribunal panel get the ass.

 

[kozi]

How do Carlton do it every time? Thought that was the most obvious suspension of the night

"Vision is not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine whether the right arm contacted Neale just below or above his shoulders."

The hit was with the left

 

[Shadow89]

Thats a slippery slope the afl may not want to get on unless the player is injured.
When high tackles can be deemed strikes, unless performed by players in navy blue only of course, then the game is done.

What I'm sort of getting at here, is that the 'potential to cause injury clause' is a complete matter of interpretation - rather than a conclusive legal argument.

You could easily argue that the mere act of Newman swinging his arm at Lachie, regardless of whether it was irrefutable or not that he got him high, has the 'potential to cause injury' - in the vein of a potential Andrew Gaff and Andy Brayshaw incident.

I just, I'm a bit lost now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I've got to wonder how certain acts are being deemed 'potential to cause injury' and others aren't.

If you hit someone intentionally, THAT should be a 1 week ban, rather than a fine. What we have now, is a sport where football acts aren't being allowed, but violent ones are being swept aside due to the fact that they aren't currently being interpreted as having the 'potential to cause injury.'

Getting a bit f*cking contradictory for my liking now.

 

[Tulip]

Don't you need to have some kind of remotely vague notion of where the actual ball is in order to spoil it....?

Roo didn't even play in the game that has forever embittered Doggies supporters ITT. He either touched the ball or missed by millimetres.

 

[citizen-erased]

0

What I'm sort of getting at here, is that the 'potential to cause injury clause' is a complete matter of interpretation - rather than a conclusive legal argument.

You could easily argue that the mere act of Newman swinging his arm at Lachie, regardless of whether it was irrefutable or not that he got him high, has the 'potential to cause injury' - in the vein of a potential Andrew Gaff and Andy Brayshaw incident.

I just, I'm a bit lost now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in the least, but I've got to wonder how certain acts are being deemed 'potential to cause injury' and others aren't.

If you hit someone intentionally, THAT should be a 1 week ban, rather than a fine. What we have now, is a sport where football acts aren't being allowed, but violent ones are being swept aside due to the fact that they aren't currently being interpreted as having the 'potential to cause injury.'

Getting a bit f*cking contradictory for my liking now.

Absolutely

 

[Johnny Karate]

Attacking the ball in a marking contest…


Hitting players with cheap shots at stoppages…

It’s Jeff Gleeson’s world, we’re just living in it…

 

[Brian McGee]

The potential to cause injury clause is not too bad in itself, because it actually penalises the action and not the outcome. Its the duty of care bullshit that the afl have brought in that is ruining it. The expectations that they have of what a “reasonable” player can do in a split second decision is totally unreasonable on the player. They basically told close tonight that if he was reasonable he should have let go of one of Dawson’s arms so that he could protect himself, essentially just let him break free of the tackle and run forward and deliver it into 50. It’s total madness.

 

[Johnny Karate]

The potential to cause injury clause is not too bad in itself, because it actually penalises the action and not the outcome. Its the duty of care bullshit that the afl have brought in that is ruining it. The expectations that they have of what a “reasonable” player can do in a split second decision is totally unreasonable on the player. They basically told close tonight that if he was reasonable he should have let go of one of Dawson’s arms so that he could protect himself, essentially just let him break free of the tackle and run forward and deliver it into 50. It’s total madness.

It’s simple, reasonable players hit other players in the jaw behind play. Reasonable players don’t tackle to wrap up opponents or attack the ball in marking contests.

 

[Micksy]

Hey, who even says I gots an elbow?

 

[kickazz]

Ballard should be playing chess.
Soft as butter

Nah this is bullshit.

If he heard a weird crack sound in his neck he wasn't sure about then he did the right thing being cautious. It's smart, not soft.

 

[citizen-erased]

Hey, who even says I gots an elbow?

rofl

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Must appeal otherwise the game is almost cooked

I’m trying to work out how the Fogarty hit on Murphy wasn’t put up.
It’s just mind boggling.
Dee’s should take this as far as they can…..to the Privy Council if needed

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Carlton players can hit people.
No one else

We’ll we can’t hit our own teammates by hand or foot….let us hit something ffs

 

[citizen-erased]

We’ll we can’t hit our own teammates by hand or foot….let us hit something ffs

fair.

though according to your KC, you couldn't even do that properly

 

[Libba39]

Roo didn't even play in the game that has forever embittered Doggies supporters ITT. He either touched the ball or missed by millimetres.

Lol. There is some ball-touching going on all right...

 

[FlowersByIrene]

There is a cold cold place in hell for these people ruining our game.

 

[Coasters7]

How was it classified as striking? Rough conduct at a stretch but it wasn't a strike. The tribunal agreed it was a legitimate spoiling attempt

Doesn’t matter. As soon as they roll with the “potential to cause injury” you’re f*cked and the case is won. There’s no argument against that because everything on a footy field has potential to cause injury.

Which is absolutely ridiculous because, as you say, surely the case has to begin with agreeing on what rule he broke and what suspendible offence he supposedly committed before haggling over intent and force.

Agreeing that it was incidental contact immediately gets the case thrown out because despite the result he didn’t actually break any rule worthy of suspension. This fact was accepted by the tribunal. What a farce

 

[Whiskers]

This is just too much. I can’t handle this absolute cluster**** the AFL has created.
The ONE person who gets off tonight did a deliberate strike and goes high. JVR wasn’t even a strike and any contact is obviously accidental but accidents don’t matter… unless you strike someone to the chest in a non footballing incident and it accidentally gets them in the chin.

I wish this stuff didn’t p**s me off as much as it does.

Tacklers are responsible for a players head accidentally hitting the turf.
A football action being a tackle you must be careful, but a strike… that’s ok even if it starts in the chest. If it goes high. Oh well….. accident!
F me!