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

[flyinghi64]

So the 2 football actions are upheld and the Cheapshot behind play non footballing action is overturned.
FMD
Speechless, but not surprised.

 

[LordLucifer]

I simply agree with the AFL's assessment. While Van Rooyen did assess where the ball was early, in the final few metres from the contest he took his eyes off it and just charged the player.

For the record I would do the same thing as Van Rooyen in his situation but that doesn't change the fact that it's against the new rules.

And therein lies the problems.

The incessant need to tinker with the rules is whats killing this game.

 

[melbun]

Should we suspend a player who tackles another, their "safety" is paramount

IF they don't say "excuse me" prior to the tackle or bump they should be suspended.

 

[Foxx]

He had his eyes on the player, jumped high and into his head.
Deserved the suspension.
Any reasonable player would know he's going to get him high by doing that.

 

[YouBeauty]

It's like I've seen a different highlight to everyone else here. He knew what he was doing and it was an old fashioned coat hanger which is quite dangerous.
People have been spoiling for years without taking their opponent off on a stretcher. Jacob needs to pull his head in.

 

[Foxx]

I played U/13, U/15 & U/17 footy in my high school years and then open-age footy when I was old enough to drive a car. I have been to Grand Finals across the decades & followed the code with passion & interest for 50-years.

I never thought it would ever become the limpwristed precious form of 'sports entertainment' it has these days, in fact it is running a close second to the wrestling its that bad. Rule changes year after year to fix rule changes they made the year before does not help either.

This is not the game I grew up playing & enjoying, in fact I'm struggling to recognise it these days.

And more people are watching it than ever before.

Life transitions, so the game has change in line with that.

 

[LordLucifer]

And more people are watching it than ever before.

Life transitions, so the game has change in line with that.

So that makes this ludicrous decision okay now ??

Good grief ..............

 

[Dancing Potato]

If JVR never even glanced at Ballard there's a much higher chance both players get absolutely poleaxed and end up concussed.

Yet there would be no punishment because he never looked at the player.

 

[Foxx]

So that makes this ludicrous decision okay now ??

Good grief ..............

He went for the man. Went in high and hit him in the head. Not ludicrous, especially these days.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

He went for the man. Went in high and hit him in the head. Not ludicrous, especially these days.

You are what is wrong with society.

 

[Stars align]

I thought he was really unlucky to get outed until I heard the definition of the rule argued by the AFL whereby he should have known his actions if he didn’t successfully make contact with the ball would result in getting his opponent high
JVR at 6’4” and leaving the ground is only going to get his opponent high
If this is Caleb Daniel

5

Caleb Daniel

Age

28

Ht

171cm

Wt

72kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.3

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

2.9

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

19.5

4star

K

11.1

4star

HB

8.4

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

CL

1.0

3star

D

16.4

4star

K

7.2

3star

HB

9.2

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

0.2

2star

maybe he gets Ballard low undergoing the same action but JVR can only get him high hence he should have known and gets the 2 weeks
Hope he gets off on appeal but unless Melbourne can argue against the definition of the rule think the 2 weeks stands

 

[melbun]

And more people are watching it than ever before.

Life transitions, so the game has change in line with that.

The population has grown significantly, you would expect some growth.
Now let's all try to avoid obfuscation and straw man arguments.

 

[Darksidepoints]

He had his eyes on the player, jumped high and into his head.
Deserved the suspension.
Any reasonable player would know he's going to get him high by doing that.

So what do you suggest someone defending does? There is ALWAYS going to be a chance, no matter how small, an mm too far or a .1 second too late will cause an accidental by product. Its a CONTACT sport.

 

[Sherrinator]

The guy was trying to make him earn it. Goodwin and the Melbourne fans are one eyed.

 

[Demon in Hell]

The guy was trying to make him earn it. Goodwin and the Melbourne fans are one eyed.

So are you going to accept the 2 weeks Harris Andrews gets in the future for giving a forward an "ear massage".

Because thats what its coming to.

 

[PiesUserName]

An absolute garbage decision and one of the worst decisions I have seen in recent times.
Free kick only.

 

[Toump Ass]

Goodwin and the Melbourne fans are one eyed.

The tribunal decision has been almost universally condemned, it’s hardly just Melbourne supporters.

 

[Foxx]

So what do you suggest someone defending does? There is ALWAYS going to be a chance, no matter how small, an mm too far or a .1 second too late will cause an accidental by product. Its a CONTACT sport.

How about eyes for the ball, and either try and hit that. Or alternatively put body contact on. Like every other reasonable contest.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I thought he was really unlucky to get outed until I heard the definition of the rule argued by the AFL whereby he should have known his actions if he didn’t successfully make contact with the ball would result in getting his opponent high
JVR at 6’4” and leaving the ground is only going to get his opponent high
If this is Caleb Daniel maybe he gets Ballard low undergoing the same action but JVR can only get him high hence he should have known and gets the 2 weeks
Hope he gets off on appeal but unless Melbourne can argue against the definition of the rule think the 2 weeks stands

So what you're saying is it is a suspend-able offence every time a player is caught high.

 

[Stars align]

So what you're saying is it is a suspend-able offence every time a player is caught high.

I’m not saying this the AFL are and with their wording of the rule the Demons will have to be very clever at the appeal

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Lets not kid ourselves here, this will get overturned on some bullshit legal wording grounds like the Cripps incident last year, you will all say sanity prevailed, future incidents of its type will be ignored bt the MRO to avoid a recurrance of the outraged faithful and all will be as normal in the universe.
Another perfectly engineered outcome from your friends at AFL house.

 

[Shadow89]

How about eyes for the ball, and either try and hit that. Or alternatively put body contact on. Like every other reasonable contest.

You do realise, that what you're suggesting, is exactly what happened to Nathan Murphy not 2 weeks ago, right?

Fogarty kept eyes on the ball, and smashed Murphy in the face - causing him to be bloodied, concussed and missing a game - while Fogarty suffered no punishment or reprimand.

What you're arguing for, is for players to not look anywhere else other than the ball - which will cause much more injury given they'll have no awareness/judgement of where the oppo player is.

Irony being, that not exercising duty of care and only thinking about where the ball is, is how players are getting away with striking players - because they had eyes for the ball only.

But apparently the head is sacrosanct. Riddle me that.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I’m not saying this the AFL are and with their wording of the rule the Demons will have to be very clever at the appeal

Yes, but you have an opportunity to voice your opinion and not be a bystander. By agreeing that the AFL's decision is reasonable, you are contributing to the issue and implicitly supporting it. Either take a stand against it, or be part of the problem.

 

[ferball]

Unless taking a mark running with the flight of the ball, I would argue that taking your eyes off the ball is now a requirement to assess exactly where your opponent is and the potential for causing harm. I think it's the reason JVR made such a clumsy effort. I would also argue that if he didn't take his eyes off the ball and simply followed the flight of the ball, then he would have made much heavier contact, which would have resulted in an actual injury.

Good point. This sort of thing needs to be repeated and put into the conversation about these incidents.

If you have a duty of care to a player then you jave to look at where they are otherwise you can't even begin exercising it.

The whole thing is broken.

 

[My Tilly]

How about eyes for the ball, and either try and hit that. Or alternatively put body contact on. Like every other reasonable contest.

He would never have made up ground if he turned his head and tried to focus on the ball.
The kids going at everything at the moment. He knows this is his moment to solidify his spot in a premiership outfit. He may have overdone it but he's giving 100% and that is what led to the suspension which was farcical.