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

[Toump Ass]

The one you had when you found out he was playing this weekend?

Can't face the Hawks with less than our best!

 

[Jibroni]

Michael Christians head needs to be rolled for this, what a farce this kid had to go through.

 

[Foxx]

The lesson has been learnt. The point is out there.
It's a win to restrict future head injuries and CTE

 

[Barrybran]

Michael Christians head needs to be rolled for this, what a farce this kid had to go through.

Can't blame Christian for this. He's clearly got a mandate to crack down on head contact. Sending JVR to the tribunal was bizarre but understandable from this viewpoint. The tribunal, on the other hand, took the piss completely.

 

[Sea fog]

I think the word incidental is a curious one because contact was inevitable the way VR charged at the player who was trying to mark. He was never a realistic chance of spoiling.

 

[ferball]

Can't face the Hawks with less than our best!

We're all relieved he got off. Should never have got to this point in the first place tho.

 

[Mop]

Michael Christians head needs to be rolled for this, what a farce this kid had to go through.

No fan of Michael Christian, but his job is basically to rub blokes out.

Gleeson going out on a wild interpretation and adding his own justification to it, basically as far as I can see it, forcing the panel to fall in line with that lone of thought is what gets me.

Keep in mind, the tribunal is supposed to be neutral. Pffft

 

[Mop]

Can't blame Christian for this. He's clearly got a mandate to crack down on head contact. Sending JVR to the tribunal was bizarre but understandable from this viewpoint. The tribunal, on the other hand, took the piss completely.

Yeah, this.

 

[Brian McGee]

The interesting take from this is that no contact can be deemed as unreasonable now in a spoiling contest. This is the final ruling and interpretation of the rule. It sets a significant precedent for future cases.

 

[Hollow Knight]

FTFY

Could have stayed on theme and just used this one.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

By rule 18.5.3 he should have never been suspended happy to admit I got it wrong,
Concern is the multitude of wannabe JVR there’ll be in lower level footy over the coming weeks / months .
AFL need to get the rules correct rather than interpreting how they wish when it suits them .

 

[Johnny Karate]

Could have stayed on theme and just used this one.

FTFY again. Thoughts and prayers

 

[Jimi]

The interesting take from this is that no contact can be deemed as unreasonable now in a spoiling contest. This is the final ruling and interpretation of the rule. It sets a significant precedent for future cases.

If the players sole intent is to spoil then yes that is correct. See Maynard’s suspension last year for an example of a player getting rubbed out for a similar incident but with different intent.

 

[Mop]

IF:
the players sole intent is to spoil
THEN: yes that is correct. See Maynard’s suspension last year for an example of a player getting rubbed out for a similar incident but with different intent.

Want to take over from Damien Barratt? Jimi's sliding doors? You seem way less of a campaigner than he is

 

[Sea fog]

The problem is the AFL was never set up to be a court of law. Expensive legal eagles will always trump their rules which are set up in a football context.

 

[Engimal v3]

Thank * for that. The report was silly in the first place.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Michael Christians head needs to be rolled for this, what a farce this kid had to go through.

Who decided that Collingwood nuffie should be the sole arbiter anyway?

 

[Brian McGee]

If the players sole intent is to spoil then yes that is correct. See Maynard’s suspension last year for an example of a player getting rubbed out for a similar incident but with different intent.

But how can it be proven that it’s not someone’s intent. A swinging arm to the head is now defined in the rules as “incidental” contact in a spoiling attempt.

 

[PrisonBars4life]

The interesting take from this is that no contact can be deemed as unreasonable now in a spoiling contest. This is the final ruling and interpretation of the rule. It sets a significant precedent for future cases.

Not exactly true. I remember Kurt Tippett spoiling at right angles and punching someone in the face. If it was anyone else, you'd think it was intentional. Wasn't graded as such. Still got a week.

Sydney Swans rocked by Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett suspensions

Sydney faces a major overhaul of its forward line as it seeks to atone for last week's failure after Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett were suspended by the AFL's match review panel on Monday.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Brian McGee]

Not exactly true. I remember Kurt Tippett spoiling at right angles and punching someone in the face. If it was anyone else, you'd think it was intentional. Wasn't graded as such. Still got a week.

Sydney Swans rocked by Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett suspensions

Sydney faces a major overhaul of its forward line as it seeks to atone for last week's failure after Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett were suspended by the AFL's match review panel on Monday.

www.theage.com.au

Yes but now we know how the appeals board reads the rule, and it makes no difference what the MRO or even the tribunal think in this scenario.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

But how can it be proven that it’s not someone’s intent. A swinging arm to the head is now defined in the rules as “incidental” contact in a spoiling attempt.

No it's not. A swinging arm to the head is a strike. That is different to the spoiling action of Van Rooyen on Ballard.

A swinging arm to the head is what Chol did when tackling Bowey. I can't believe that one didn't come under more scrutiny but whatever. Hopefully he plays well this week, I want to see the Suns in September this year.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I think if he’d been looking at the ball there is no chance he should or would have been suspended.

If he was looking solely at the ball it would have been far heavier contact.

Sanity finally prevails.

 

[LBJ6]

Could have stayed on theme and just used this one.

View attachment 1684725

Maybe you should crop out the score next time you post that

 

[A Neita bath]

If he was looking solely at the ball it would have been far heavier contact.

Sanity finally prevails.

I made this point (albeit blubbering nervously) on SEN last night.

A player that is only focussed on the ball, in many instances, is going to be much more dangerous than one who is aware of player/s around him. I understand if JVR was focussed on Ballard for a longer period, then it’s absolutely reasonable to assume it was his intention leave a bit on him… but the idea that a player who diverts attention to his opponent momentarily is doing so in order to inflict damage, rather than to assess the contest and even mitigate damage, is insane. I’ll fly that flag for any player in the league. Even s**t stain hitmen like Hipwood.

 

[Tulip]

I think the word incidental is a curious one because contact was inevitable the way VR charged at the player who was trying to mark. He was never a realistic chance of spoiling.

So how did he end up within a hair of making contact with the ball?