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

[BigPond101]

I don't get the controversy here, he wasn't looking at the ball, swung his fist and hit the opposition player in the head. If anything he's lucky he didn't make better contact he would have been looking at 4+ weeks

 

[Jimi]

I don't get the controversy here, he wasn't looking at the ball, swung his fist and hit the opposition player in the head. If anything he's lucky he didn't make better contact he would have been looking at 4+ weeks

Have you actually seen the incident? If his fist had hit his head there would be much less controversy. He’s spoiled with a straight arm and part of his bicep clipped Ballard. Note sure that’s a strike under any definition

 

[Bomber1978]

The laws are VERY clear. He has to get off.

The rules:
18.5.1: The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.
18.5.3: Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player's sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark.

The tribunal just make it up as they go and they need to stop. It is a joke!

 

[chickenonachain]

IMO the game right now has become farcical to many players being rubbed out for virtually nothing . Van Rooyen did nothing but attempt to spoil incidental contact should be let off , the Geelong player one week for a tackle please the tribunal said your not allowed to pin the arms every tackle just about pins the arms. Not allowed to bump, tackle or spoil I don’t like where our game is heading.

 

[melbun]

IMO the game right now has become farcical to many players being rubbed out for virtually nothing . Van Rooyen did nothing but attempt to spoil incidental contact should be let off , the Geelong player one week for a tackle please the tribunal said your not allowed to pin the arms every tackle just about pins the arms. Not allowed to bump, tackle or spoil I don’t like where our game is heading.

Work place safety laws of the states and Commonwealth seem to be the source of the problem.
Maybe we should offshore the footy to a country with laws more amenable to the game.
NZ? PNG?

 

[theouthouse]

Its not even a roundhouse spoil, just an attempted normal spoil, no malice, unfortunate accident. s**t kick though, called a hospital ball for a reason.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[Suma Magic]

The laws are VERY clear. He has to get off.

The rules:
18.5.1: The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.
18.5.3: Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player's sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark.

The tribunal just make it up as they go and they need to stop. It is a joke!

Sole objective is interpreted for front on contact as eyes on the ball.

If he’d missed head in his spoil attempt it still would have been a free against for front on contact because he wouldn’t have been deemed to have made the ball his sole objective.

 

[MarcMaverick]

The AFL needs to have a care in JVR's mental well-being. Making the poor kid sweat.

Half-facetious of course

 

[Jimi]

Sole objective is interpreted for front on contact as eyes on the ball.

If he’d missed head in his spoil attempt it still would have been a free against for front on contact because he wouldn’t have been deemed to have made the ball his sole objective.

The tribunal had no issue with him taking his eyes off the ball for the last 0.8 seconds. Which is a relief as I’m not sure how you could argue not looking where you are going is exercising a duty of care for yourself or the opposition player.

 

[kozi]

What's the plan.. deliberate until Saturday evening and have him miss a game that way

 

[Suma Magic]

The tribunal had no issue with him taking his eyes off the ball for the last 0.8 seconds. Which is a relief as I’m not sure how you could argue not looking where you are going is exercising a duty of care for yourself or the opposition player.

I’m just pointing out how sole objective is interpreted by umpires. You have to have your eyes on the ball for it to be your sole objective, according to how the front on contact rule is applied.

 

[Mop]

It's woeful that he copped a ban for it. Horrible. Makes me dislike Gleeson even more than I already do.

I understand why this is taking 457 years and counting though, they're debating the nitty gritty of the wording interpretation. Essentially JVR was done on a technicality. Whether the technicality is the precedent set or tossed is the big question

 

[Suma Magic]

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

 

[Mop]

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

Is that even their argument? It seems to be the point they made from where he came from that spoiling was deemed, and I stress the inverted commas here, "unreasonable".

 

[Suma Magic]

Is that even their argument? It seems to be the point they made from where he came from that spoiling was deemed, and I stress the inverted commas here, "unreasonable".

View attachment 1684632

I’m more interpreting the rules for myself.

I think that if your sole objective isn’t deemed to be the footy, then copping someone high is a potential suspension, if the impact is sufficient.

He got him high, accidentally, while not looking at the ball. I’d say that’s careless.

 

[Mop]

I’m more interpreting the rules for myself.

I think that if your sole objective isn’t deemed to be the footy, then copping someone high is a potential suspension, if the impact is sufficient.

He got him high, accidentally, while not looking at the ball. I’d say that’s careless.

It would have been one thing if the bloke had copped a concussion (then you argue the earlier incident and which was the actual root cause) in which case you can begrudgingly accept outcomes. The action led to a concussion. Then maybe a bad decision is swallowable. Not in this instance. Charlie Ballard is playing this week.

 

[Scythe94]

 

[Suma Magic]

It would have been one thing if the bloke had copped a concussion (then you argue the earlier incident and which was the actual root cause) in which case you can begrudgingly accept outcomes. The action led to a concussion. Then maybe a bad decision is swallowable. Not in this instance. Charlie Ballard is playing this week.

Yeah they are separate considerations and I don’t disagree.

I dont agree with the afl that he should be suspended even if the ball is his sole objective.

 

[Mop]

The decision is in.

Old mate needs to give his whole spiel first though

(seems awfully disingenious of me to call a retired supreme court judge old mate, but this is Australia)

 

[Mop]

FREE TO PLAY.

Common sense prevails.

 

[Toump Ass]

What a massive wank that was.

 

[Toump Ass]

Hours of deliberating and 2 hearings for that, christ.

 

[Scythe94]

Only took three reviews, including a four-hour hearing to get there.

Good for the game. And ridiculous that it took this much for some common sense to be shown.

 

[Mop]

Hours of deliberating and 2 hearings for that, christ.

It should never have got that far!!! He never should have been suspended