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

[Seb78]

Good result

 

[Slartibartfast]

So it was nothing more than a free kick, some wowsers in here will be eating humble pie.

 

[CrowToon]

Always odd when people complain that a stepped process and clear, deep considerations have been made.

Yes ok you didn't like the original result but these things should go through a process and a successful appeal should be celebrated as a working part of the process not a told ya so moment.

It settles a question in our game.

 

[freddy mercury]

So glad he is able to play, it's absolutely embarrassing that he even got reported for it.

 

[Toump Ass]

It settles a question in our game.

It wasn't a genuine question though. Incidental contact from a contest is allowed under the rules of the game.

 

[Mop]

Always odd when people complain that a stepped process and clear, deep considerations have been made.

Yes ok you didn't like the original result but these things should go through a process and a successful appeal should be celebrated as a working part of the process not a told ya so moment.

It settles a question in our game.

It isn't though. Jeff Gleeson took an outlandish interpretation of the rules and applied it in a way which would see blokes getting rubbed out for spoiling. It didn't factor in outcome. It didn't factor in circumstance. The fact JVR could be accused of playing "unreasonably" spoiling that contest goes against the grain of what football is.

Obviously I have no bias, I just hate s**t precedents being set. This was one of the worst. Glad it was put in the bin, but it shouldn't have taken a four hour appeals hearing to get that far.

 

[Fitzey]

Common sense, should never have taken till the Thursday night to get to this. This is a good result for the game none the less.

 

[schmuttt]

Suspension stands. Sensible.

L

 

[Fitzey]

Suspension stands. Sensible.

Suspension overturned. Sensible.

 

[CrowToon]

It wasn't a genuine question though. Incidental contact from a contest is allowed under the rules of the game.

It clearly was a question raised if a number of people can reach a differing conclusion. The fact it was settled in your favour doesn't mean the debate wasn't there.

It isn't though. Jeff Gleeson took an outlandish interpretation of the rules and applied it in a way which would see blokes getting rubbed out for spoiling. It didn't factor in outcome. It didn't factor in circumstance. The fact JVR could be accused of playing "unreasonably" spoiling that contest goes against the grain of what football is.

Obviously I have no bias, I just hate s**t precedents being set. This was one of the worst. Glad it was put in the bin, but it shouldn't have taken a four hour appeals hearing to get that far.

Absolutely nothing to do with the decisions. I am speaking purely of the structures in place to make decisions, provide a space for that decision to be contested and then another space again for a decision to be appealed. That's rigour at work and as a result we get to the right decision and no one single person has too much influence.

 

[Demon in Hell]

High, severe, reckless. Gone.

The question is: how many weeks?

Disclaimer for dumb people who don't understand the rules: it doesn't matter if causing injury wasn't his intention.

You must be so embarrassed.

 

[Demon in Hell]

Looked at the player and took him out. Player went off on a stretcher and didn’t come back.

2-4.

And you should be embarrassed as well.

 

[Hollow Knight]

L

Mood:

 

[Mop]

It clearly was a question raised if a number of people can reach a differing conclusion. The fact it was settled in your favour doesn't mean the debate wasn't there.




Absolutely nothing to do with the decisions. I am speaking purely of the structures in place to make decisions, provide a space for that decision to be contested and then another space again for a decision to be appealed. That's rigour at work and as a result we get to the right decision and no one single person has too much influence.

Perhaps we have a different view of the structure.

Under the single MRO, I have accepted his role is to apply a strict interpretation of the rules and have them tested. I feel he's far more stringent than the old panel was, and arguably now more consistent (I don't believe he was initially). That consistency is sending more blokes to the tribunal.

I take issue with the tribunal. I don't feel it's unbiased. If a decision is lineball, it tends to favour suspending the player. Gleeson, in his comments, seems to favour suspension. I don't like that flavour. Benefit of the doubt isn't going to the player in my opinion.

The appealing of the tribunal is still in itself quite a rare and unusual act. A decision like this? Not one where the bar should have to have been raised so high as to require it

 

[Struggle]

Lol, you don't understand the rules of the game at all.

Lol

 

[chickenonachain]

Now we only have to wait a couple of days for the next ridiculous report and go through this again

 

[Joffaboy]

Gleeson should be quietly asked to F*** off into the distance.
Some lawyer trying to make AFL in his purile banal image.
Good result.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mop]

The reasons as given



"Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.
These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.
We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.
However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.
It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.
Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two."


For context, 18.5.1 is
Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so

18.5.3 is
Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark

 

[MarcMaverick]

Thank you all for the support. If there is something that galvanises and brings the whole footy community together its moments like this.

 

[Demon in Hell]

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

Are you as embarrassed as the other guys who thought this was a reportable offence.

 

[Johnny Karate]

Mood:

FTFY

 

[Plugger35]

Some common sense for once.

Makes me think we should have appealed Caminiti's 3 week suspension but he probably would have got an extra week instead.

 

[Gunf]

Sanity prevails

 

[ferball]

What a massive wank that was.

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

 

[Barrybran]

The reasons as given



Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.



These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.



We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.



However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.



It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.



Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.


For context, 18.5.1 is
Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so

18.5.3 is
Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark

The explanation makes sense. Suspending JVR on Tuesday and taking three hours tonight to explain this does not. Literally all the tribunal had to do on Tuesday was to say exactly this.

"We understand that the AFL is concerned about head contact but these are the rules as currently written"

Let the kid play and put it back on the AFL to update the rules at the appropriate time.