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

[BloodRet]

Absolutely ridiculous how he gets 2 weeks yet Newmans dogshot gets overturned. This game is a complete and utter mess rn. It’s actually so ridiculous I can’t even comprehend it

 

[Greendogg5]

I'm ok with the two weeks for van Rooyen. I thought he had two objectives
1. Spoil the ball
2. Be physical with the player under the ball
Based on the second point he is responsible for the impact and outcome that he was stretchered off and out of the game.

I do like van Rooyen and his physicality may get him in hot water again with the MRO but I wouldn't get him to curtail it.

Newman getting off is ridiculous though

 

[maskmcgee]

How does van Rooyen trying to spoil a ball even remotely warrant the exact same suspension as Kozzy's shocker? This call is ridiculous.

So what would your complaint be if Kozzy got 4 or 5 as most people on here thought he should

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I'm ok with the two weeks for van Rooyen. I thought he had two objectives
1. Spoil the ball
2. Be physical with the player under the ball
Based on the second point he is responsible for the impact and outcome that he was stretchered off and out of the game.

I do like van Rooyen and his physicality may get him in hot water again with the MRO but I wouldn't get him to curtail it.

Newman getting off is ridiculous though

Only he would know, but I don't think JVR's intention was ever to physical, I think it was purely to spoil in a tight, frantic game, where a behind could be the difference between winning and losing. It was his speed coming into the contest that has caused the problem.

I also think that the reason his spoiling attempt looked so clumsy wad due to him trying to avoid making contact with Ballard's head.

That's ordinarily a stock standard spoil, heavy body contact with a fist to the ball or hands, with a chance of missing and making contact to the face. I think duty of care in that split second is what caused his ham fisted attempt. I can't remember anyone trying to spoil in that fashion it didn't look right, it looked awkward.

His other option of course was not to contest.

 

[Darksidepoints]

If that is worth 2 weeks then just make the game non contact and be done with it.

Disgraceful.

 

[DazzaTys]

I hope for the sake of the game the demons fight this. Never want to see a player concussed but the game is a contact sport and as such, accidental contact occurs. The MRO and tribunal system is completely broken and needs fixing.

 

[jj15]

I hope for the sake of the game the demons fight this. Never want to see a player concussed but the game is a contact sport and as such, accidental contact occurs. The MRO and tribunal system is completely broken and needs fixing.

Ballard wasn’t concussed.

 

[theouthouse]

Absolute joke of a suspension, regardless of players injury or outcome.

AFL pretty much need to ban contesting a marking contest while running with the flight of the ball if thats the case.

 

[DazzaTys]

Ballard wasn’t concussed.

I know, probably should have articulated myself better. Fully support suspensions for blokes deliberately targeting the head area, but the bloke was making a spoil.

 

[Greendogg5]

Only he would know, but I don't think JVR's intention was ever to physical, I think it was purely to spoil in a tight, frantic game, where a behind could be the difference between winning and losing. It was his speed coming into the contest that has caused the problem.

I also think that the reason his spoiling attempt looked so clumsy wad due to him trying to avoid making contact with Ballard's head.

That's ordinarily a stock standard spoil, heavy body contact with a fist to the ball or hands, with a chance of missing and making contact to the face. I think duty of care in that split second is what caused his ham fisted attempt. I can't remember anyone trying to spoil in that fashion it didn't look right, it looked awkward.

His other option of course was not to contest.

I guess I disagree slightly with intent but the game is in a weird spot. I would say he did the right thing but Ballard had to be stretchered off and didn't return.
I would say there was a similar instance with Gunstan late in one of the quarters on Friday night however he didn't take body and missed the ball and it looked to me (along with Harris Andrews) that the effort wasn't hard enough.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Unlucky but that’s the sort of accidental contact that can knock a player out or worse.

I don’t like the reduced spectacle of players being timid to contest for fear of giving away free kicks or being reported but but the head is sacrosanct & player safety is paramount.

Stiff from a supporter view but if you were to judge it from a tribunal perspective, they don’t have any other option.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I guess I disagree slightly with intent but the game is in a weird spot. I would say he did the right thing but Ballard had to be stretchered off and didn't return.
I would say there was a similar instance with Gunstan late in one of the quarters on Friday night however he didn't take body and missed the ball and it looked to me (along with Harris Andrews) that the effort wasn't hard enough.

It may have looked bad him being stretchered off, but Ballard wasn't hurt, it was purely precautionary.

As someone who used to watch a lot of games in their entirety and attend quite regularly, I'm barely hanging on.

This decision is completely confusing. I understand the stance on bumping and driving players into the ground head first when you have their arms pinned and they can't protect themselves, but I don't understand this ruling.

 

[melbun]

The inconsistency in MRO/tribuanal decisions does the game great damage.
Clearly the AFL doesn't understand this.

 

[Greendogg5]

It may have looked bad him being stretchered off, but Ballard wasn't hurt, it was purely precautionary.

As someone who used to watch a lot of games in their entirety and attend quite regularly, I'm barely hanging on.

This decision is completely confusing. I understand the stance on bumping and driving players into the ground head first when you have their arms pinned and they can't protect themselves, but I don't understand this ruling.

I don't know where the game will end up with this, helmets? I feel it is a matter of time until taking a speccy on someones head will be forced out. There is a lot of knee on head possible.

 

[Some Idiot]

Think people are trying to turn this into something it's not. Van Rooyen wanted to make him earn it.

 

[Scythe94]

 

[westie]

I think we need to identify who the imbecile is that is imposing these ridiculous outcomes on tribunal decisions and pass his/her name on to Gary Lyon. Lyon is such an expert at turning mole hills into mountains he should be able to get a suitable result!

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Unlucky but that’s the sort of accidental contact that can knock a player out or worse.

I don’t like the reduced spectacle of players being timid to contest for fear of giving away free kicks or being reported but but the head is sacrosanct & player safety is paramount.

Stiff from a supporter view but if you were to judge it from a tribunal perspective, they don’t have any other option.

Why do you think this.

Should we suspend a tackle that goes high? The head is 'sacrosant' after all.

Should we suspend a player who tackles another, their "safety" is paramount. Are we to do so only when the player gets injured or if there is 'capacity to injure'. A bump in the side may break a rib, is the player's safety 'paramount' in that instance.

What if a player does a hamstring, should we enforce speed limits on players running. The AFL might get sued for hamstring damage class actions in the future. A player may allege lost earnings from having to retire early. We need to make player safety paramount.

This line of thinking is sickening and this post is a disgrace to competitive sport.

Players know the risks. Hundreds of thousands take those risks for free for the love of the game on a weekly basis.

Get this thinking out of your head, you are part of the problem.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Think people are trying to turn this into something it's not. Van Rooyen wanted to make him earn it.

User name to post ratio strong.

 

[Some Idiot]

User name to post ratio strong.

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.

 

[Whiskers]

Think people are trying to turn this into something it's not. Van Rooyen wanted to make him earn it.

And that gets 2 weeks how? What is actually the problem here?

 

[LordLucifer]

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.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

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.

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.

 

[Imet Hassa]

Does anyone honestly believe if was Bont instead of JVR he would have been suspended?

 

[Jimi]

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 points. Ballards positioning did him no favours as well. Most players in that position would turn their back to the oncoming player or rise up to take the ball at a higher point.