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

[Stars align]

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.

So sorry I’ve interrupted your game of D&D in your parents basement hope you get a win‍♂

 

[rdhopkins2]

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.

It’s not the 1980’s anymore. The AFL is a professional sporting competition in a world that’s quicker to litigate than accept inherent risk in sport. This is juxtaposed with legislation that comes down hard on breaches of duty of care towards stakeholders and where workplace safety is now treated much more seriously than ever before.

As I said, as a spectator I don’t like the visual impact, but until legislation is changed for health and safety as it applies to sport, as distinct from other workplaces, we will see more decisions like this.

 

[Sentinel]

For all the outrage about "the game's gone soft these days!" and that you shouldn't get suspended for an attempted spoil, reminder that Chris Grant lost a Brownlow from a poorly executed spoil and that was more than 25 years ago.

 

[LordLucifer]

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

 

[FlowersByIrene]

It’s not the 1980’s anymore. The AFL is a professional sporting competition in a world that’s quicker to litigate than accept inherent risk in sport. This is juxtaposed with legislation that comes down hard on breaches of duty of care towards stakeholders and where workplace safety is now treated much more seriously than ever before.

As I said, as a spectator I don’t like the visual impact, but until legislation is changed for health and safety as it applies to sport, as distinct from other workplaces, we will see more decisions like this.

This is an assumption, where has this actually occurred and where has it succeeded. This is fear mongering.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So sorry I’ve interrupted your game of D&D in your parents basement hope you get a win‍♂

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written.

 

[Imet Hassa]

So I presume all on here who have a player on a team they support suspended in the future for going spoil, contacting head and no injury will be fine with a 2 week suspension. Should be a dozen or so this week.

 

[TheWeapon]

The MRO saying that Van Rooyen needed to have his eyes on the ball and not the incoming player in a marking contest is actually more dangerous imo. That lack of awareness around you is going to cause a lot more injuries because players won't see collisions coming from other players
AFL is a 360 degree game there is no way players can continually look at the footy the whole time, they will get cleaned up quick if they have that tunnel vision

 

[Brian McGee]

So I presume all on here who have a player on a team they support suspended in the future for going spoil, contacting head and no injury will be fine with a 2 week suspension. Should be a dozen or so this week.

I get that you are frustrated but can you really say no injury if he was stretchered off with a neck? We have had multiple players suspended for tackles resulting in no injury this season already.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

I only just saw it, surprised people are blowing up about it. That kind of front on/back to the play spoiling just seems fraught with danger if you connect hard or you get collected hard. Not sure about the 2 weeks, but that’s something we should be discouraging regardless of whether ‘accidents happen’. Not saying you not should try and spoil/distract but in that situation it’s on the spoiler to not knock someone out, accidentally or otherwise

 

[Connor7395]

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

I'd have no complaint because I thought Kozzy would get 4 weeks at least. I thought it was ridiculous he only got two. The Tribunal has no idea how to judge severity and intention and these two cases show.

 

[YouBeauty]

I only just saw it, surprised people are blowing up about it. That kind of front on/back to the play spoiling just seems fraught with danger if you connect hard or you get collected hard. Not sure about the 2 weeks, but that’s something we should be discouraging regardless of whether ‘accidents happen’. Not saying you not should try and spoil/distract but in that situation it’s on the spoiler to not knock someone out, accidentally or otherwise

Spot on. This type of contact doesn't happen regularly but should be stamped out. I feel like I've seen a different contest to most in the thread.

 

[Foxx]

Isn't it nice that aggressors always get their own head out of the way.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Was not attempting to get the football , if a player chooses to not make the ball their objective they leave themselves open to being suspended .

 

[Substance]

The proper way to spoil is to look at the ball. It takes courage to go back with the flight without looking, you can't shirk that and get away with sending your opponent off on the stretcher. He's only 19 & he'll learn from that

 

[Sherrinator]

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 it’s coming to.

Harris plays the ball buddy lol

 

[Sherrinator]

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.

Tough s**t for him. Next time he should be in a position to affect the play legally.

 

[My Tilly]

Tough s**t for him. Next time he should be in a position to affect the play legally.

You mean like this?
Eric Hipwood’s ugly umpire incident leaves AFL greats divided

That's a 2 week suspension in 2023.

 

[JP2]

My understanding of this and other recent decisions is that the MRP are changing their interpretation of striking incidents in the same way that the rules committee changed the interpretation of deliberate out of bounds. Instead of asking themselves whether the strike was deliberate, they're asking themselves whether the offending player showed sufficient intent to avoid the strike. In a case like this one, I don't think anyone's saying he tried to clean up Ballard, but I also think that most people would agree that he didn't try very hard to not clean up Ballard.

I'm fine with that second interpretation, because I understand the league needs to protect the players and their own legal exposure, but if we're going to go with that the second interpretation then 1) the MRP have to be consistent in applying it (i.e. causing injury in a tackle or marking contest pus the onus on the offending player to show that he tried his best to avoid that injury), and 2) be prepared for the impact that's going to have on the way the game is played (because it basically insists that players have to take a backward step if there's a danger of causing injury).

 

[Sherrinator]

You mean like this?
Eric Hipwood’s ugly umpire incident leaves AFL greats divided

That's a 2 week suspension in 2023.

Old news get with the times

 

[Sherrinator]

My understanding of this and other recent decisions is that the MRP are changing their interpretation of striking incidents in the same way that the rules committee changed the interpretation of deliberate out of bounds. Instead of asking themselves whether the strike was deliberate, they're asking themselves whether the offending player showed sufficient intent to avoid the strike. In a case like this one, I don't think anyone's saying he tried to clean up Ballard, but I also think that most people would agree that he didn't try very hard to not clean up Ballard.

I'm fine with that second interpretation, because I understand the league needs to protect the players and their own legal exposure, but if we're going to go with that the second interpretation then 1) the MRP have to be consistent in applying it (i.e. causing injury in a tackle or marking contest pus the onus on the offending player to show that he tried his best to avoid that injury), and 2) be prepared for the impact that's going to have on the way the game is played (because it basically insists that players have to take a backward step if there's a danger of causing injury).

Everyone knows he wanted to get Ballard. The only regret for him is he is in the s**t and didn’t fake it properly.

 

[Darksidepoints]

Everyone knows he wanted to get Ballard. The only regret for him is he is in the s**t and didn’t fake it properly.

Who is this everyone? You are in the vast minority here.

 

[Sherrinator]

Who is this everyone? You are in the vast minority here.

Go read the game day thread for some reality

 

[Jimi]

Go read the game day thread for some reality

That’s up there with the dumbest things ever said on this site, and that’s saying something.

 

[Imet Hassa]

A week or two ago - player injured - tribunal - crickets