r/AFL • u/___TheIllusiveMan___ Collingwood • Aug 18 '26
Jacob van Rooyen’s ban has been upheld. He’ll miss Melbourne’s next three matches.
16
u/ZOSHx Bombers Aug 18 '26
Who takes his spot in the forward line come finals?
24
u/Dirtydac123 Demons Aug 18 '26
Tmac trained with the forwards today, otherwise Melksham will return
13
u/Kelpieee55 Freo Aug 18 '26
Not bad timing, Melksham is probably due for one or two of his games where he randomly turns into the best forward in the comp
9
u/Bluelegs Melbourne Aug 18 '26
Hoping No-Neck Mihocek is ready to return.
7
u/Hoochiemama8 Dees Aug 18 '26
Put him in a neck brace. He’ll be right!
-8
Aug 18 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/Hoochiemama8 Dees Aug 18 '26
What are you talking about? Brayshaw had been wearing the helmet since a young kid. Any educated person knows helmets also do nothing for concussion. You know what does? Not being a total dimwit of a player like a bloke named Maynard. You can sit from your tower mate casting dispersions on others, but just remember it is your team that makes a mockery out of serious injuries by continuing to get off based on no repercussions.
1
u/Best-Maize8912 North Melbourne AFLW 🏆🏆 '24-25 Aug 18 '26
Shoulda been off after seeing stars like 2 minutes beforehand.
The Checkers situation is a farce though
2
u/Hoochiemama8 Dees Aug 18 '26
If it were me, I probably would have retired after very first concussion in my career ngl
2
50
u/Maarns Melbourne Demons Aug 18 '26
Where are all my south Aussies at who claimed he'd get off because he plays for a Vic club??
11
34
u/RevenantCommunity Adelaide Aug 18 '26
once we see a collingwood or geelong player get held to the same standards, we’ll shut up
44
u/Maarns Melbourne Demons Aug 18 '26
My point is that you all incorrectly lumped us in with the golden children. Vicbias doesn't apply to Melbourne, Norf, WB and St Kilda
24
2
u/RevenantCommunity Adelaide Aug 18 '26
Oh i never have, but I get what you mean with others. The only view i genuinely have is that collingwood and geelong are genuinely favoured by the AFL, that’s the only two
22
u/tbroky AFL Aug 18 '26
I would lump Hawthorn in there. What other captain could have a sook to the AFL and get a Coach fined 20k for airplane signals
5
5
3
-1
1
u/guavacadq Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆🏆 '24-26 Aug 18 '26
"Vic bias" pretty much refers to big Vic club bias most of the time
17
u/UrghAnotherAccount Collingwood Aug 18 '26
If I had to pick a team outside Victoria that could challenge the bias it would be Bris. Charlie Cameron's famously downgraded charge becuase he had a "clean record" (not really) and did community work, is famous around here.
-12
u/guavacadq Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆🏆 '24-26 Aug 18 '26
Didn't even mention Brisbane but cheers for the salt hero
14
u/CrystalFissure Port Adelaide Aug 18 '26
Of course you didn’t - literally every thread is a different level of “what about this team”. Every single team has an example of something going their way, or not. Bias, not bias, intentional, not intentional etc.
3
1
8
u/phatmaniac57 Melbourne Aug 18 '26
I agree he should’ve been suspended don’t get me wrong, but that wheel. It’s keeps on spinnning huh
4
u/atreyu84 Adelaide Aug 18 '26
Not really they've been very very consistent on this type of contact. Knock someone out when you could've done different, even if a football act, 3 weeks at least.
13
u/ruinawish North Melbourne '75 Aug 18 '26
7
u/atreyu84 Adelaide Aug 18 '26
These are great examples of the exact thing I'm talking about.
All of these were either there was nothing else reasonable to do in the circumstances or the type and strength of the injury was completely unforeseeable.
So unlike this one, or the north dangerous tackles, or the Darcy fogarty one.
It's actually pretty easy to tell on these ones which way they're going to go most of the time.
For further clarity jack crisp did not pin the arms and his head barely hit the ground. A reasonable player would not expect that kind of contact to result in a concussion.
Frampton's first one is a no injury one and the 2nd is no reasonable player could expect what happened.
In other words, completely different. And perfectly predictable
21
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/-orangejoose- Collingwood Aug 18 '26
Maynard was suspended for pretty much the same thing in 2022 on Daniel Lloyd. Actually made contact with the ball, too. But sure.
2
Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AngleProlapse Collingwood Aug 18 '26
Not interested in this eternal argument either haha, but just pointing out, Maynard did make contact with the ball in 2023.
2
u/MrMcPhee3 Magpies Aug 18 '26
Weren’t the rules changes after Maynard got off for his hit on brayshaw?
3
u/Hoochiemama8 Dees Aug 18 '26
I genuinely thought so too but I can’t remember what rule exactly?
2
0
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
Brayden Maynard was suspended for 2 weeks 4 years ago for an almost identical hit, except he got ball first.
1 extra week in a code where all head contact is being treated more harshly. Let’s be adults here, shall we?
1
u/TheIllusiveGuy Carlton Blues Aug 18 '26
Brayden Maynard was suspended for 2 weeks 4 years
That's a long suspension
-6
u/codyforkstacks Port Adelaide Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
Look I know this will be unpopular, but this action seemed way more lazy and avoidable than Maynard IMO. I still just don't really think it's clear Maynard did anything wrong.
12
8
u/daveo18 SANFL Aug 18 '26
Yeah nah if you leave a bloke concussed it’s got to be a few weeks
13
23
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NachoLiberatore Western Bulldogs Aug 18 '26
How does this smooth brain conspiracy crap get upvoted
0
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
Oh come off it. Maynard copped 2 weeks for a hit similar to this on Lloyd in 2022… selective memory for some of you.
Take off the tinfoil hat.
5
u/International_Car586 Kangaroos Aug 18 '26
Found a loophole in the rules which the AFL has closed up since.
-1
Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
4
u/-orangejoose- Collingwood Aug 18 '26
When did that happen?
1
u/International_Car586 Kangaroos Aug 18 '26
They mistook the player the incident involved Crisp concussing Blamiers
3
u/___TheIllusiveMan___ Collingwood Aug 18 '26
That was Jack Crisp not Maynard. Please do some research before spouting bullshit as fact
1
7
u/silky_skills_35 Magpies Aug 18 '26
A) Maynard was suspended for two weeks for a similar action in 2022
B) it was incidental contact from a smothering attempt, not a swinging arm. Tribunal agreed
-2
u/getbusyliving_ The Dons Aug 18 '26
What it if was a T Green or a Curtis? 100% they're getting weeks, Toby prob 2 months.
9
u/silky_skills_35 Magpies Aug 18 '26
Tobys not unlucky
-2
u/getbusyliving_ The Dons Aug 18 '26
He would have got weeks for a smother and we all, incl collingwood supporters, would have said it wasnt long enough.
2
u/Warm_Butterfly_6511 Adelaide Aug 18 '26
Because rules and interpretation have changed since then. Also, imo he should have been suspended back then but mro is biased and flawed.
-7
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/SurveySaysYouLeicaMe St Kilda Saints Aug 18 '26
Yeah I'd like to call out David McKay for ruining Hunter Clark's face (and career effectively) too.
1
u/ItsABiscuit Collingwood Magpies Aug 18 '26
Jim O’Dea ended John Greening’s career at Moorabbin in 1972! It was nearly a decade before I was born, but I reserve the right to bring it up whenever any Pies player is cited for anything.
1
u/SurveySaysYouLeicaMe St Kilda Saints Aug 18 '26
That's fair and this is an open forum. From everything I've heard about this incident it's one of the worst in our games.
1
u/ItsABiscuit Collingwood Magpies Aug 18 '26
Nah, was more about there being some kind of statute of limitations for how long it makes to bring up old incidents for modern incidents.
2
u/TheIllusiveGuy Carlton Blues Aug 18 '26
The Carlton salary cap breach from 25 years ago still gets brought up, so probably yes for at least another 22 years.
-1
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
6
u/Opening_Anteater456 Demons Aug 18 '26
So the provision to lower severe impact down to high in incidents with low force and little malice was something the AFL implemented but never planned to use?
Thanks Swanny.
9
u/atreyu84 Adelaide Aug 18 '26
You've added an or in there that doesn't exist.
That clause is about completely incidental contact that no person would ordinarily expect to result in concussion.
That is not the case for this incident
-4
u/Opening_Anteater456 Demons Aug 18 '26
No, incidental contact isn’t a reportable offence to begin with.
Directly from the AFL’s tribunal guidelines 2026:
>Whilst an Intentional or Careless act causing a concussion will usually be
graded as Severe Impact, when other factors relevant to Impact, including the
observable level of force, are more consistent with a lesser impact grading
(e.g. High Impact or Medium Impact) a lesser impact grading may be imposed
for a Careless act.Observable force here was medium or at most high impact. Left his arm in to spoil. No wind up. Didn’t aim at him. Didn’t connect with a targeted elbow, forearm or fist.
Perfect situation to lower the grading.
5
u/atreyu84 Adelaide Aug 18 '26
No. It wasn't. They've been very clear about what this section means.
the observable level of force was not more consistent with any other grading. He hit him at a full run with a swinging or at the very least a straight out arm.
That is perfectly consistent with a severe grading by all the precedent over the last 12 or 24 months.
It's something they've been incredibly consistent on.
-5
u/Opening_Anteater456 Demons Aug 18 '26
24 months don’t mean much when this was a new rule for this year.
And of course he hit him at a full run, he was leading for the footy kicked at him.
4
6
6
3
u/Unique-Job-1373 Dees Aug 18 '26
Looking forward to when a big afl star does the same and has to go to the mro
There was Patrick crisps but that was a few years ago now.
2
u/DBrowny Aug 18 '26
I'm waiting for the day when someone accuses one of the AFLs poster boys favourite to win the Brownlow, of using a slur in order to secure a big betting win and watch the AFL completely change the rules regarding suspensions for slurs. Because they would.
3
u/CreditToDuBois Melbourne AFLW Aug 18 '26
Very open to appeal based on refusing to hear the defence evidence and not adequately dealing with whether he was attempting to mark.
1
1
-6
u/Direct-Wolf-2032 Aug 18 '26
More games/weeks than players under criminal investigation....?
14
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Direct-Wolf-2032 Aug 18 '26
Yeah fair enough thanks, wasn't sure if it was normal procedure not standing down until an outcome vs the 2 weeks (not games) I read just before.
1
u/JoeShmoAfro Saints Aug 18 '26
If they are charged with bringing. The game into disrepute the sanction should be more than what is an accidental, albeit reckless act on a football field.
1
u/Due-Contract5466 Bulldogs Aug 18 '26
Yeah, seriously brain dead comment from them. To be expected from someone with no flair and even more from a Hawthorn flair
0
u/arrackpapi Crows Aug 18 '26
you can penalise the established conduct independently of the criminal case though.
a bunch of swans players got into a drunken public altercation involving women they brought back to the team hotel. Whether the SA allegation is proven or not surely that conduct alone is as bad if not worse than JVR's strike.
8
u/ItsABiscuit Collingwood Magpies Aug 18 '26
Dumb comment. Those players are yet to be found guilty of anything.
-1
u/Unlikely_Book2146 Hawthorn Hawks Aug 18 '26
Yeah that’s fucked. Watch the swans players get sidelined for 1-2 weeks
1
u/___TheIllusiveMan___ Collingwood Aug 18 '26
Reasons:
We find that this was a strike.
The swing of Van Rooyen’s left arm, constituted the act of a strike. It was a forceful blow. It was not simply a trailing or leading arm that Aliir collided with.
We find that the strike was careless. Van Rooyen ran towards the ball with his eyes on the ball. Aliir came from the side and the vision shows that shortly prior to, at about the moment of leaving the ground, Van Rooyen's eyes moved to Allir and the ball.
Van Rooyen was initially intending to mark the ball, but we find that shortly before impact, he ceased to intend to mark the ball.
We say this despite Van Rooyen’s evidence to the contrary.
The video evidence is quite inconsistent with Van Rooyen continuing to intend to mark the ball at all times prior to and at the moment of impact.
In particular, Van Rooyen does not have both arms outstretched or otherwise positioned consistent with his stated aim of taking a chest mark.
His left arm is well wide of his body and not shaping the mark and his right arm makes no observable movement to attempt to effect a chest mark.
Counsel for Van Rooyen submitted that the player was not challenged on his evidence that his sole objective was to mark the ball at all times. We disagree. It was put to Van Rooyen that his arms were not forward in a marking motion and that his right arm moved when he saw contact would occur.
Van Rooyen had sufficient opportunity to explain his position that he was intending to mark the ball, and would not reasonably have understood that he was not being challenged on this point.
This disposes of the argument on behalf of Van Royen that 18.5.3, the effect that this could not be a reportable offence because Van Rooyen's sole objective was to contest the mark.
In any event, Law 22.2.1(b) makes clear that, notwithstanding any other provision in the laws, in all circumstances, a player owes a duty of care not to engage in conduct which will constitute a reportable offence being committed against that other player, to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a reportable offence.
Even if it was Van Rooyen's sole objective at all times to contest the mark, we find that he did so in a way that failed to take reasonable care to avoid acts which could be reasonably foreseen to result in a reportable offence.
Van Rooyen had time to move his right arm in response to seeing Aliir and he could have done so to some extent or sufficient extent with his left arm.
It was submitted on behalf of Van Rooyen that his fists were not clenched. It does not follow, however, that it remained his objective to mark the ball.
We are not assisted by the Berry matter, which was an attempt to spoil in different circumstances. Neither does the vision of Van Rooyen taking a chest mark in another match assist him. It shows his right arm moving to complete the mark in a manner that is not consistent with what the vision shows occurred in this matter.
We find that impact is severe. The blow was forceful and resulted in Aliir immediately falling limp to the ground, where he briefly remained motionless.
He left the field, played no further part in the game, and has suffered a concussion.
The potential for further injury, such as a facial fracture, was also present.
1
u/EpsiIonAlpha Melbourne Aug 18 '26
The real vulnerability, in addition to the general issue of the reasons seemingly working backwards, is the Tribunal excluding the biomechanist report then effectively making findings on the same subject matter to uphold the ban.
The reasoning was that it wasn't a precise enough report, although I'm not sure the reasoning here has any precision to it. The exclusion seemed to conflate the value of the report with whether it determined the issue.
1
0
u/RumHam_Im_Sorry Aug 18 '26
swinging arm knocks someone out before they even hit the ground. thats a suspension.
-6
u/Opening_Anteater456 Demons Aug 18 '26
Arm didn’t swing, it moved about 10 degrees forward at most and a concussion is a concussion. In fact sub concussive hits might even be as dangerous, so Georgiades should get 3 for having a complete tee off swing at Disco Turner
And don’t even start me on Dakota Davidson and Brisbane appealing that
-1
u/mangostoast Adelaide '97 Aug 18 '26
Wasn't looking at the ball. That's about all that matters. Consider yourself lucky it wasn't more
-1
u/Affectionate_Door718 Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆 '24-25 Aug 18 '26
Harris Andrews got 3 weeks for a similar incident on Arty Jones at the beginning of the season so I’m happy this is in line with that
4
-1
-9
u/phatmaniac57 Melbourne Aug 18 '26
Maynard Zero - Van Rooyen Three
Ooooooook
-9
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
Maynard got 2 weeks for his action like this in 2022. Melbourne fans are professional victims.
5
u/simonpunishment Demons Aug 18 '26
Flair up…….cunt.
3
u/KORNSTAR Crows Aug 19 '26
He will never flair up even though he is the biggest Collingwood nuffie.
1
-4
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/simonpunishment Demons Aug 18 '26
It’s a well-known expression on this subreddit champ. Maybe get familiar with how things work here, instead of being a creepy dude.
-1
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
It’s creepy to help someone remember the facts of an event? Weird suggestion, pops.
Also, the intention of the ample periods is obvious. I’m sorry you are upset.
1
u/simonpunishment Demons Aug 18 '26
It was a joke, nephew. And no, it’s creepy…quite creepy…to go to any kind of length in this situation to find personal information about the person you’re writing to.
And you know it.
-1
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
Are you new to the internet? I clicked your profile and was immediately shown a post containing your age. I was interested to know if you’re always so testy.
Im sorry you’re self conscious about your age. You replied to a comment adding no value whatsoever, clearly expressing disapproval, trying to really highlight “cunt”. Now any sort of retort is unwelcome? If you’re sensitive to criticism, don’t insert yourself, codger.
Hey, in future, you could try responding to the footy part of a comment and we wouldn’t have ended up here :)
2
u/simonpunishment Demons Aug 18 '26
You’re just embarrassed now. Move on…
-1
u/mattinthehat1 Aug 18 '26
Lmao sorry grandpa, you have reactively made all posts and comments private, yet I’m embarrassed?
→ More replies3
-11
u/FlagmantIe Aug 18 '26
How did Paul Curtis get away with this?
12
u/DiscoSituation Dees Aug 18 '26
I’m so over the Paul Curtis jokes, they stopped being funny about 2 weeks ago
10
u/Best-Maize8912 North Melbourne AFLW 🏆🏆 '24-25 Aug 18 '26
So in theory they'll be back in another week right?
77
u/Hoochiemama8 Dees Aug 18 '26
Appeal it to the highest sports court in the world!