The AFL 360 panel react to the live tribunal decision of Jacob Van Rooyen after a hit on Charlie Ballard in round 8.
Subscribe and 🔔 to Fox Footy YouTube 👉 https://bit.ly/39CUfB1
Stream Fox Footy 👉 https://kayosports.app.link/y5QWBPZac7

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/foxfooty
Twitter: https://twitter.com/FoxFooty
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/foxfooty/

32 Comments

  1. Absolutely stiff! How does this differ from the Murphy incident against Adelaide? Not even a free kick paid there….

  2. Zac Merrett didn’t pin any arm; not a single one!!! But Whately cites it as a key to this ruling. The rule is pathetic. How many past footballers do we know who live this post footy concussion problems? 1 in a 1000? 1 in 2000? We’re jumping at shadows.

  3. Similar to the Chris Grant and Nick Holland incident from 1997. Full intent to spoil the ball but wrecklessly collecting opponent high.

  4. Let's get this straight, the AFL is now netball and that was a fair punishment for rough obstruction.

  5. Should be minimum 3 weeks suspension. Any other decision is clueless

  6. Dog act, should have spoiled with his left arm, not his right, so as to not clean his opponent up. We can't have blokes doing this stuff, just to have a chance of stopping someone from marking. Front on high contact, report, suspension. Over and out.

  7. Glad I don't watch afl360 any more, Robbo is so annoying to listen to, and his arguments suck to high heaven.

  8. If you are going to blame anyone blame players!!!! The AFL has to now crack down on ‘actions that cause’ injuries as past players are taking legal action! I don’t like it but these things happen when players bring the lawyers out

  9. The game as we know it is dead if the AFL cannot work out a way to mediate liability in a reasonable way. Surely all players are warned and know of the risks of playing AFL football. Fair enough if a club in negligent but there must be a way clubs can handle players that does not expose the AFL to litigation. If the AFL rests this mediation on the action of players as they have been then the game as we know it is dead.

  10. How long does Robbo have to talk about this this show is getting boring too much over cooking this issue

  11. AFL tries to protect itself from concussion class action lawsuits, and players from early graves

    Supporters and Media: 😮

  12. I hadn’t seen the Close one. Completely ridiculous. So now someone makes a textbook tackle, but if the momentum of the tackle takes both players to the ground, it is the responsibility of the tackler to let go before they hit the ground. Even though it all happens in half a second. So now he lets go and the player can get a handball off to a teammate. What’s the point of tackling.? It’s beyond bizarre. Is it that Geishan dipshit or whatever his name is making these decisions?

  13. So what will be the coaches instructions now, “ tackle him hard son, but just make sure you let him go”.

  14. I swear the tribunal panel are made up of monkeys. The Brad close one wasn’t a slinging tackle. And the melb player spoiling the ball. Absolute sh*tshow this sport

  15. If the rules state that you will concede a free kick for making front on contact in a marking contest without your eyes on the ball then I’m satisfied that you can be suspended for making head contact whilst doing it also.

  16. Jnr Rioli gets 2 weeks for a jump spinning back fist with only the intention to make impact.

    Looks like racisims to me.

Write A Comment