AFL world blows up after Melbourne’s Jacob van Rooyen ban upheld

The AFL has been dragged over the coals by footy fans after a star was banned on Tuesday night with two words causing uproar.

Van Rooyen missed the ball by millimetres. (Photo by Albert Perez/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

There’s no easy way to put this, but the AFL is in complete shambles.

On Tuesday night at the AFL Tribunal the fabric of the game was changed with one decision leaving the footy world completely in the dark.

Watch every match of every round of the 2023 Toyota AFL Premiership Season LIVE on Kayo Sports. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >

The league’s attempts at cracking down on head knocks, while the right thing to do, has gone too far and now the game is lost.

While we’ve always poked fun at the Match Review Officer and the AFL Tribunal for delivering differing decisions week in and week out, things reached an all-time low on Tuesday.

The bump has all but been dead for years now, in 2023 the rule makers and ban enforcers have added tackling to the list.

Dangerous tackles have stolen the limelight with players left, right and centre being given weeks on the sidelines for forcibly bringing an opponent to the turf.

A little over a quarter into the season however and it’s a spoil that has stolen the attention for all the wrong reasons.

Melbourne’s Jacob van Rooyen was slapped with a two-match ban after running back and attempting to spoil Gold Coast’s Charlie Ballard before collecting his head with his right arm.

Brisbane champion Jonathan Brown said the suspension threatens to change the fabric of the game while AFL 360 host Mark Robinson said the ban was “rubbish”.

Van Rooyen missed the ball by millimetres. (Photo by Albert Perez/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

He then made contact with Ballard’s head after attempting the spoil. (Photo by Albert Perez/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

Now for clarity’s sake, I’m a Melbourne fan. But there’s no way any reasonable footy fan can agree the suspension is anything other than a joke.

Melbourne attempted to have the ban overturned on Tuesday night, with van Rooyen stating his “sole objective was to spoil the ball”. In the end, however, the Tribunal weren’t buying it and opted to uphold the ban.

That decision left the footy world up in arms and scratching their heads with the wording of why the ban was upheld exposing just how lost the game currently is.

AFL Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson delivered a lengthy spiel after the jury had deliberated for well over half an hour.

Two words from Gleeson, however, boggled the mind and will leave players questioning how they’re supposed to approach contests moving forward.

“We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head,” Gleeson said.

Melbourne are expected to appeal the Tribunal’s finding, but the league must provide clarity around the finding and more importantly the term “reasonable player”.

Van Rooyen is an AFL rookie, but he has been playing footy for years and years. If he isn’t a “reasonable player” I don’t know who is.

Melbourne board member and former Demons forward Brad Green wanted clarity over those two words.

“We find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling in the way he did, would almost inevitably have resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head," Gleeson said.

What does this mean?

— Brad Green (@bradgreen18) May 9, 2023

Upheld - I ask what should Jacob do next time? You coach to spoil or at least contest the marking contest. It’s a rule in the rule book.

If he didn’t get stretchered off, would he be playing?

2 weeks 🤦‍♂️ This is ridiculous

— Brad Green (@bradgreen18) May 9, 2023

The ruling left the footy world up in arms with Robinson blowing a gasket live behind the desk on AFL 360.

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he said.

“So we’re gonna get back to that stupid bloody comment saying ‘oh what happens if you knee someone in the head going for a mark?’ That’s what people say, it’s an inane comment – he went to spoil and not hurt the bloke.

“It’s absolute rubbish, mate.”

Seven news reporter Ned Balme wrote: “Footy is just cooked if that is a suspension. By this logic, a “reasonable” player should foresee a forceful blow if they put the knee up when going for a screamer. Absolute insanity.”

Channel 10 newsreader Stephen Quartermain wrote: “Well footy is officially stuffed.”

Nine news sports presenter Clint Stanaway wrote: “I’m genuinely puzzled. Has to be a piss take?”

So if there’s the slightest chance of incidental contact a player can’t attempt to spoil and has to pull out of the contest…. Is that really what we’re going with?? #afl#afltribunal#vanrooyen

— Caty Price (@caty_price) May 9, 2023

Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson’s full findings.

“In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball,” AFL Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said.

“We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard’s head.

“He launched and extended his arm out and across Ballard’s head. In those circumstances and in light of the instructions given to the panel about the interpretation and application of law 18.5 of the laws of the game, this was not permitted, incidental contact. We find that Mr van Rooyen was careless and he committed the offence of striking by a forceful blow to the head.

“The force of the blow was considerable, it caused immediate pain to Ballard who expressed immediate concern about his neck. He was stretchered off and assessed for a spine injury; thankfully there was none but the potential for it was real, as evidenced by the nature of the impact, the complaint by Ballard and the medical investigation. He suffered residual neck pain and stiffness. We assess the impact as high.”

Originally published as AFL world blows up after Melbourne’s Jacob van Rooyen ban upheld