Jack Viney part 2: The Appeal

Remove this Banner Ad

Let's be clear, the appeal board just said the tribunal acted unreasonably in a line ball case. It has significant ramifications.

I agree. There will be many more appeals now. I thought we were treating it too much like a re-hearing, and was very surprised that it succeeded.
 
They have gone against public opinion before, at the tribunal and at appeal. In the end it was a mature of opinion whether he braced or bumped, and the appeal board came down on the other side than the tribunal. For better or worse, these guys are not there "for the good of the game", but to judge on how the rules have been applied.

The bump rule has nothing to do with it. The rule still says that if you elect to bump and there is head high contact as a result, you wear the consequences, accident or not, and more players will fall foul of it.
 
While I agree with this decision, the fact no reason is given only highlights the corruption at play behind closed doors of this joke of an organisation.

The ONLY reason this bloke is playing this week is because of the backlash from all and sundry - NOT that they believe their initial decision was wrong.

People threatening to cancel memberships, boycott games, etc.

It's a flat out joke what the administrative powers that be have done to this once great game, and I for one am jack of it entirely. They treat their stakeholders like complete and utter fools.
You really didn't want him to play...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Forgive me for not following this saga as closely as others have, but why are there a number of Melbourne supporters openly attacking Adelaide and in a few cases; Lynch? Some are borderline injury trolls, this is embarrassing to read.
 
This was always a line ball decision. The fact that it went straight to the tribunal, that the best 'alternative action' the prosecution could come up with was 'don't contest' and that they handed out a 2 week sentence for a broken jaw all points to it not being clear. This should have meant he had no case to answer but the right result was achieved in the end.
 
You really didn't want him to play...
Cammo was just stating a view. I thought the MRP and the Tribunal would get better after Bartlett left and things had only got worse.
 
Forgive me for not following this saga as closely as others have, but why are there a number of Melbourne supporters openly attacking Adelaide and in a few cases; Lynch? Some are borderline injury trolls, this is embarrassing to read.

I've said nothing against Lynch but the way some Crows supporters have whinged about this (And compared it to the Douglas hit LOL) has been pathetic and just bitter because they lost on the weekend.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So what does this mean now?
What is the definition of the rule?

If you hit someone in the head you get off?

If you hip and shoulder but a secondary player or ground impact causes a head injury you are gone?
 
2 biggest wins since 64 :thumbsu:

Great day for the victorian medi...err the MFC.
Rip " Duty of care "

Where was Lynch's duty of care to Viney? Poor young jack could have caught gingivitis!
 
Forgive me for not following this saga as closely as others have, but why are there a number of Melbourne supporters openly attacking Adelaide and in a few cases; Lynch? Some are borderline injury trolls, this is embarrassing to read.
Probably talk to some of your own supporters about that. Might have started that fire.
 
Last edited:
This is it 100%. The way the appeal was playing out tonight, and what was being said by Gleeson was not consistent with their decision to lift the suspension.

The 1 thing that Melbourne had up their sleeve was attacking the credibility of the Tribunal when they chose to issue medium contact for a bump they ruled on when it broke a players jaw.

The Tribunal tried to have their cake and eat it to by lessening the impact to ensure lower weeks but all it did in the long run was expose the incompetence they have which in reality is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Melbourne was smart to bring up the medium impact ruling and it showed the tribunal panel were wrong in that assessment and that then contributed to/helped the successful appeal. Had the Tribunal from the start graded it as High impact and 4 weeks they would not of looked so stupid and it would of made the Demons fight harder as trying to prove them to be wrong would of been that bit more difficult when what they actually ruled on was correct.
 
I've said nothing against Lynch but the way some Crows supporters have whinged about this (And compared it to the Douglas hit LOL) has been pathetic and just bitter because they lost on the weekend.
Do you have any evidence that it was the loss and not just having more time to look at the current interpretations at the tribunal due to a player already being suspended this year?
 
Cammo was just stating a view. I thought the MRP and the Tribunal would get better after Bartlett left and things had only got worse.
Bartlett was only on the rules of the game committee, no?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top