Jack Viney

[JackFlash]

The tribunal don't know what the hell they are doing over there.....

 

[Vigawla]

Off the AFL website.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-07/viney-very-unlucky-ceo

There is a very very nifty and handy 'tool' on that page. I've never come across it before. Using your mouse, you can see frame by frame moments of Viney's bump. Much much easier than pausing and replaying video replays.

 

[getthefooty]

Off the AFL website.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-07/viney-very-unlucky-ceo

There is a very very nifty and handy 'tool' on that page. I've never come across it before. Using your mouse, you can see frame by frame moments of Viney's bump. Much much easier than pausing and replaying video replays.

How do you do it? It's not working for me...

 

[GotTheGoodes]

You suspend the player based on their Actions, not the result.

That's exactly right and I completely agree however I don't think that is what is actually happening unfortunately. That is the thing that annoys me the most. It shouldn't matter if a player is injured or not, the action itself is what should be assessed not the outcome.

Just like in real life, when if you punch someone in the head and they die you're up for manslaughter....
and if you punch someone in the head and they laugh and walk off you're a free man.

SAme punch, same action, different results, different punishment.

Again, that might be what actually happens however that is not what should happen. The action of punching someone should be punished no matter the outcome none-the-less. As you say...

....

They were judged on the consequences of the action and not the action itself.

...

As I said its not right, but thats the way its heading.

I agree, it's not right and it is the way it has already headed. Ultimately though, the whole point of this is the fact the AFL are telling a player to jump out of the way of a contest. The contest for the ball is as core a part of our game as any other component. Take away the ability to enter a contest for the ball and what then do you have??

 

[Vigawla]

How do you do it? It's not working for me...

Not sure why it wouldn't be working. The video pauses for me when I put the mouse on it, then I can manipulate the frames by moving left or right.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[getthefooty]

Not sure why it wouldn't be working. The video pauses for me when I put the mouse on it, then I can manipulate the frames by moving left or right.

Hmmm. Just keeps playing for me.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Haven't read through the other posts so may have been mentioned but I'm always interested in who is most vocal on these issues.
Andy Maher on SEN this morning - paraphrasing he said:

- Ridiculous decision

- 'We' want to see more action and more 'danger' and if injuries occur 'well so be it'.


Easy to say when you are 30 metres up in a commentary box. A lot people deriding this decision don't have to wear the consequences.

I wonder if they polled 70kg potential draftee's to see if they want the game to be more dangerous ?

 

[masai]

I'm a bit confused by the panellist's on the tribunal.

Wayne Schimmelbush & "Moose" Henwood, both played the game hard and both would know "the spirit of the game". They would have heard alot of very highly experienced ex & current players saying that this case should not have proceeded after a quick look by the MRP.

I'd love to hear Shimma & Moose explain their reasoning.

Ablett better watch out he doesn't nudge his tagger into the goal post in marking contest, the ripped finger nail could see him outed for some weeks, ................ oh yes he could have pivoted in mid air out of the way of the ball and his tagger !!!.

 

[DangerSloane]

Umm yes- exactly my point. He didn't go direct to the tribunal like you indicated all cases where there is a broken jaw go. That is what you said and in fact provided an example that is the opposite to what you said.

Thats not what I said at all.
The reason it went to the tribunal straight up is if it had gone to the MRP he would've got 4+ weeks because impact would've been automatically considered high due to the injury.

At least have some clue what you're talking about before you comment, or misquote me.

 

[DangerSloane]

True

and not picking on your club but the Mckernan one makes no sense in context with the rest, having said that douglas (or whoever it was) got reamed too.

This latest one is the continuation of a bigger problem that will no doubt get worse

You arent.
McKernan shouldve got 6.
Most, if not all, Adelaide fans agree with that.

 

[JUBJUB]

I'm a bit confused by the panellist's on the tribunal.

Wayne Schimmelbush & "Moose" Henwood, both played the game hard and both would know "the spirit of the game". They would have heard alot of very highly experienced ex & current players saying that this case should not have proceeded after a quick look by the MRP.

I'd love to hear Shimma & Moose explain their reasoning.

Ablett better watch out he doesn't nudge his tagger into the goal post in marking contest, the ripped finger nail could see him outed for some weeks, ................ oh yes he could have pivoted in mid air out of the way of the ball and his tagger !!!.

One things for certain,Schimma makes a better coach than he does a tribunal member

 

[NarniMagic]

It's all about intent guys. People laughing at comparisons to the Douglas hit aren't looking at the bigger picture. Douglas intended to bump, and bumped fairly. He didn't hit him head high. The only reason it was looked at is because there was an accidental headclash (or whiplash and head hitting the ground). Watch the Hawks/Cats games from a couple of weeks ago or any final and you'll see 100 bumps (not head high) in a game reasonably similar that don't get looked at simply because the player wasn't hurt. Think of it this way, if a big strong ruckmen tackled a small forward, fairly, around the body, and broke his ribs, do we ban the ruckmen? Players are told to tackle hard and sometimes accidents will happen. The same with the Thomas/Douglas bump. If you're saying that an accident in the event of a bump is different than an accident in a result of a tackle then what does that say about the bump? Is it not valid? Douglas didn't have the option to tackle, you can't tackle a player running towards the contest without the ball, that's what a bump or really, a shepard, is designed for.

How does this relate to Viney? It's about the bigger picture. He's been banned because of the injury to Lynch. He wasn't banned because of intent, just like Douglas wasn't banned because he hit a bump, he was banned because of an accident where the player was injured. People all cried in outrage last year that Thomas should have been rubbed out, simply because he hit a bump that wasn't high that resulted in an accidental head clash. What if Thomas was concussed instead? Would people want to suspend him still? What if if two players from the same team are going back with the flight of the ball and clash heads? That, just like Thomas, Douglas and Viney is an accident, so why is it any different?

 

[good4footy]

Thats not what I said at all.
The reason it went to the tribunal straight up is if it had gone to the MRP he would've got 4+ weeks because impact would've been automatically considered high due to the injury.

At least have some clue what you're talking about before you comment, or misquote me.

You said at 12.40pm that he would not be at the tribunal if not for the injury - your quote - are you denying it now? Hard to do when it is fact. No problem mate you stay classy. I can't be bothered with you.

Anyway you and I are not the issue here. My hope is that it gets thrown out on appeal as I think it is a bad decision and that no other incident is comparable. To expect someone to jump out of the way is rubbish.

 

[masai]

How does this relate to Viney? It's about the bigger picture. He's been banned because of the injury to Lynch. He wasn't banned because of intent, just like Douglas wasn't banned because he hit a bump, he was banned because of an accident where the player was injured. People all cried in outrage last year that Thomas should have been rubbed out, simply because he hit a bump that wasn't high that resulted in an accidental head clash. What if Thomas was concussed instead? Would people want to suspend him still? What if if two players from the same team are going back with the flight of the ball and clash heads? That, just like Thomas, Douglas and Viney is an accident, so why is it any different?

The Thomas, Douglas & Viney incidents should not be considered together. Thomas & Douglas may be looked in similar vein (picking players off the ball, yes formerly called a good shepherd ). The Viney incident was at the ball.

Prosecute the action, not the result.

Mr S McKernan & Viney, both got 2 weeks. One was a tonker, the other a blocker. Very different !!!!.

I'm worried for all the hair follicle damage that players like David Hale will receive in coming games. No spoiling Hale, it might graze his head and damage the hair roots !!!!.

 

[Theo X]

Even Dimitriou basically admitted it was the wrong decision

 

[DangerSloane]

You said at 12.40pm that he would not be at the tribunal if not for the injury - your quote - are you denying it now? Hard to do when it is fact. No problem mate you stay classy. I can't be bothered with you.

Anyway you and I are not the issue here. My hope is that it gets thrown out on appeal as I think it is a bad decision and that no other incident is comparable. To expect someone to jump out of the way is rubbish.

You dont think the reason that Viney went straight to the tribunal was so he could get reclassified and therefore less weeks?

 

[DangerSloane]

You said at 12.40pm that he would not be at the tribunal if not for the injury - your quote - are you denying it now? Hard to do when it is fact. No problem mate you stay classy. I can't be bothered with you.

Anyway you and I are not the issue here. My hope is that it gets thrown out on appeal as I think it is a bad decision and that no other incident is comparable. To expect someone to jump out of the way is rubbish.

No i dont think he would've been to the MRP OR the tribunal if there was no injury.
This is the point, theyre now reacting to the result rather than the action.

 

[NarniMagic]

The Thomas, Douglas & Viney incidents should not be considered together. Thomas & Douglas may be looked in similar vein (picking players off the ball, yes formerly called a good shepherd ). The Viney incident was at the ball.

Prosecute the action, not the result.

Mr S McKernan & Viney, both got 2 weeks. One was a tonker, the other a blocker. Very different !!!!.

I'm worried for all the hair follicle damage that players like David Hale will receive in coming games. No spoiling Hale, it might graze his head and damage the hair roots !!!!.

I think we're agreeing though. I'm saying the Viney incident is a result of the outrage of the Thomas incident, and consequently, the rule change. Like you said, they are prosecuting the result in the Viney case, not the action.

 

[master bate]

Haven't read through the other posts so may have been mentioned but I'm always interested in who is most vocal on these issues.
Andy Maher on SEN this morning - paraphrasing he said:

- Ridiculous decision

- 'We' want to see more action and more 'danger' and if injuries occur 'well so be it'.


Easy to say when you are 30 metres up in a commentary box. A lot people deriding this decision don't have to wear the consequences.

I wonder if they polled 70kg potential draftee's to see if they want the game to be more dangerous ?

Viney's not a skinny kid but he's a second year player. And had 2 heavier older men running at him. He didn't try to line them up.

I would presume no young football wants the game to be as dirty as the 1970's but if any of them don't understand they are at risk of broken jaws or concussions as part of hard tough physical football then they shouldn't have declared for the draft.

It's a bit like racing car drivers. You expect safety features and penalties for unsafe behaviour but you go out there understanding accidents and injuries can happen. And any motor sport fans wants the driving to be fast and risky with the potential for crashes, no one wants injuries. That's all Andy Maher would've been saying about footy.

Basketball and soccer are great sports but the revolve around skills and very controlled physicality limited to really only brief moments of permitted contact. AFL (like rugby, NFL and many other sports) has physicality as a key component. Mitchell Johnson bought physicality back to cricket that we hadn't seen much of in years and it was brilliant. There were a few blokes cop some blows to the head, but safety features and restrictions minimised the damage and it was great. I'm sure 90+% of fans, players, teenage kids and even mums enjoy physicality as part of footy and understand injuries are an unfortunate part of the game.

 

[DangerSloane]

Viney's not a skinny kid but he's a second year player. And had 2 heavier older men running at him. He didn't try to line them up.

I would presume no young football wants the game to be as dirty as the 1970's but if any of them don't understand they are at risk of broken jaws or concussions as part of hard tough physical football then they shouldn't have declared for the draft.

It's a bit like racing car drivers. You expect safety features and penalties for unsafe behaviour but you go out there understanding accidents and injuries can happen. And any motor sport fans wants the driving to be fast and risky with the potential for crashes, no one wants injuries. That's all Andy Maher would've been saying about footy.

Basketball and soccer are great sports but the revolve around skills and very controlled physicality limited to really only brief moments of permitted contact. AFL (like rugby, NFL and many other sports) has physicality as a key component. Mitchell Johnson bought physicality back to cricket that we hadn't seen much of in years and it was brilliant. There were a few blokes cop some blows to the head, but safety features and restrictions minimised the damage and it was great. I'm sure 90+% of fans, players, teenage kids and even mums enjoy physicality as part of footy and understand injuries are an unfortunate part of the game.

Good points, and even in basketball and soccer you get broken bones from accidental contact.
I've even seen a broken jaw and a broken nose in mixed netball where there is no contact allowed.

 

[pazza]

I'm a bit confused by the panellist's on the tribunal.

Wayne Schimmelbush & "Moose" Henwood, both played the game hard and both would know "the spirit of the game". They would have heard alot of very highly experienced ex & current players saying that this case should not have proceeded after a quick look by the MRP.

I'd love to hear Shimma & Moose explain their reasoning.

Ablett better watch out he doesn't nudge his tagger into the goal post in marking contest, the ripped finger nail could see him outed for some weeks, ................ oh yes he could have pivoted in mid air out of the way of the ball and his tagger !!!.

Interesting post.

Schimma was nothing more than a champion who played the game fairly. Can't recall him ever throwing a cut lunch in anger. A man to be respected.

Henwood was probably the other way...he actually didn't mind throwing his weight around.

The thing with it though is if the appeal stands, the integrity of and the independence of the Tribunal process comes into question, as does the integrity of those who sit in judgement. Is that what we really want?

 

[DangerSloane]

Interesting post.

Schimma was nothing more than a champion who played the game fairly. Can't recall him ever throwing a cut lunch in anger. A man to be respected.

Henwood was probably the other way...he actually didn't mind throwing his weight around.

The thing with it though is if the appeal stands, the integrity of and the independence of the Tribunal process comes into question, as does the integrity of those who sit in judgement. Is that what we really want?

If it means no more BS incorrect and soft decisions, then yes.

 

[master bate]

I think we're agreeing though. I'm saying the Viney incident is a result of the outrage of the Thomas incident, and consequently, the rule change. Like you said, they are prosecuting the result in the Viney case, not the action.

I'm not so sure. Douglas and Fyfe were clear victims of the Thomas rule change. Whether or not you agree with that rule change it at least had a clear principle behind it that head clashes still count as bumps and all players had an intent to bump.

The Viney decision is more about the outrage over bumps that's been evident for some years now and has just been building up year after year. For the last couple of years any contact between a shoulder and a head has been instant suspension. The Viney case is really the next level continuation of the Ziebell case where it doesn't matter what a player was doing - going for the ball, bracing for contact etc - they are gone regardless. The outlier here is the Hodge double decisions where some how he got away with one for being a genuine contest and then a second because Roughy was in his way. His defensive was no other reasonable course of action and inevitable contact. Funnily 2 of the 3 tribunal members were the same ones as last night.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...h-conduct-charge/story-fni5f8ge-1226664950294

 

[Andrew Mc]

You dont think the reason that Viney went straight to the tribunal was so he could get reclassified and therefore less weeks?

I'm assuming you mean that this was the reason he was sent directly to the tribunal by the match review committee (sort of reads like Viney elected to take it straight to them). If so, I think that was done because it was a tough one to classify.