It's pretty clear how the tribunal has arrived at the decision they did.
The first step is to conclude that an offence occurred. According to the precedent set in several earlier cases, laying a bump that results in a head injury, regardless of whether you touched the head or whether you could have predicted that the subsequent head injury would occur, means that you are automatically guilty of rough conduct. This is the major bone of contention - because it's complete bullshit. It should not be a rule, there shouldn't be a precedent, and this is the part that everyone should be up in arms about. It's a deadset disgrace.
However, if we accept that step, the rest of the tribunal went as would be expected. They rightly determined that the contact was negligent and high, which is all pretty much beyond contention. As for impact, they generally use the severity of the injury to determine the impact. However, in this case, they've (rightly) decided that the severity of injury is not directly attributable to Viney, and so they've downgraded it to medium.
Now, there are two different things happening there. Viney is being held responsible for the head injury occurring, but he is not being held responsible for the severity of the head injury. And that's perfectly reasonable if we accept the first step (which we shouldn't).
From there the formula tells us exactly what his penalty should be.
It's that first part - the rule that states that any head injury that results from a bump is attributable to the person who laid the bump - that needs to be revoked, and revoked NOW. People like Fyfe, Douglas, and now Viney have all found themselves suspended for actions where they did not themselves actually injure the head, but in the course of that play, their opponent's head ended up being injured. That's sport. It's always going to happen from time to time. It's accidental and nobody, from the fans, to the players themselves, want to see it removed from the game. And that's the only way to prevent it. When you are punished for legitimate accidents, the only two options are to either cop a bullshit suspension from time to time, or refuse to ever put yourself in the situation where an accident might occur. And the latter would be the death of AFL football.
The first step is to conclude that an offence occurred. According to the precedent set in several earlier cases, laying a bump that results in a head injury, regardless of whether you touched the head or whether you could have predicted that the subsequent head injury would occur, means that you are automatically guilty of rough conduct. This is the major bone of contention - because it's complete bullshit. It should not be a rule, there shouldn't be a precedent, and this is the part that everyone should be up in arms about. It's a deadset disgrace.
However, if we accept that step, the rest of the tribunal went as would be expected. They rightly determined that the contact was negligent and high, which is all pretty much beyond contention. As for impact, they generally use the severity of the injury to determine the impact. However, in this case, they've (rightly) decided that the severity of injury is not directly attributable to Viney, and so they've downgraded it to medium.
Now, there are two different things happening there. Viney is being held responsible for the head injury occurring, but he is not being held responsible for the severity of the head injury. And that's perfectly reasonable if we accept the first step (which we shouldn't).
From there the formula tells us exactly what his penalty should be.
It's that first part - the rule that states that any head injury that results from a bump is attributable to the person who laid the bump - that needs to be revoked, and revoked NOW. People like Fyfe, Douglas, and now Viney have all found themselves suspended for actions where they did not themselves actually injure the head, but in the course of that play, their opponent's head ended up being injured. That's sport. It's always going to happen from time to time. It's accidental and nobody, from the fans, to the players themselves, want to see it removed from the game. And that's the only way to prevent it. When you are punished for legitimate accidents, the only two options are to either cop a bullshit suspension from time to time, or refuse to ever put yourself in the situation where an accident might occur. And the latter would be the death of AFL football.
