Jack Viney

[Mr Magic]

Of course he wasn't at a complete standstill - he was running at full pace for a loose ball, he can't just stop on a dime. As the ball bounced sideways Viney followed the path of the ball but almost instantaneously he saw Lynch would take possession before he could so he significantly decelerated to where he was almost at a standstill and turned his body to brace for the impact. He definitely did not raise his elbow or jump into the collision so that his shoulder would hit Lynch in the head. If anything he got down as low as he could, I don't see how could go lower without risking breaking his neck.

That argument will not stick IMO.

No one is asking for Viney to stop on a dime IMO. The ball did not bounce sideways unless you are looking from the side. The ball bounced towards Lynch. Viney hardly followed the ball but that is not a problem for him. The ball went towards Lynch and, to be fair to Viney, contact/the clash was unavoidable unless he jumped out of the way which was not going to happen because the ball headed towards Lynch.

He didn't not significantly decelerate. This argument I seriously doubt will not stand up. Viney, in his favor, had no time to decelerate which was why the collision was really unavoidable. He turned his torso to protect himself with his shoulder, he didn't raise his elbow, nor did he jump into the collision but he lifted his torso slightly IMO with his leg movement largely to protect himself more but this put Lynch more at risk to his head and Viney turned his head to the side to protect his head a little earlier than he should have IMO if he was watching Lynch more before impact.

He easily could have gone lower by not raising his torso from his leg movement IMO. He, IMO, didn't have to use his calves to extend his torso up slightly in the final few steps but he could he lowered them in reverse IMO. If you don't believe me see the replay and get a ruler out and check the heights. If he didn't turn his head as earlier as he did, IMO he would have been more confident lowering his torso into the impact and been more secure in his body bracing/diverting the oncoming contact energy.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Look it doesn't matter if its a bump or brace they are just words.

What matters is shoulder on head.

Holy crap now I've heard it all - your posts remind me of something from the movie Idiocracy. "It doesn't matter if it's a bump or brace they're just words." Yeah words we use to describe events, words which are used specifically so that when we communicate we know that what we are saying will be understood and comprehended by the other person because there is a level of understanding that the definitions of those words are understood but I guess that is too much to ask sometimes, right?

What matters is not shoulder on head and the rules are quite clear on this. What matters is whether the player elected to bump or not which is why those "words" you disregard are actually quite important.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What did some clown at the tribunal suggest - he could have pirouetted out of way??

OMF! Words fail me!!

As I said, I really think that the AFL advocate was trying to tank the case.

 

[Crankyhawk]

So you're suggesting that suspensions should be based on the injuries caused whether it is accidental or not?

That is part of what is wrong with the system, if Lynch didn't end up with a broken jaw the incident wouldn't have even been looked at.

Unfortunately there has been a move toward result based suspension rather than what the actual incident was (independent of injury sustained, if any). I think this has been happening for the last 2 years or so.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It was said by Jeff Gleeson, the AFL's prosecuting representative to the independent tribunal.

To be fair on Gleeson, I actually think he was trying to go soft so that the jurors wouldn't have to find Viney guilty on some technicality because he thought the case was not winnable. Even after being found guilty he said that they could possibly find a 1 week suspension. His words have been taken out of context a bit, he put the "spin out of the way" comment as an example to Viney as a Dorothy Dixer which Viney disagreed with saying he didn't have time to contemplate a complex manouver like that in such short time. I think he was trying to show how ridiculous it was and that Viney had no other options really. He even said that it was open to the Tribunal to find Viney did not elect to bump/ Unfortunately the 3 jurors didn't take the hint.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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 the tribunal have a sub par performance, just like any other official of the afl, there needs to be a mechanism to hold them to account. I don't see it as putting their integrity under question. Just that they made a bad decision.

 

[Mr Magic]

Holy crap now I've heard it all - your posts remind me of something from the movie Idiocracy. "It doesn't matter if it's a bump or brace they're just words." Yeah words we use to describe events, words which are used specifically so that when we communicate we know that what we are saying will be understood and comprehended by the other person because there is a level of understanding that the definitions of those words are understood but I guess that is too much to ask sometimes, right?

What matters is not shoulder on head and the rules are quite clear on this. What matters is whether the player elected to bump or not which is why those "words" you disregard are actually quite important.

No it does not because all it means is in the real world the rule might say bump but that might be worded wrong. Maybe the rule is written up wrong.

How do you know Viney will not get charged under a different rule relating to head contact or rough play or not showing sufficient duty to care?

All you are saying is the rules might be worded wrong. You might be right. I am not talking about the rules within the MRP I am not privy to. What I am talking about is in utopia, is Viney guilty of anything footy wise for that collision!

I am not talking about the MRP. I am not representing the MRP. I wouldn't have a clue what goes on there.

What I am talking about is going forward in utopia would Viney be guilty of something now in order for players, fans and clubs to be confident they can play the game safely while at the same time being played in a way the players know what to do, can do it, the confusion ends, players still can play tough hard footy and everyone can watch a tough physical hard enjoyable competitive sport, Dads, Mums and the kids including knowing the players can play hard like they used to but safely as well and their kids can play the game without a worry!

What is the exact rule Viney is fighting? Maybe Viney has been charged with the wrong rule, don't know I wasn't a witness to the MRP, where you?

If I was in the MRP I wouldn't have contact limited to bump, it could brace , it could be anything.

The key things for me apart from intention, duty to care, negligence etc... is contact to head or other contact and the level of force.impact(being a shoulder makes it higher plus the movement), If I was in the MRP and the rules where not written without such flexibility I would ensure they would be changed to be accommodating to more realistic contact situations and other events that could fall outside the loop of others perceptions

 

[Crankyhawk]

That idea is actually not as stupid as it sounds. If you had appropriate sample sizes...

Mind you, would be open to rigging

Perhaps an equal number of members from each club (say 500) to constitute the voting panel, to remove bias but not disadvantage clubs for having a small supporter base, but still large enough to be meaningful (I think the TV ratings operate off a similar number of sets for analysis).

 

[melbournemartin]

To be fair on Gleeson, I actually think he was trying to go soft so that the jurors wouldn't have to find Viney guilty on some technicality because he thought the case was not winnable. Even after being found guilty he said that they could possibly find a 1 week suspension. His words have been taken out of context a bit, he put the "spin out of the way" comment as an example to Viney as a Dorothy Dixer which Viney disagreed with saying he didn't have time to contemplate a complex manouver like that in such short time. I think he was trying to show how ridiculous it was and that Viney had no other options really. He even said that it was open to the Tribunal to find Viney did not elect to bump/ Unfortunately the 3 jurors didn't take the hint.

Actually Jeff told me:

Every week a player spins or turns or steps to avoid an unnecessary collision. They jump over an opponent who has slid to take a mark or corral a player rather than run through him. They aren't cowards. They are doing the sensible and reasonable thing.

The "jump over an opponent who has slid to take a mark" is an interesting one. Does that mean Luke McPharlin should have been suspended for Brown's facial injuries a few years back? Gleeson does make a decent point there when giving some other examples about how players in contested situations don't go as hard as they could, for sensible reasons.

Ultimately none of us should be criticising Gleeson for doing the job he's paid to do, and one must say that he did it "well" since he did win the case.

Regarding the spin, Viney had two ways of addressing the issue. One was, as he said, say that it was physically impossible (which I agree with). The other would be to say that there is no mandate in the rules that I do not attempt to get a ball which was being contested at the time. Maybe that would have been the better response?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That argument will not stick IMO.

No one is asking for Viney to stop on a dime IMO.

Yes, you did.

The ball did not bounce sideways unless you are looking from the side.

Another idiotic comment. Viney and Lynch were both running in a straight line towards the ball which was following that line - they were coming at the ball from opposite directions and as the ball took its final bounce it deviated. Doesn't matter what angle you're looking at it from.

The ball bounced towards Lynch. Viney hardly followed the ball but that is not a problem for him.

Viney did follow the direction of the ball, take a look at the video again in real time.

The ball went towards Lynch and, to be fair to Viney, contact/the clash was unavoidable unless he jumped out of the way which was not going to happen because the ball headed towards Lynch.

Glad we agree.

He didn't not significantly decelerate.

I assume you mean he didn't significantly decelerate, not that he didn't not which is a double negative and means that he did. If this is the case your clearly incorrect and all you have to do is watch the footage and keep your eye on Viney from when he runs flat out from the centre bounce towards the ball and significantly decelerates just before pivoting with the direction of the ball.

This argument I seriously doubt will not stand up.

Again your English appears to fail you here.

Viney, in his favor, had no time to decelerate which was why the collision was really unavoidable.

Well he did decelerate. That is not why the collision was unavoidable.

He turned his torso to protect himself with his shoulder, he didn't raise his elbow, nor did he jump into the collision but he lifted his torso slightly IMO with his leg movement largely to protect himself more but this put Lynch more at risk to his head and Viney turned his head to the side to protect his head a little earlier than he should have IMO if he was watching Lynch more before impact.

You're wrong, but none of this is relevant because this all after the fact of collision being unavoidable due to the nature of the contest and Viney bracing for the contact.

He easily could have gone lower by not raising his torso from his leg movement IMO. He, IMO, didn't have to use his calves to extend his torso up slightly in the final few steps but he could he lowered them in reverse IMO. If you don't believe me see the replay and get a ruler out and check the heights. If he didn't turn his head as earlier as he did, IMO he would have been more confident lowering his torso into the impact and been more secure in his body bracing/diverting the oncoming contact energy.

Haha you're surely taking the piss. "Used his calves to extend his torso" - watch it in real time instead of looking at screenshots taken frame by frame. Then, go and put yourself in the same situation and lower your head into the contest - if your not paralysed come back and let us know how it worked out for you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No it does not because all it means is in the real world the rule might say bump but that might be worded wrong. Maybe the rule is written up wrong.

How do you know Viney will not get charged under a different rule relating to head contact or rough play or not showing sufficient duty to care?

All you are saying is the rules might be worded wrong. You might be right. I am not talking about the rules within the MRP I am not privy to. What I am talking about is in utopia, is Viney guilty of anything footy wise for that collision!

I am not talking about the MRP. I am not representing the MRP. I wouldn't have a clue what goes on there.

What I am talking about is going forward in utopia would Viney be guilty of something now in order for players, fans and clubs to be confident they can play the game safely while at the same time being played in a way the players know what to do, can do it, the confusion ends, players still can play tough hard footy and everyone can watch a tough physical hard enjoyable competitive sport, Dads, Mums and the kids including knowing the players can play hard like they used to but safely as well and their kids can play the game without a worry!

What is the exact rule Viney is fighting? Maybe Viney has been charged with the wrong rule, don't know I wasn't a witness to the MRP, where you?

If I was in the MRP I wouldn't have contact limited to bump, it could brace , it could be anything.

The key things for me apart from intention, duty to care, negligence etc... is contact to head or other contact and the level of force.impact(being a shoulder makes it higher plus the movement), If I was in the MRP and the rules where not written without such flexibility I would ensure they would be changed to be accommodating to more realistic contact situations and other events that could fall outside the loop of others perceptions

Go back to school and try not to comment on things which you don't have the knowledge to discuss.

 

[Mr Magic]

Yes, you did.




Another idiotic comment. Viney and Lynch were both running in a straight line towards the ball which was following that line - they were coming at the ball from opposite directions and as the ball took its final bounce it deviated. Doesn't matter what angle you're looking at it from.

Now you are being stupid! When did I ask for Viney to stop on a dime?


There was a slight angle not much, it was not totally head on. From Viney's side they were going slightly to the left, this is relevant in terms of avoidance because for Lynch Georgio was on his back so he was going nowhere but if the ball fell Viney's way he could have averted a collusion with the ball possibly.


Thankyou anyway. I feel much better being described as idiotic from your commentary. Truely a compliment I will cherish

I trust you will not be with MFC appeal team. They would be laughed out of the MRP meeting if so!!

 

[Mr Magic]

Go back to school and try not to comment on things which you don't have the knowledge to discuss.

Not sure where you should go. Trying to figure out who could help you.

Moving on...

 

[the dog's kennel]

I'm sure this point has been made. But it irritates me no end hearing Freo, Adelaide and Nth Melbourne supporters saying "See? We told you!" as if the Viney situation is like the Thomas, Fyfe or Douglas scenarios, when it is NOTHING LIKE THEM.

All 3 of those other guys undertook a deliberate action. Viney was defending himself. That's what makes this ruling so incredibly stupid. I don't want to get into the bump debate right now (For the record, I think Thomas and Douglas should have copped a week and Fyfe should have got off) but surely everyone with eyes can see this is irrelevant to that debate.

Thomas, Fyfe, and Douglas made the man their object. Viney made the ball his object and then tried to bail out in the most practical way when the ball got beyond him. Different people will have different views about the bump - but surely we can all agree that the AFL is trying to get rid of most bumps. That is clear.

By contrast, Viney did EXACTLY what the AFL has been professing it wants. He went for the ball, and then when a collision became inevitable he tried to minimise the consequences as much as self-defence would allow. And while doing that he accidentally caused damage. To me this is the same as if he went for a mark and accidentally kneed Lynch in the jaw. Damage was done by him pursuing exactly the course he has been told to pursue by the AFL.

This couldn't be further removed from Douglas sniping a player who was off in la la land.

So "told ya so"s from Brad Scott and a few others are misplaced, self-serving and tacky in my view.

 

[Monkey King]

because players, commentators and spectators are not doctors...

So I have to live my whole life according to what a doctor says? Fair crack! If players want it played a certain way, if spectators want to watch a certain game, what gives anyone the right to come and cotton wool them? We live in a free country apparently, so why can't players decide their own appetite for risk. And clearly they're at odds with the way things are at the moment, as are the spectators.

I was concussed a few times playing football, once from a full blown kick to the head as I jumped on a ball that another player was trying to kick off the ground (player did his knee too btw). Would I have still played knowing the research that's coming out? Hell yes I would have. Just as I played knowing that some ex-players struggle to bend at the knees later in life. It's my freaking choice.

The AFL have to do something about it, if they don't the game will erode from the grassroots up.

You talk about this like it's some kind of indisputable fact and expect me to just accept that it is. But no. I dispute this contention. In fact, I call bullshit. I reckon there's a chance it will actually go the other way. I have no problem with the AFL weeding out intentional head contact, but it's a contact sport and it's gonna happen sometimes. Needing to punish someone every time there's a head hit is not the right balance. And unless the right balance is found, that's when the game will erode. Already people are feeling disillusioned.

 

[MattyB_76]

Holy crap now I've heard it all - your posts remind me of something from the movie Idiocracy. "It doesn't matter if it's a bump or brace they're just words." Yeah words we use to describe events, words which are used specifically so that when we communicate we know that what we are saying will be understood and comprehended by the other person because there is a level of understanding that the definitions of those words are understood but I guess that is too much to ask sometimes, right?

What matters is not shoulder on head and the rules are quite clear on this. What matters is whether the player elected to bump or not which is why those "words" you disregard are actually quite important.

DA, can you help me, I've asked this question on the Adelaide board, but to no avail. What is the difference between a bump and a brace? As you've said, these words have specific meaning, and you clearly know the difference. I'm not sure how they differ, other than intent.

Can you bump off of one step? Don't you brace for impact when you bump someone as well? What does a bump 'without bracing for impact' look like?

I don't think this is even relevant to the appeal, as rough conduct is just about 'making forceful contact'. I'm just curious.

 

[The Scales]

Firstly, there is no precedent provision for the MRP, Tribunal or defence to call upon. Each case is solely decided on a stand-alone context.

Secondly, no new information is permitted to be produced at the appeal. Both of these situations preclude consistency and transparency, and are the bane of contention for all who are caught in this quasi-legal vortex, trying to defend / mitigate a defence.

My interpretation of the incident is as follows. Players Lynch and Viney were the most realistic posession winners of the loose ball ( the object of the game ), both players expended reasonable effort to acheive possesion, Lynch momentarily succeeded before player Georgiou tackles and disposesses Lynch, at which point, Viney decreases forward momentum toward the loose ball, and braces for impact. Inevitable, multiple impacts occur, occasioning a broken jaw to player Lynch.

No malice, nor intent to injure, was evident from player Viney, and Viney's only alternate option was not to have approached the contested ball in the first place. This would have earned him rebuke from all stake-holders connected with the AFL.

The appeal lodged by MFC is based "on the grounds the decision was so unreasonable no tribunal could have come to the decision it did". I concur, that a panel of ex-players should reasonably be expected to distinguish the difference between an harmful, malicious act, and an accidental outcome, despite fair and reasonable actions within the parameters of current legislation they are bound to uphold.

I feel ever so sorry for player Lynch, and hope he recovers quickly - physically, and mentally able to return to the game without fear, but if the appeal is rejected, I fear the game is in an unarrestable decline toward a non-contact entertainment.

 

[Plugger35]

So I have to live my whole life according to what a doctor says? Fair crack! If players want it played a certain way, if spectators want to watch a certain game, what gives anyone the right to come and cotton wool them? We live in a free country apparently, so why can't players decide their own appetite for risk. And clearly they're at odds with the way things are at the moment, as are the spectators.

I was concussed a few times playing football, once from a full blown kick to the head as I jumped on a ball that another player was trying to kick off the ground (player did his knee too btw). Would I have still played knowing the research that's coming out? Hell yes I would have. Just as I played knowing that some ex-players struggle to bend at the knees later in life. It's my freaking choice.



You talk about this like it's some kind of indisputable fact and expect me to just accept that it is. But no. I dispute this contention. In fact, I call bullshit. I reckon there's a chance it will actually go the other way. I have no problem with the AFL weeding out intentional head contact, but it's a contact sport and it's gonna happen sometimes. Needing to punish someone every time there's a head hit is not the right balance. And unless the right balance is found, that's when the game will erode. Already people are feeling disillusioned.

I'm sure most players are aware of the risk of injury and concussion when playing contact sports like football but are prepared to accept those risks as they love playing a tough physical contact sport. If that type of sport isn't for you there are plenty of non-contact sports around with a lower risk of injury/concussion.

All the hand wringing about players suffering long term damage from head knocks/concussion is way overstated, a very small percentage of footballers may suffer long term damage but the majority don't have any issues.

 

[The Scales]

DA, can you help me, I've asked this question on the Adelaide board, but to no avail. What is the difference between a bump and a brace? As you've said, these words have specific meaning, and you clearly know the difference. I'm not sure how they differ, other than intent.

Can you bump off of one step? Don't you brace for impact when you bump someone as well? What does a bump 'without bracing for impact' look like?

I don't think this is even relevant to the appeal, as rough conduct is just about 'making forceful contact'. I'm just curious.

imo, a bump is when you deliberately make forceful contact ( even off one step ), to impede an opponent, a brace is when a player knows contact is inevitable, and presents the smallest, strongest defensive position to absorb the hit, with minimal momentum.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

DA, can you help me, I've asked this question on the Adelaide board, but to no avail. What is the difference between a bump and a brace? As you've said, these words have specific meaning, and you clearly know the difference. I'm not sure how they differ, other than intent.

Can you bump off of one step? Don't you brace for impact when you bump someone as well? What does a bump 'without bracing for impact' look like?

I don't think this is even relevant to the appeal, as rough conduct is just about 'making forceful contact'. I'm just curious.

A bump is initiating the contact and following through with momentum a brace is trying to absorb the impact of an unavoidable collision.

In this instance, if Viney had elected to bump he would not have slowed down and would have kept running at pace through the ball ala Byron Pickett or Voss on the Collingwood player a decade ago.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

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?

Douglas elected to bump. Viney did not elect to bump. Viney braced for contact. Ergo, massive difference.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

There was a slight angle not much, it was not totally head on. From Viney's side they were going slightly to the left

Of course they were because they were both following the bounce of the ball a-derrrr.

 

[Slax]

Douglas elected to bump. Viney did not elect to bump. Viney braced for contact. Ergo, massive difference.

They actually are the same, that is the whole point of the tribunal decision. As you say Viney chose to enter into that physical position which is identical to the position taken in a bump, rather than any other position, thus meaning he chose to bump. Once the tribunal reached a decision that it was a concious decision to enter into that position then the result is a forgone conclusion, hence the two weeks, negligent, high, severe.

 

[Wood_Duck]

imo, a bump is when you deliberately make forceful contact ( even off one step ), to impede an opponent, a brace is when a player knows contact is inevitable, and presents the smallest, strongest defensive position to absorb the hit, with minimal momentum.

A bump is initiating the contact and following through with momentum a brace is trying to absorb the impact of an unavoidable collision.

In this instance, if Viney had elected to bump he would not have slowed down and would have kept running at pace through the ball ala Byron Pickett or Voss on the Collingwood player a decade ago.

I am amazed that you needed to actually explain that.

 

[DNine]

This thread proved one thing, without a shadow of doubt! You can't teach stupid. Stupid is a condition that one is too stupid to recover from.I feel sorrow and pity. So try all you want people, say thing what make perfect sense to those that agree with Viney's suspension, but you're are talking to that guy that doesn't use his indicator to change lanes and cuts you off, not looking where he is going, you're talking to the guy that infuriates us in our life everyday, when we sit back and say WTF goes through your head. There are just incredibly mindless morons out there, and when there is a very one sided discussion on these topics, they stupidly put their hand up the highest and say "Here I am".

I am being harsh, but these people wreck our society and although I pity them, I wish they would wake up, to make my day to day that much easier.