Jack Viney

[Slax]

That's the whole point, Viney could not have avoided contact even had he wanted to once he had committed to contesting the loose ball. By the time Lynch took possession it was too late to avoid contact which is why he braced for the collision.

That's crap, if you have time to brace for a collision you have time to take evasive action or other action to ensure legal contact is made. Viney decide on what course of action he would take, unfortunately this lead him to make head high contact with Lynch and as such he has to take responsibility for that decision.

 

[Mattrox]

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



100% incorrect.

Have a look at any dictionary.

Viney elected to enter a contest with two people travelling directly at him, the result of which was always going to be impact. Electing to contest and high contact together leave the tribunal no option.

It's a dumb rule. The definition of negligence makes Viney's decision to contest negligent.

However, if in the rough conduct section, the charge is only raised by reckless and deliberate actions then these cases would be easier to adjudicate.

It's a little like a case where someone runs onto the road from behind parked cars and straight infront of a car and the driver hits the person. The driver is at fault merely by electing to get into the car. And the only way to shed the responsibility is to prove the person deliberately ran in front of the car.

 

[LeverPuller]

That's crap, if you have time to brace for a collision you have time to take evasive action or other action to ensure legal contact is made. Viney decide on what course of action he would take, unfortunately this lead him to make head high contact with Lynch and as such he has to take responsibility for that decision.

When running at full tilt with a foot already planted. With the ball in dispute until the very end of the contact.

And be forever lampooned as a squib.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's crap, if you have time to brace for a collision you have time to take evasive action or other action to ensure legal contact is made. Viney decide on what course of action he would take, unfortunately this lead him to make head high contact with Lynch and as such he has to take responsibility for that decision.

OK, if you are able to perform those actions while attacking the ball at maximum speed with another player coming directly at you at maximum speed please feel free to upload your video here for us.

Otherwise I'll disregard your assertion because based on my perception, the beliefs of countless former and current players and the laws of physics.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Viney elected to enter a contest with two people travelling directly at him, the result of which was always going to be impact. Electing to contest and high contact together leave the tribunal no option.

It's a dumb rule. The definition of negligence makes Viney's decision to contest negligent.

However, if in the rough conduct section, the charge is only raised by reckless and deliberate actions then these cases would be easier to adjudicate.

It's a little like a case where someone runs onto the road from behind parked cars and straight infront of a car and the driver hits the person. The driver is at fault merely by electing to get into the car. And the only way to shed the responsibility is to prove the person deliberately ran in front of the car.

No, the rule clearly begins with the "electing to bump" factor not "electing to contest" which is a ridiculous assertion. If this factor is discounted (electing to bump) then the rest of the rule does not apply.

 

[Wood_Duck]

If you read this thread without prejudice, you would appreciate both Demonic Ascent and myself were replying to a direct question from MattyB_76. Your condescension is duly noted, and is befitting of your chosen user name.

Erm what?

 

[Wood_Duck]

Wood_Duck actually agrees with us on this one as his posts earlier in the thread demonstrate; his post is in regards to how stupid it is that some people actually can't differentiate between the two actions and that it is necessary for us to have to explain it.

I'll assume that now you've explained it I'll get an apology.

 

[Mr Magic]

Viney elected to enter a contest with two people travelling directly at him, the result of which was always going to be impact. Electing to contest and high contact together leave the tribunal no option.

It's a dumb rule. The definition of negligence makes Viney's decision to contest negligent.

However, if in the rough conduct section, the charge is only raised by reckless and deliberate actions then these cases would be easier to adjudicate.

It's a little like a case where someone runs onto the road from behind parked cars and straight infront of a car and the driver hits the person. The driver is at fault merely by electing to get into the car. And the only way to shed the responsibility is to prove the person deliberately ran in front of the car.

Actually if the bold is the rule thats fine, high contact was made, contact was unavoidable, high contact was not unavoidable IMO, you could argue slight recklessness or negligence, but as i mentioned before, MFC really should be pushing for a reduction allowing for the high force coming the other way from Georgio and Lynch contributing to the impact and result. If I was them I would be pushing 2 weeks to 1

 

[The Scales]

I'll assume that now you've explained it I'll get an apology.

Just done, edit to original post just submitted, please accept in good faith.

 

[JackFlash]

The one thing that is perfectly clear on the video is Viney's intent on getting the ball, his focus was on the ball, in fact after the collision he gets up and actually takes possession and clears the ball out! It was always his natural instinct. He did exactly what every Demons fan has wanted to see for the last 10 years, a Joel Selwood type action, get in and get the ball and get it out to a teammate. I applaud Jack Viney's playing style, he's a gun.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Just done, edit to original post just submitted, please accept in good faith.

No probs. All good

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Actually if the bold is the rule thats fine

The bold isn't the rule, the rule talks about "electing to bump" not "electing to enter a contest".

 

[Mattrox]

No, the rule clearly begins with the "electing to bump" factor not "electing to contest" which is a ridiculous assertion. If this factor is discounted (electing to bump) then the rest of the rule does not apply.

It actually states "bumping or making forceful contact".



Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Magic]

It actually states "bumping or making forceful contact".



Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

In that case Viney still guilty question is the severity IMO

 

[DNine]

If you are finding yourself trying to get the weight of numbers more in your favour by saying the same things in each of your different accounts that you have created on Big Footy over the years, then you just need to have a good hard look at yourself, and think, am I that pig headed and argumentitive that I can't have a say about something, and leave it at that, and not try to sway the overwhelming majority on an issue that is unswayable. Give it up, there is no way there is this many idiots, it is more likely the one idiot what 6 times now? No one agrees with you apart from the AFL Tribunal so give it up. Oh and Leigh Matthews, what a joke he is looking right now. Have not heard one supporter on the radio today, and I am listening, believe me. I am searching for my second ex AFL player, Media person or player.

If an Adelaide champion wants player to strike, that says something. And Peter Larkins is saying he would of done his knee if he tried to avoid fugme, lets think we are smarter than a Dr now.

And Mr Magic, you seriously need to back down and concede for the first time in your argumentive life.

 

[DNine]

"OH, I see where you are coming from now, I have change my mind" Said no one ever on Big Footy LOL.

 

[Mr Magic]

If you are finding yourself trying to get the weight of numbers more in your favour by saying the same things in each of your different accounts that you have created on Big Footy over the years, then you just need to have a good hard look at yourself, and think, am I that pig headed and argumentitive that I can't have a say about something, and leave it at that, and not try to sway the overwhelming majority on an issue that is unswayable. Give it up, there is no way there is this many idiots, it is more likely the one idiot what 6 times now? No one agrees with you apart from the AFL Tribunal so give it up. Oh and Leigh Matthews, what a joke he is looking right now. Have not heard one supporter on the radio today, and I am listening, believe me. I am searching for my second ex AFL player, Media person or player.

If an Adelaide champion wants player to strike, that says something. And Peter Larkins is saying he would of done his knee if he tried to avoid fugme, lets think we are smarter than a Dr now.

Leigh Mathews is a similar height than Viney he would now.

You just arguing for embarrassing mob rule on emotion by a few that want to cry is not healthy or productive in terms of developing consensus.

What I am talking about is the health of the game.

If the Viney incident is passed as okay, without valid foundation then the AFL, the game and the players long term has big problems!

I am not the only one here.


Can someone arguing for Viney to be let off list when is it okay to contact a players head on field and sign off on it?

If Lynch died from the contact what then?

What if Lynch got hit in the temple and thats it for him?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Can someone arguing for Viney to be let off list when is it okay to contact a players head on field and sign off on it?

Just ask Brett Deledio.

 

[Mr Magic]

If you are finding yourself trying to get the weight of numbers more in your favour by saying the same things in each of your different accounts that you have created on Big Footy over the years, then you just need to have a good hard look at yourself, and think, am I that pig headed and argumentitive that I can't have a say about something, and leave it at that, and not try to sway the overwhelming majority on an issue that is unswayable. Give it up, there is no way there is this many idiots, it is more likely the one idiot what 6 times now? No one agrees with you apart from the AFL Tribunal so give it up. Oh and Leigh Matthews, what a joke he is looking right now. Have not heard one supporter on the radio today, and I am listening, believe me. I am searching for my second ex AFL player, Media person or player.

If an Adelaide champion wants player to strike, that says something. And Peter Larkins is saying he would of done his knee if he tried to avoid fugme, lets think we are smarter than a Dr now.

And Mr Magic, you seriously need to back down and concede for the first time in your argumentive life.

Not backing down until someone can put foundation into the opposite argument.

At the moment the opposers have not put forward a valid argument IMO

 

[Mr Magic]

Just ask Brett Deledio.

IMO Deledio should not be playing either so that won't help you with my argument

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It actually states "bumping or making forceful contact".

Actually having a look at the rule book, the only relevant one I can find states;

19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a reportable offence
(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable

There is nothing else in the reportable offences section I can find which refers to rough conduct (which Viney was charged under) and the only reference to bumping is:

19.2.2(g)(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has their head down over the football

which is not relevant in this instance as Lynch did not have his head down over the football. To explain what they mean by "head down over the football" there is a diagram under 15.4.5(n) which is the section which discusses free kicks.

If there is another section of the Rule Book which applies I'd like to see it but from what I can gather the issue in this case is whether the circumstances were "unreasonable". There is nothing else I can find however I assumed the AFL had included something about "accidental head contact when electing to bump" which they have referred to as changing last year due to the Thomas/Reid incident however I can't see that anywhere and it's not on their website (that I can see) where they explain the rule changes for 2014.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2212 LawsAusFootball_Web.pdf

http://www.afl.com.au/laws

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

IMO Deledio should not be playing either so that won't help you with my argument

Scott Thompson on Steve Johnson.

 

[DNine]

Leigh Mathews is a similar height than Viney he would now.

You just arguing for embarrassing mob rule on emotion by a few that want to cry is not healthy or productive in terms of developing consensus.

What I am talking about is the health of the game.

If the Viney incident is passed as okay, without valid foundation then the AFL, the game and the players long term has big problems!

I am not the only one here.


Can someone arguing for Viney to be let off list when is it okay to contact a players head on field and sign off on it?

If Lynch died from the contact what then?

What if Lynch got hit in the temple and thats it for him?

Got your second person for me yet, until then I read about three words of your message and give up. You are embarrassing yourself, SERIOUSLY.

 

[Mr Magic]

Scott Thompson on Steve Johnson.

Can't remember those incidents but I don't care who the player is or their name.

If guilty they 2 should be out for a little while.

If all players are shocked into the reality do not touch the head or your are highly likely to be in trouble that is a good thing IMO and parents will play more kids!

 

[Mr Magic]

Got your second person for me yet, until then I read about three words of your message and give up.

I don't stand for mob rule!

I thought I made that clear?