Remove this Banner Ad

Jack Viney

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armadeo said:
I am just not seeing this. I see Viney divert his path towards Lynch in the last moments. He is just moving towards the wide angle shot making it seem like he is not moving much. Lynch is moving towards the ball and gets first hands on. Viney made no effort to play the ball.
Click to expand...

Jack Viney is one of the toughest and fairest young players you WILL EVER SEE , Not for a second was he taking the cheap bump
I challenge you to watch this kid play and you will see that he is as footy focused a kid as there is out there and I see it as a disgrace that you are questioning whether he was going for the footy

Jack Viney plays they game exactly how it should be played and a suspension just rewarding playings who go in second even more
 
King Hansen said:
No effort to play the ball? Ofcourse he was playing the ball (he had 3/10 of a second to realise Lynch was about to beat him so braced himself). He did win the hard ball after all didnt he? Yes Lynch got his hands on the ball first but I was not aware we had a first hands on rule in our game?

And divery his path? What by like 5 degrees? He was going for the ball like I said and where did the ball go? into Lynch's hands right? so I guess that answers some of your questions. The AFL can tell Champion Data to not keep stats of hard ball gets in the future if Viney gets weeks.

BTW, if Jack's last name was Ziebell, that's a 6 weeker easily.
Click to expand...

You might be right, I just can't see it. I guess the 3/10 of a second thing doesn't fly with me. He must have made a decision to brace/bump (honestly do not know if it makes a difference) at sometime, stuck to it and got him high accidentally or not he has to go. (Rule is BS but it is what it is)
 
J_Moore said:
I reckon he deserves to go. He arrived at the contest late and injured a guy. Seems pretty similar to collecting a guy just after he's taken a mark, really.

edit: to clarify, I think it was a free kick, since he collected him high, and since the tribunal penalties now take into account the results of an action in determining a penatly, I think Viney deserves to go based on those criteria. Not a moral "I think it was a dog act" deserves to go.
Click to expand...
Wasn't late, as SSF said earlier he had less than half a second to react... What can you (not you in particular) do in half a second?
 
nickgrant69 said:
Jack Viney is one of the toughest and fairest young players you WILL EVER SEE , Not for a second was he taking the cheap bump
I challenge you to watch this kid play and you will see that he is as footy focused a kid as there is out there and I see it as a disgrace that you are questioning whether he was going for the footy

Jack Viney plays they game exactly how it should be played and a suspension just rewarding playings who go in second even more
Click to expand...

Look I'll be honest. A game involving Melbourne isn't exactly a game I hesitate to delete on foxtel each week and I have not had much experience watching him play. The passage of play that I saw on the tribunal website was nothing short of outstanding. BUT the rule is clear that you elect to bump and cause high contact you are gone. I honestly believe that at some point during this encounter he believed that the bump was on and followed through.

We can argue about his alternatives but I don't think it is relevant, when encountering a player in this instance you are bumping or you are tackling. He definitely was not applying a tackle.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

DD#23 said:
give it a rest you flog, Lynch had eyes for the footy, Viney had eyes for Lynch.
Click to expand...
Viney had eyes for the ball, the only time his eyes were on Lynch was when Lynch had the ball
 
Western Bulldogs supporters quietly praying he gets rubbed out this week

They have nobody that can stop him
 
nickgrant69 said:
Jack Viney is one of the toughest and fairest young players you WILL EVER SEE , Not for a second was he taking the cheap bump
I challenge you to watch this kid play and you will see that he is as footy focused a kid as there is out there and I see it as a disgrace that you are questioning whether he was going for the footy

Jack Viney plays they game exactly how it should be played and a suspension just rewarding playings who go in second even more
Click to expand...
I agree, but neither was Fyfe or plenty of others.

the precedent has been set, his intentions are irrelevant, he bumped Lynch and caused a serious head injury. Case closed I'm afraid. It's just a matter of whether he escapes with a reprimand or gets weeks.
 
DD#23 said:
I agree, but neither was Fyfe or plenty of others.

the precedent has been set, his intentions are irrelevant, he bumped Lynch and caused a serious head injury. Case closed I'm afraid. It's just a matter of whether he escapes with a reprimand or gets a week or weeks.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's not Lynch's fault or Viney's. It's just the rules now unfortunately.
 
Armadeo said:
Look I'll be honest. A game involving Melbourne isn't exactly a game I hesitate to delete on foxtel each week and I have not had much experience watching him play. The passage of play that I saw on the tribunal website was nothing short of outstanding. BUT the rule is clear that you elect to bump and cause high contact you are gone. I honestly believe that at some point during this encounter he believed that the bump was on and followed through.

We can argue about his alternatives but I don't think it is relevant, when encountering a player in this instance you are bumping or you are tackling. He definitely was not applying a tackle.
Click to expand...

Look mate I have no doubt in my mind this kid in a few years will captain the MFC and he will be looked at as the Hodge/Selwood of Melbourne
He does not take a bump because he is worried about contact, I have never seen a kid so dedicated to winning the footy before his opponent at melbourne and you can see how quickly he recovered to win the footy and then shrug another tackle and fire off a handball
He had no intention of bumping Lynch and if he gets rubbed out then the idea of going for the footy at all costs is gone now and it will only be the person who is closest to it who can win it
 

Remove this Banner Ad

All these Adelaide people saying that Viney ran flat out at Lynch.. Watch the damn footage again.. Viney covered less than a metre of ground while lynch covered 7m+.. Hence, viney didn't bump, he turned and protected himself (each frame is 1/30 of a second, so he had about 4/30s of a second to protect himself)

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


Now, tell me who ran at who.
 
ptrg said:
All these Adelaide people saying that Viney ran flat out at Lynch.. Watch the damn footage again.. Viney covered less than a metre of ground while lynch covered 7m+.. Hence, viney didn't bump, he turned and protected himself (each frame is 1/30 of a second, so he had about 4/30s of a second to protect himself)

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


Now, tell me who ran at who.
Click to expand...
Viney was front on then elects to turns 90 degrees and bumps why not face the way he was and tackle?
 
Armadeo said:
You might be right, I just can't see it. I guess the 3/10 of a second thing doesn't fly with me. He must have made a decision to brace/bump (honestly do not know if it makes a difference) at sometime, stuck to it and got him high accidentally or not he has to go. (Rule is BS but it is what it is)
Click to expand...
If you take your eyes off the road for a split second, and when you look back, you have to swerve to avoid hitting something,did you make he choice to swerve, or is it a reflex to avoid he collision?
I actually agreed with the fyfe decision, but this one is definitely a reflex action to protect himself
 
jangofett said:
4+ weeks
Click to expand...


You are kidding yourself and are blinded by your pro-Adelaide bias.

If Jack Viney goes for that I am done with the AFL. The kid had nowhere to go. You can put up all of the stills and freeze-frames you like but know that you are wrong. In real time, what else was Viney supposed to do? If he avoids contact he is a jib and cops a roasting for both his coach, his teammates and his fans. So he stood his ground. He did nothing more than that. He simply stood his ground and braced for contact as he is entitled to do. He didn't bump the player at all. Wake up to yourself.

The fact that this has even been referred is an indictment on those responsible for the game.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ptrg said:
All these Adelaide people saying that Viney ran flat out at Lynch.. Watch the damn footage again.. Viney covered less than a metre of ground while lynch covered 7m+.. Hence, viney didn't bump, he turned and protected himself (each frame is 1/30 of a second, so he had about 4/30s of a second to protect himself)

Now, tell me who ran at who.
Click to expand...

Serious rubbish. Grasping at straws. Viney clearly had a choice and chose to bump. Like it or not he contacted the head (plain and blatantly obvious by the video. There is no possible argument about that). Hence it's gone to the tribunal. I don't agree with it going to the tribunal, nor Douglas's nor Fyfe's nor Gia's punishments, but supporters have no say in how much the AFL can **** up the world's most exciting game.
 
footy4ever said:
Serious rubbish. Grasping at straws. Viney clearly had a choice and chose to bump. Like it or not he contacted the head (plain and blatantly obvious by the video. There is no possible argument about that). Hence it's gone to the tribunal. I don't agree with it going to the tribunal, nor Douglas's nor Fyfe's nor Gia's punishments, but supporters have no say in how much the AFL can **** up the world's most exciting game.
Click to expand...


Utter, utter bullshit.

He had a split second to make a decision. And it is absolutely arguable that he made contact to the head.
 
ptrg said:
All these Adelaide people saying that Viney ran flat out at Lynch.. Watch the damn footage again.. Viney covered less than a metre of ground while lynch covered 7m+.. Hence, viney didn't bump, he turned and protected himself (each frame is 1/30 of a second, so he had about 4/30s of a second to protect himself)

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png


Now, tell me who ran at who.
Click to expand...
If Lynch covered 7m in 4/30ths of a second, it means he could run the 100 metres in about 2 seconds flat. That looks about 4 metres (two tall player's heights) which means that he can do the 100m in 4 seconds.

Maybe my maths is off, but I think that is longer than 4/30ths of a second, or both players are closing on each other rapidly.
 
footy4ever said:
Like it or not he contacted the head (plain and blatantly obvious by the video. There is no possible argument about that).
Click to expand...

Gerard Wheatley, Robbo, Dermott B, and Mark Thompson all disagree with you, and in the space of 2 minutes. Imagine how many more disagree with your offended opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

BrodeeKF
Jack Ginnivan on Jack Graham; Liam Baker fine
Replies
1
Views
500
BrodeeKF
BrodeeKF

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom