Jack Viney

[The Joker]

If he had tried to tackle it would have been Viney with the busted jaw .....

This is not fact. Why is everyone saying it like they know it would have happened.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Yes Gleeson,Jack needs a DeLorean with a flux capacitor!.

 

[Bluelegs]

This is not fact. Why is everyone saying it like they know it would have happened.

He certainly heightened his risk of injury had he elected to tackle. He tried to protect his own body. Should that be illegal if it accidentally causes the injury of another player? Can you 100% say that Lynch would be fine had Viney elected to tackle? He still would have been sandwiched between two players in a high speed collision.

 

[MUYB]

This is not fact. Why is everyone saying it like they know it would have happened.

Because the AFL did not attempt to argue it in their case against Viney. They argued a case in which Viney is required to avoid the contest, this case is not supported by the rules.

 

[The Joker]

Completely different scenarios - Douglas bumped someone off the ball, Fyfe elected to bump when he could have tackled/smothered. Fyfe should not have been suspended and Douglas was borderline but this situation is completely different.

You do know that is what the tribunal said of the Viney incident.

 

[Forward Press]

Piss-poor act, closing the main board thread 'I won't be watching Friday night football this week'.

The game's in the palliative care of lawyers. As is their way, the corporates have taken something original and unique and synthesised it, wrapped it up in glitzy packaging and told you to like it. Well I've seen the real thing, and I'm not buying this shit.

In 38 years I've never simply not gone to watch Richmond, but I'm doing it in Round 9 - my personal insignificant token protest at the running of the game. As for Round 10 and beyond, I don't know.

Don't know why that thread was closed.

Yes, players and fans should be voicing in a collective way. Lawyers do not own this game.

However, one or two, or 1000 people not turning up won't be noticed.

& why isnt this thread on the main board? This is not just a tribunal issue mods, Ant_,
Doss,Don Draper

Because you can obviously do it in this thread. As I stated before, this is a controversial issue and there will be heated debate, but that is not an excuse for multiple threads about boycotts and 'death of the game' etc etc.

Part of our duty also includes merging/closing threads when appropriate to ensure discussion is not all over the place and that we don't have multiple threads discussing essentially the same thing.

All discussion about MRP/tribunal stuff (and its consequences) belong here. Hence the name of the sub-forum. It was created so the main board isn't clogged with non-stop discussion on MRP/tribunal matters.

 

[The Joker]

He certainly heightened his risk of injury had he elected to tackle. He tried to protect his own body. Should that be illegal if it accidentally causes the injury of another player? Can you 100% say that Lynch would be fine had Viney elected to tackle? He still would have been sandwiched between two players in a high speed collision.

No I cant but then again i am not the one saying he would have been injured had he elected to tackle...

Because the AFL did not attempt to argue it in their case against Viney. They argued a case in which Viney is required to avoid the contest, this case is not supported by the rules.

Oh so it was going to happen then?

 

[MUYB]

It doesn't matter, the tribunal had a case put to them that Viney should have avoided the contest. The AFL did not put it to the tribunal that tackling was a reasonable alternative way for Viney to contest the ball, only that he should have not contested the ball in the first place, this case is not supported by the tribunal rules and should be pretty simply thrown out on appeal.

 

[I am Jack]

The AFL know people will still watch their product and immerse themselves in the business.
So basically the AFL can do what it likes with the game now.

The game of AFL as we knew it, basically it takes a back seat now - it does whatever is necessary for business.
What is good for business is that players don't get hurt.

Yet, on the other hand, what is best for the game - is that players continue to exert themselves at each contest.
Players contest the football to the best of their ability.
Business will not allow this. So, therefore the game has to change.

This is what happens when people no longer care about the product.
This is what happens when business know the people will buy the product regardless of how inferior it is.
The is no competition for the AFL, they'll only change their stance IF viewers switch off.

 

[Bluelegs]

No I cant but then again i am not the one saying he would have been injured had he elected to tackle...

It's irrelevant anyway as the argument against Viney was that he should have pivoted out of the way. The Tribunal decided that in the event of a collision that could cause injury a players duty of care is to avoid the contest altogether.

 

[AJB84]

The rule this year is Black and White

If you Bump ANY head injury is your fault

You may not agree with the rule but that is the rule this year

 

[pazza]

The rule this year is Black and White

If you Bump ANY head injury is your fault

You may not agree with the rule but that is the rule this year

Indeed it is pretty much as clear as that.

 

[MUYB]

The rule this year is Black and White

If you Bump ANY head injury is your fault

You may not agree with the rule but that is the rule this year

Actually the rules also state that that isn't the rule this year.

 

[Bluelegs]

The rule this year is Black and White

If you Bump ANY head injury is your fault

You may not agree with the rule but that is the rule this year

Which is a ridiculous rule considering the outcome of this case. If protecting your body and bracing for impact is considered a bump and a player is seen to have failed their duty of care by doing so then we have a confused and unjust rule.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

This social media backlash from Victorians is a joke...can you imagine if Lynch had been suspended because he broke Viney's jaw? Victorians would all be saying yeah fair result....

 

[Tulip]

This is the AFL these days. They wanted to find Viney guilty to appease the growing concern over head injuries. It didn't matter that it wasn't his fault, or that the manoeuvres suggested by that lawyer Gleeson were impossible, they wanted him to get done. An eye for an eye, these days. Even more insulting is that they then tried to get Viney off with just a few weeks rather than standing by their decision, resulting in this farcical grading of medium impact and rough conduct. The AFL will brush this under the carpet as they have all other issues, because they lack the intestinal fortitude to actually address what's going on in the game for the good of the fans rather than media deals. I'd vote with my feet if the football wasn't the best part of my week. Well done AFL, I am your slave and you know it.

 

[Tulip]

The rule this year is Black and White

If you Bump ANY head injury is your fault

You may not agree with the rule but that is the rule this year

So if you try to avoid a collision, it's then your fault for protecting yourself?

 

[MUYB]

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough
conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or
unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of
his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless
a.
he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b.
the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by
circumstances outside the control of the player which could not
reasonably be foreseen.
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing
with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head
injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by
all players and will guide the application of the rule.

That's from the 2013 book, the only change to 2014 is that head clashes are explicitly mentioned as being a foreseeable consequence for the case of point b.

Point A clearly lays out the fact that there is no requirement for a player to avoid a contest, the existence of that requirement is what the AFL case relied on.

 

[Jade]

I get the general idea that the AFL is protecting the head of players.

However, I think we also have to recognise that footy is a tough sport - and lets face it, shit happens.

Feel sorry for the kid, but more, feel sorry for the game - sad day.

 

[Bluelegs]

This social media backlash from Victorians is a joke...can you imagine if Lynch had been suspended because he broke Viney's jaw? Victorians would all be saying yeah fair result....

It's hardly just victorians.

 

[LeverPuller]

MFC going to appeal according to AFL website

 

[Tulip]

Good luck..chin Gil if you get a chance.

I would love to meet him in the street. People think things are going to change with him! You might get a bucket of chips for $6 rather than $6.50. That's about it. As I Am Jack says, we're all going to watch anyway.

 

[QS]

MFC going to appeal according to AFL website

Good. I hope they win.

 

[AJB84]

Actually the rules also state that that isn't the rule this year.

Actually the rules this year state if you bump you have a duty of care to the other player that is the rule ignorance is not an excuse

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

[MUYB]

Actually the rules this year state if you bump you have a duty of care to the other player that is the rule ignorance is not an excuse

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

I've actually posted the rules for you, the least you could do is read them. The rules state that a player will be found guilty of rough conduct UNLESS "The player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball"

The rules do not allow for avoiding the contest as a reasonable alternative, they specifically look only for alternative ways to contest the ball. The AFL case hinged on the fact that the reasonable alternative was for viney to avoid the contest altogother, when this is clearly not supported by the rules as written.