Jack Viney

[Demonic Ascent]

Two players running towards each other - the collision was inevitable. If Viney did not instinctively turn to the side to protect himself and collided into Lynch front on, it would have never been taken to the tribunal. So the tribunal essentially found him guilty of acting instinctively.

Take this further - had he attempted to tackle instead of bracing for contact and a clash of heads/faces occurred and there ended being a broken jaw, nose, fractured face/skull would he have still been sent to the tribunal? What is the difference between turning side on to absorb contact and standing front on to tackle if the end result is the same?

 

[Zgope1]

to me eye it looked bad first up with no reply. as soon as i saw the head high contact i thought he'd be gone. just how i saw it. surprised at all the surprise though. AFL's been moving this way for a while and head high contact's just never getting off

 

[Trav 20]

The fact that Fyfe and Douglas' opponents both played the following week and Lynch is out for 8 is also an important subtle point that you're forgetting.

Injuries from accidents have happened for 150 years.

 

[DangerSloane]

Injuries from accidents have happened for 150 years.

I know, its wrong.
I agree its wrong.
But if thats the way theyre going, the decision was correct.

 

[Scodog10]

I don't know how well they'll go with the appeal because I'm not sure there's any further evidence they can bring to the table, but they had to do it for the sake of the game.

At the end of the day I just hope that sanity prevails! A suspension for a player bracing themselves for contact is all kinds of wrong.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What this "stand his ground" business?

Viney was moving into to him. Viney wasn't standing still. He wasn't flying, but he lined him up. Unfortunately got his head.

Great effort to get the ball straight afterward. That was impressive. Kid can play.

I thought that initially too but he clearly had eyes for the ball and followed the ball's path - when the ball bounced sideways Viney stepped in that direction then upon realising Lynch would take possession stopped and turned to brace for the impact.

 

[DangerSloane]

Mate, I wasn't even having a dip at you so what are you on about?

Did I even quote your post?

It was a general comment aimed at those Adelaide fans that are citing the Douglas hit as a comparison and adopting a victim's mentality.....and there are plenty of them.

The incidents aren't comparible, but the ways they were dealt with are.
Both suffered from the fact that their contact caused injury to the other player. They were judged on the consequences of the action and not the action itself.

Douglas' hit wasnt high but Wards head hit the gorund causing injury meaning he had a case to answer
Viney's hit was an accident, but Lynch's jaw got broken meaning he had a case to answer

As I said its not right, but thats the way its heading.

 

[TARANTULA]

I don't know how well they'll go with the appeal because I'm not sure there's any further evidence they can bring to the table, but they had to do it for the sake of the game.

Hopefully sanity prevails! A suspension for a player bracing themselves for contact is all kinds of wrong.

Maybe the fact that every major person in the AFL world is slamming the decision might sway them?

 

[The Joker]

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.

And If Rischitelli didnt end up with a small cut Fyfes bump would have been copy book.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The incidents aren't comparible, but the ways they were dealt with are.
Both suffered from the fact that their contact caused injury to the other player. They were judged on the consequences of the action and not the action itself.

Douglas' hit wasnt high but Wards head hit the gorund causing injury meaning he had a case to answer
Viney's hit was an accident, but Lynch's jaw got broken meaning he had a case to answer

As I said its not right, but thats the way its heading.

That's fine mate, and I agree with you.

I am not sure what triggered your initial smartarse response though.

 

[Scodog10]

Maybe the fact that every major person in the AFL world is slamming the decision might sway them?

I don't know if that constitutes evidence, but hey if it gets the job done I'm right behind it

 

[SM]

I think they've seen red a bit with the wording of their appeal and that may come back to bite them.

 

[Sprout]

Very happy that this is being appealed. The club had to make a stand in this instance. So absurd.

 

[TheRedPill]

Really! and what special qualifications or knowledge does Tex have about the subject matter that would influence you to think that?

The point being that if anyone would take umbrage with Viney for any untoward involvement in breaking Lynch's jaw, it would be Lynch's teammate & mate. He's also an AFL footballer, which I'll hazard a guess you're not, so he has a better understanding of the split-second decisions playing at that level requires.

Surely you're not suggesting that the other two players are running towards Viney? The player moving the fastest in the incident is clearly Viney and he's certainly not doing so to get the ball which is already in possession of the Crows player. Have another look at the video and tell me at what point Viney has his eyes on the ball. Viney clearly intends to crash the contest in the hope it will free the ball and he can get possession and ironically enought that's exactly what happened.

You've actually managed to steer so far clear of the point I suspect this is a deliberately crafted troll. You are trolling, aren't you? But anyway, the situation has frustrated me, so I'll vent regardless.

Viney was running back with the flight, following the ball, it bounced in between him and Lynch/Georgiou as both Lynch and Viney for contesting for it. It bounced towards Lynch, and in order to protect himself from a 100kg+ unit from killing him, he braced for the impact. I really don't know what he was expected to do in that amount of time between when the ball bounced and when the impact was made - it was such a small window, maybe 0.2secs, I would say half a second at the most. Also, whether he could have moved or not, as an AFL footballer playing the game of Australian rules, there's no way he could've let Lynch run through with the ball and potentially set up an Adelaide attack. It's bad luck for Lynch, but I'd be gobsmacked if he held any grudges about it. Unless the AFL wants to remove all contact, which it seems they do, that will occasionally happen when a number of planets align.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I really wish someone, anyone, with some clout would dig their heels in and have a wack at the AFL and the tribunal for allowing this to happen.

There's far too many boys club ******s amongst the AFL who just trot out the old "this is what the game is now, I don't like it, but we have to accept it".
**** off, we have to accept it. Stand up for the game. Make those suits responsible for the decisions that they are making.


I really hope Mark Evans stands up and does something about this suspension, because it's quite clearly the wrong decision, and if he just sits by and lets this go while lining his pockets with coin, then he can **** right off too(with Vlad).

This game needs a re-direction. It needs some common sense to return, and some sanity. Suspending every player who injures an opponent is not common sense. It's ******* stupidity.

The game is not played in slo motion. It's played at break-neck speed, and accidents will happen. If someone could get this through to the *******s who govern this game, it would be in a much better state right now(and I wouldn't be so damn angry).

I don't think there is any one person that can change anything and I doubt Gillon plans to unless his hand is forced.

Collectively, fans as a group, can make a difference. However this would need to be drastic and well organised. If enough fans agreed not to show up to their game on the same week to the point where it decimated crowd numbers, this would be something that the AFL would not be able to ignore and would be forced to respond to. All of us on Bigfooty would be a good start. Alternatively we could turn up but choose not to take a seat. It has to be something noticeable though.

The AFL are pretty much an autocratic dictatorship and treat us accordingly. We can whinge and moan as much as we like on Social Media etc but if we continue to show up to games like we do, the AFL has no need to act. Think increased ticket prices, food and drink prices going up, rule changes. It's been happening for years and continues to happen regardless of how much we voice our disapproval.

Unfortunately they have either completely forgotten or decided to deliberately neglect the fact that it is the FANS that own this game.

 

[good4footy]

I know, its wrong.
I agree its wrong.
But if thats the way theyre going, the decision was correct.

He wasn't found guilty because the person got injured. Guilt is on the action and level of suspension is on the injury.

Also this issue is not comparable to any other suspension. The tribunal has said his only option was to jump out of the way but still suspended him. If everyone can stop trying to link it to other cases when they clearly are not relevant and blurring the conversation, it may help everyone stay focused on saving our game.

Thankfully they are appealing a decision that states a player must jump out of the way and avoid contact.

 

[Tiger_man322]

Absolute disgrace he got done. If he doesn't get a successful appeal, I'll be joing Dermie in boycotting attending future games. Bloody joke the state the sport is in right now.

 

[ManOfClay]

His shoulder does make contact with Lynch's jaw. It's just another borderline call the tribunal has made, no worse than any other.

 

[MUYB]

I think they've seen red a bit with the wording of their appeal and that may come back to bite them.

This is my reading of it too. I am hoping it is just a bit of flying the flag in the media and not wanting to give away our case before the appeal is heard but if not we could be in trouble.

Melbourne cannot afford to make this a crusade against the tribunal, we need to focus on the particular deficiencies of the case presented("realistic alternative" vs "realistic aalternative way to contest the ball"). If we do that we stand a really good chance of beating this.

If on the other hand we go in with "the whole damn system is out of order" nobody knows what the result will be.

 

[DangerSloane]

That's fine mate, and I agree with you.

I am not sure what triggered your initial smartarse response though.

You were making a blanket statement about one team's supporters, when really I think you were basing it on my post which you didnt intepret correctly.

 

[SM]

This is my reading of it too. I am hoping it is just a bit of flying the flag in the media and not wanting to give away our case before the appeal is heard but if not we could be in trouble.

Melbourne cannot afford to make this a crusade against the tribunal, we need to focus on the particular deficiencies of the case presented("realistic alternative" vs "realistic aalternative way to contest the ball"). If we do that we stand a really good chance of beating this.

If on the other hand we go in with "the whole damn system is out of order" nobody knows what the result will be.

Yeah that's my take, they seem to be going in all guns blazing when this is a time for cool heads to prevail and to calmly and sensibly argue their case, because if they do so I would be fairly certain he would get off.

 

[DangerSloane]

He wasn't found guilty because the person got injured. Guilt is on the action and level of suspension is on the injury.

Also this issue is not comparable to any other suspension. The tribunal has said his only option was to jump out of the way but still suspended him. If everyone can stop trying to link it to other cases when they clearly are not relevant and blurring the conversation, it may help everyone stay focused on saving our game.

Thankfully they are appealing a decision that states a player must jump out of the way and avoid contact.

Its not my fault you dont understand my point.
He would not have even been AT the tribunal if not for the injury.

So your first sentence is rubbish.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You were making a blanket statement about one team's supporters, when really I think you were basing it on my post which you didnt intepret correctly.

Well I wasn't basing it on your post at all. I was basing it on what I have seen and read from Adelaide supporters over the past 72 hours. It is pure coincidence that it followed one of your comments.

 

[Magnum27]

Questions need to be asked of the MRP members who sent this straight to the tribunal, surely they could have said it was accidental contact and not a reportable incident and thrown it out, they do that on a regular basis. Then the tribunal decided it was worth a suspension, when they too could have thrown it out in a heartbeat.

Remembering both these groups are ex AFL players that decided all of this. WTF were these clowns thinking.

 

[Monkey King]

Great to see so many players risking fines and Tweeting in opposition to the decision, even if some have deleted them

http://www.footyjunkie.com.au/news/jack-viney-suspended-twitter-meltdown/

Viney verdict is a joke I'm starting to hate watching our game - David Wirrpanda

I get the same feeling sometimes Wirra. Clearly there are elements about our game that the administrators don't like and want to change. My question is, why then did they get involved in our game to begin with? If they don't want those elements in their sport, go choose a different sport FFS. You blokes aren't doing anyone any favours when ex-players, supporters and media are all becoming disillusioned with the game.