Jack Viney

[Plugger35]

I'm glad that Melbourne are appealing, it may not be successful but at least it sends a message to the AFL that clubs, players and supporters won't accept this bullshit.

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

It wouldn't have been copybook as they clashed heads but with no injury it may not have been looked at either.

The difference is Fyfe caused the contact by choosing to bump so had to wear the consequences, Viney just braced himself for contact that was unavoidable so shouldn't have to wear the consequences.

 

[The King!]

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.

yeah how come there are decisions like this where it seems like 95% of the fans/players/media agree on an issue, but we manage to get the tiny minority of people who have the contrary view somehow in power..... do people go for these jobs with the goal to ruin the game/annoy everyone?

 

[good4footy]

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.

What???

He would still have been graded. He went to the tribunal as the MRP had no idea how to treat it- in fact they said so. If injury is the only reason that people go to the tribunal then all broken jaws would lead to that but they don't. You are wrong as to why it went to the tribunal. Also Doesn't change the fact that guilt is on the action and level of suspension is on the injury.

Anyway, the real issue here is are we happy that players are being told that they should jump out of the way or risk getting suspended. Everything else is peripheral to this ridiculous outcome.

 

[DangerSloane]

yeah how come there are decisions like this where it seems like 95% of the fans/players/media agree on an issue, but we manage to get the tiny minority of people who have the contrary view somehow in power..... do people go for these jobs with the goal to ruin the game/annoy everyone?

Its all stemmed from the Ziebell one, since then theyve had to rub people out for utter rubbish.

 

[DangerSloane]

What???

He would still have been graded. He went to the tribunal as the MRP had no idea how to treat it- in fact they said so. If injury is the only reason that people go to the tribunal then all broken jaws would lead to that but they don't. You are wrong as to why it went to the tribunal. Also Doesn't change the fact that guilt is on the action and level of suspension is on the injury.

Anyway, the real issue here is are we happy that players are being told that they should jump out of the way or risk getting suspended. Everything else is peripheral to this ridiculous outcome.

What like Hodge last year when he broke Murphys jaw?

When he didnt even end up at the tribunal because it was deemed to be incidental contact?

 

[rocket18]

I assume a different panel will sit to hear the appeal, is there a chance he could get more games if they agree with the tribunal, they might assess it asess it as high/severe impact instead of medium.

Should have been thrown out but once found guilty the grading of medium for impact with a broken jaw is surprising.High = broken neck, severe = decapitation?

 

[Higgs Boson]

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.

The club will be appealing on the grounds that “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision given the evidence before it. I must say, that seemed to me to be the logical ground of appeal. It constitutes an alleged error of law, allowing reconsideration, without new evidence being needed.

High bar though - we have to effectively show the the decision wasn't open to the tribunal. Happily, we will be helped by the fact that counsel assisting, Gleeson, submitted that it was open to the tribunal to find that Viney didn't bump. Without that submission I think we'd be pushing shit uphill

 

[The King!]

Its all stemmed from the Ziebell one, since then theyve had to rub people out for utter rubbish.

True

and not picking on your club but the Mckernan one makes no sense in context with the rest, having said that douglas (or whoever it was) got reamed too.

This latest one is the continuation of a bigger problem that will no doubt get worse

 

[Trav 20]

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

There's a massive difference. In just about every other incident I can think of players have had choices whether to tackle, bump, or evade all together.

Viney embraced for inevitable contact once his pursuit of the footy came up short. He wasn't in the act of bumping, he was in the act of protecting himself. Although I'm far from surprised that you in particular don't understand how this case is markedly different to others.

 

[Pack Specialist]

The verdict is an insult to the multitude of players who go out and break their bodies for no or low pay, all around Autralia, every weekend.

It's an absolute disgrace.

 

[syl]

I assume a different panel will sit to hear the appeal, is there a chance he could get more games if they agree with the tribunal, they might assess it asess it as high/severe impact instead of medium.

Should have been thrown out but once found guilty the grading of medium for impact with a broken jaw is surprising.High = broken neck, severe = decapitation?

No chance for more games. Not how it works.

 

[schnoods]

Just like in real life, when if you punch someone in the head and they die you're up for manslaughter....
and if you punch someone in the head and they laugh and walk off you're a free man.

SAme punch, same action, different results, different punishment.

But if you are involved in a car accident and there is no evidence of recklessness or negligence and someone losses their life. There is no grounds for jail.

I think you are using the action as a form of malice where the debate that the whole footy world is arguing whether it actually was.

 

[ManOfClay]

There's a massive difference. In just about every other incident I can think of players have had choices whether to tackle, bump, or evade all together.

Viney embraced for inevitable contact once his pursuit of the footy came up short. He wasn't in the act of bumping, he was in the act of protecting himself. Although I'm far from surprised that you in particular don't understand how this case is markedly different to others.

That's it, go the man. Just like Viney

 

[Scodog10]

The club will be appealing on the grounds that “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision given the evidence before it. I must say, that seemed to me to be the logical ground of appeal. It constitutes an alleged error of law, allowing reconsideration, without new evidence being needed.

High bar though - we have to effectively show the the decision wasn't open to the tribunal. Happily, we will be helped by the fact that counsel assisting, Gleeson, submitted that it was open to the tribunal to find that Viney didn't bump. Without that submission I think we'd be pushing shit uphill

I guess it's a reasonably similar position to the Maxwell appeal...

At the end of the day my sincere hope is that he's cleared! Because as a person of similar stature to Viney I, and many others like me on the smaller side, was taught to protect ourselves at all costs. The nature of physics is if Viney doesn't turn to protect himself and leaves himself open at the contest he will be railroaded and to think that he should have pirouetted from contact is absurd

I applaud the kid no matter which way it goes. It's terribly unfortunate that Lynch has a broken jaw as a result of the contact, but our game should never reach a point where you are advised to avoid contact rather than protect yourself!

 

[AJB84]

What like Hodge last year when he broke Murphys jaw?

When he didnt even end up at the tribunal because it was deemed to be incidental contact?

That was last year this year would have been suspended

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

[JP Sauce]

The rules are ridiculous, but they ARE the rules at the moment. Viney is lucky he didn't get 4.

 

[good4footy]

What like Hodge last year when he broke Murphys jaw?

When he didnt even end up at the tribunal because it was deemed to be incidental contact?

Umm yes- exactly my point. He didn't go direct to the tribunal like you indicated all cases where there is a broken jaw go. That is what you said and in fact provided an example that is the opposite to what you said.

 

[pjcrows]

Haven't read over this thread, but how McKernan gets two weeks and Viney gets two weeks, for incidents not even 12 months apart, is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

No, they didn't and even if they did it is irrelevant. I'm telling you what happened, not what someone else thought should've happened.

 

[pjcrows]

You've got to love delusional Adelaide fans, wanting retribution comparing this to the Douglas hit.

They aren't even remotely similar.

Yep.

 

[Scodog10]

The rules are ridiculous, but they ARE the rules at the moment. Viney is lucky he didn't get 4.

This is a great point! I am clearly in favour of him getting off, but as soon as the verdict came back as guilty with an assessment of medium impact I was shocked.

It honestly looks like they tried to have a bet each way and manipulate things to get the suspension they felt was right i.e. They thought he was guilty but if it was assessed properly he gets 4 weeks and they thought it was worth 2 so they had to grade it so he gets 2.

What a joke!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

I agree. But Viney didn't bump which is why it is ridiculous he was suspended.

 

[Randy Campbell]

Lots of current and ex players are objecting, it makes me think who will be the first ex player to sue the AFL for head injuries caused by playing AFL.

 

[good4footy]

Demetriou saying that 'we may have gone too far to rectify the Thomas incident last year'.

Please let there be some influence at the top to address this ridiculous decision.

 

[Trav 20]

The rules are ridiculous, but they ARE the rules at the moment. Viney is lucky he didn't get 4.

The rules apply to a deliberate bump. Viney wasn't in the act of bumping, ergo the rule doesn't apply and the tribunal erred.