Jack Viney

[masai]

I understand that the Lonie brothers have signalled their intention to return to the AFL, by nominating for this years draft.

 

[pazza]

If it means no more BS incorrect and soft decisions, then yes.

Typical.

Let's attack great football people and play the man. Geez I love football..shame there's so many idiots.

 

[NarniMagic]

I'm not so sure. Douglas and Fyfe were clear victims of the Thomas rule change. Whether or not you agree with that rule change it at least had a clear principle behind it that head clashes still count as bumps and all players had an intent to bump.

The Viney decision is more about the outrage over bumps that's been evident for some years now and has just been building up year after year. For the last couple of years any contact between a shoulder and a head has been instant suspension. The Viney case is really the next level continuation of the Ziebell case where it doesn't matter what a player was doing - going for the ball, bracing for contact etc - they are gone regardless. The outlier here is the Hodge double decisions where some how he got away with one for being a genuine contest and then a second because Roughy was in his way. His defensive was no other reasonable course of action and inevitable contact. Funnily 2 of the 3 tribunal members were the same ones as last night.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...h-conduct-charge/story-fni5f8ge-1226664950294

You make a good point about the Hodge incident. It seems like MRP doesn't even know what the **** they're doing. People wouldn't have as much of a problem with these calls if they were at least consistent within their own rules.
And I'm not directly comparing the incidents exactly. All I'm saying is that the Viney case fits the trend of looking at a result of an action, rather than acknowledging the intent. When you start prosecuting players for headclashes, whether in the action of a bump or not, you're going down a slippery slope in regards to the 'duty of care'. Look at it this way, the MRP say Thomas/Douglas had an alternative, which was to... not bump? But yet players lay a fair, non head high bump 100 times in a toughly contested game such as a final, and that's fine because no one is injured. So what are you actually prosecuting Thomas/Douglas for? Lacking duty of care? They didn't it the opponents head with their shoulder, it was a head clash. You can't say, well the alternative was to hit a bump without a head clash, because a head clash is a pure accident that the player laying the bump has no control over.

In the same vein, Viney had no control over what happened in his incident. The alternative was to 'not contest the ball' just like in the other cases the alternative was 'not to bump'. And yet these incidents wouldn't be given a second though if no injury resulted. The whole situation is just absurd.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What the hell is Brad Scott going on about - he seems to want to bring everything back to Lindsay Thomas.

Lindsay Thomas changed direction had eyes for the man, jumped off the ground and took him out. There was an accidental head clash, but the headclash could easily have been avoided if Thomas hadn't leapt off the ground, or elected to bump in a situation where it wasn't warranted.

Compare that with Viney - two blokes going for the ball and due to the vagaries of the oval ball one gets it first (sort of) and two blokes run into each other.

I do believe Scott has a persecution complex.

What Thomas did is miles from what Taylro Hunt (and Fyfe) did - and not on the same planet as Viney.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I have read some arguments surrounding whether the outcome should come into play.

I just don't think it should come into play for negligent events.

We have some major issues in the game where the McKernan hit on Sheppard and the Merrett hit on Swallow both cop 3 down to 2 weeks.

Yet Viney cops the same suspension.

Not enough weight is given to deliberate events and too much to negligent.

 

[NarniMagic]

What the hell is Brad Scott going on about - he seems to want to bring everything back to Lindsay Thomas.

Lindsay Thomas changed direction had eyes for the man, jumped off the ground and took him out. There was an accidental head clash, but the headclash could easily have been avoided if Thomas hadn't leapt off the ground, or elected to bump in a situation where it wasn't warranted.

Compare that with Viney - two blokes going for the ball and due to the vagaries of the oval ball one gets it first (sort of) and two blokes run into each other.

I do believe Scott has a persecution complex.

What Thomas did is miles from what Taylro Hunt (and Fyfe) did - and not on the same planet as Viney.

He's not saying they're similar, just that it is part of the domino effect of outlawing accidents. It's not that hard to grasp...

 

[master bate]

What the hell is Brad Scott going on about - he seems to want to bring everything back to Lindsay Thomas.

Lindsay Thomas changed direction had eyes for the man, jumped off the ground and took him out. There was an accidental head clash, but the headclash could easily have been avoided if Thomas hadn't leapt off the ground, or elected to bump in a situation where it wasn't warranted.

Compare that with Viney - two blokes going for the ball and due to the vagaries of the oval ball one gets it first (sort of) and two blokes run into each other.

I do believe Scott has a persecution complex.

What Thomas did is miles from what Taylro Hunt (and Fyfe) did - and not on the same planet as Viney.

What possibly could give you that idea? Was it the closing of the roof?

But I agree it's way way different to Viney of which the best comparison is Hodge last year.

But whilst Thomas was nastier and meaner than Hunt and Fyfe it was a similar action. You can't ban mean head clashes but leave in nice head clashes, the rule on head clashes has to be clear and as Scott says 85% of coaches wanted them gone. They should either throw out head clashes or grade simple non dangerous ones as 50 points and a reprimand and the worse ones with injuries at 150 points. No head clash should be more than one week as by default they were accidents.

 

[Plugger35]

Sounds like the appeal will be successful going by Demetriou's comments.

I think the AFL are worried about an even bigger backlash from the media, players and supporters if this decision isn't overturned and so they should be.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What possibly could give you that idea? Was it the closing of the roof?

But I agree it's way way different to Viney of which the best comparison is Hodge last year.

But whilst Thomas was nastier and meaner than Hunt and Fyfe it was a similar action. You can't ban mean head clashes but leave in nice head clashes, the rule on head clashes has to be clear and as Scott says 85% of coaches wanted them gone. They should either throw out head clashes or grade simple non dangerous ones as 50 points and a reprimand and the worse ones with injuries at 150 points. No head clash should be more than one week as by default they were accidents.

Of course you can

When you leap in the air and elect to bump someone when a ball is about to run out of bounds - any head contact is foreseeable as you have made a conscious decision to do it.

When two blokes are running hell for leather at a pill and in a split section you are colliding and one braces and another doesn't - let it go.

Thomas should have known when he leapt of the ground with eyes for the man there was a fair chance he'd get him high. Whether it be shoulder or head.

Viney on the other hand had no time to make that assessment. I'll leave the Fyfe one, but Taylor Hunt had no option but to shepherd and he did so with all precautions.

 

[masai]

Interesting post.

Schimma was nothing more than a champion who played the game fairly. Can't recall him ever throwing a cut lunch in anger. A man to be respected.

Henwood was probably the other way...he actually didn't mind throwing his weight around.

The thing with it though is if the appeal stands, the integrity of and the independence of the Tribunal process comes into question, as does the integrity of those who sit in judgement. Is that what we really want?

Yep, Schimma was very fair, Henwood was at the opposite end.

I was just wondering about Shimma & Co's thought process's.

 

[getthefooty]

Sounds like the appeal will be successful going by Demetriou's comments.

I think the AFL are worried about an even bigger backlash from the media, players and supporters if this decision isn't overturned and so they should be.

Bingo, I'd be very surprised if this one wasn't overturned.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

He's not saying they're similar, just that it is part of the domino effect of outlawing accidents. It's not that hard to grasp...

Thomas' bump wasn't an accident. He chose to change direction and jump into a bloke when the ball was running out of bounds.

That's a far cry from Fyfe, Hunt or Viney.

Unless you are contesting the ball in the air (like Jordan Lewis a few years back) - if you elect to jump off the ground you take what comes your way IMO.

 

[NarniMagic]

Thomas' bump wasn't an accident. He chose to change direction and jump into a bloke when the ball was running out of bounds.

That's a far cry from Fyfe, Hunt or Viney.

Unless you are contesting the ball in the air (like Jordan Lewis a few years back) - if you elect to jump off the ground you take what comes your way IMO.

The headclash part was an accident though. What if Thomas himself was knocked out from it? Do you still suspend or just laugh at him? What if a player breaks someone's ribs in a particularly strong tackle? Do you see the issue here?

And BTW the Lewis comment is just ridiculous cos Ziebell got rubbed out for the exact same thing, contesting a ball midair, so clearly even the MRP have nfi what they're doing.

 

[Monkey King]

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?

Who's impact are you wanting them to grade here ... Viney's or Lynch's?

 

[DNine]

MRP and Tribunal no longer required. In a world full of Reality TV, when we as viewers pick the best cook, the best housemate, the best renovator, the best dancer, the best singer, the best talent and in a world that suited morons are so out of touch with the real world, why can't we just sack them all, and when an incident happens, put it on all media and have polls everywhere. Majority wins. Problem solved. Far fetched, yes, but even so, it would be far more effective than what we have now.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The headclash part was an accident though. What if Thomas himself was knocked out from it? Do you still suspend or just laugh at him? What if a player breaks someone's ribs in a particularly strong tackle? Do you see the issue here?

My contention is head contact to Reid wasn't an accident - he jumped in the air - you do that then you increase strongly your chances of hitting a bloke in the head - whether it be by shoulder or your own head.

Either way - what happened to Viney is a far cry to the rule change that occurred because of Thomas. That law change merely said that a head clash is foreseeable. Viney didn't have a head clash - as such whether that rule was amended or not, wouldn't have changed the ridiculous decision we just got.

And on Ziebell - if you think his is as clear cut as Lewis then you are smoking some of Brad Scott's finest.

Had he had his hands out for the ball - then sure he was contesting.

I can see arguments both sides for Ziebell - but comparing that to a bloke with eyes on the ball who flushly spoils it and then makes contact (whilst still open and not braced) with an oncoming player is fanciful.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Interesting post.

Schimma was nothing more than a champion who played the game fairly. Can't recall him ever throwing a cut lunch in anger. A man to be respected.

Henwood was probably the other way...he actually didn't mind throwing his weight around.

The thing with it though is if the appeal stands, the integrity of and the independence of the Tribunal process comes into question, as does the integrity of those who sit in judgement. Is that what we really want?

What an absurd post. "What we really want" is the correct decision.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

In honour of the AFL's adoption of the "May the Fourth" Star Wars themed round, Melbourne will be running the Chewbacca defense;

 

[NarniMagic]

In honour of the AFL's adoption of the "May the Fourth" Star Wars themed round, Melbourne will be running the Chewbacca defense;

View attachment 55416

Still more logical than what the MRP comes up with

 

[pazza]

Yep, Schimma was very fair, Henwood was at the opposite end.

I was just wondering about Shimma & Co's thought process's.

Looks like they just analysed the facts and made the call to me - rightly or wrongly that is what they did and people would expect them to do.

 

[DangerSloane]

Typical.

Let's attack great football people and play the man. Geez I love football..shame there's so many idiots.

What?
Its got nothing to do with which people it was. I honestly dont know what you think I meant.

All I said is any changes that result in a fairer, more consistent system void of BS decisions would be welcomed.

 

[DangerSloane]

I'm assuming you mean that this was the reason he was sent directly to the tribunal by the match review committee (sort of reads like Viney elected to take it straight to them). If so, I think that was done because it was a tough one to classify.

Yeah I meant the AFL sent him there so he could get a lesser penalty.
Simply on their classifications its High contact, In play and High impact, which i believe would attract more than 2 weeks?

 

[Monkey King]

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.

Terrible analogy. All you're talking about here is an enforcing body being unaware that an offense was committed. If you punched a bloke in front of the cops, the law would demand that you're charged with a assault, whether the bloke laughs or drops dead. Why? Because to punch someone is against the law. If a guy backflips off a wall however, and inadvertently hits his head against your fist, you won't be charged, whether he laughs, is injured or even dies.

And this is the point. First you must be found guilty of having done something wrong; then, and only then, does the outcome weigh on the penalty. The determination of having committed an offense is never determined by the result; only the level of offense which you've committed.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Adelaide fans need to quit crying.

It is an absolute travesty that Viney was even cited.

The relentlessness at the ball, that this incident has highlighted, is probably the reason Melbourne is much improved this season.

As for Adelaide, their reaction to this whole thing explains why they're sinking like a lead balloon.

While they're looking for their form, maybe they can look for a backbone in Adelaide as well.

 

[DangerSloane]

It's all about intent guys. People laughing at comparisons to the Douglas hit aren't looking at the bigger picture. Douglas intended to bump, and bumped fairly. He didn't hit him head high. The only reason it was looked at is because there was an accidental headclash (or whiplash and head hitting the ground). Watch the Hawks/Cats games from a couple of weeks ago or any final and you'll see 100 bumps (not head high) in a game reasonably similar that don't get looked at simply because the player wasn't hurt. Think of it this way, if a big strong ruckmen tackled a small forward, fairly, around the body, and broke his ribs, do we ban the ruckmen? Players are told to tackle hard and sometimes accidents will happen. The same with the Thomas/Douglas bump. If you're saying that an accident in the event of a bump is different than an accident in a result of a tackle then what does that say about the bump? Is it not valid? Douglas didn't have the option to tackle, you can't tackle a player running towards the contest without the ball, that's what a bump or really, a shepard, is designed for.

How does this relate to Viney? It's about the bigger picture. He's been banned because of the injury to Lynch. He wasn't banned because of intent, just like Douglas wasn't banned because he hit a bump, he was banned because of an accident where the player was injured. People all cried in outrage last year that Thomas should have been rubbed out, simply because he hit a bump that wasn't high that resulted in an accidental head clash. What if Thomas was concussed instead? Would people want to suspend him still? What if if two players from the same team are going back with the flight of the ball and clash heads? That, just like Thomas, Douglas and Viney is an accident, so why is it any different?

Finally some sense....this is EXACTLY what I've been saying througout.
The incidents are polar opposites in how they happened, but the theory behind it all is quite the same. There is now a precedent for punishing players not on their actions but on the results of their actions.

Thomas, Douglas, Fyfe and Viney have all been caught up in this theory, whether it be via head clash, head hitting the ground, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

These are the ones that shouldnt be suspendable, it should come down to one fact and one fact only.

Was the injury caused foreseeable by the player.

Thomas - No, head clash
Fyfe - No, head clash
Douglas - No, contact was made to the body and head hit the ground on the way down
Viney - No, no time or options