Jack Viney

[DangerSloane]

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.

But none of this changes the fact that the charge will be a result of the consequences.

You punch a guy and he dies - Manslaughter
You punch a guy and he is uninjured - Assault

It seems to be the same in the AFL now. You bump a guy and ur heads clash, both players get up, nothing to answer. You bump a guy, head clash, he goes off with concussion rule, youre up for rough conduct.

 

[AJB84]

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

They aren't even remotely similar.

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.

You seem to be upset that Adelaide fans have been correct in what would happen

Don't for a second think this means we think this is the way football should go

ANY Hip and Shoulder (BUMP) that causes a head injury will be suspended

All cases will be different but that one fact remains that is how they are tied together that is the new rule being enforced.

 

[DangerSloane]

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.

Back to the bay champ, this is for real discussions. Not cheap pot shots.

 

[NarniMagic]

But none of this changes the fact that the charge will be a result of the consequences.

You punch a guy and he dies - Manslaughter
You punch a guy and he is uninjured - Assault

It seems to be the same in the AFL now. You bump a guy and ur heads clash, both players get up, nothing to answer. You bump a guy, head clash, he goes off with concussion rule, youre up for rough conduct.

Bit different to that though, like I said intent. If you king hit someone, the intent is to hurt. If you bump someone, the intent isn't to hurt them, it's to implement a shepard or block. The difference is if you bump someone some 'fairly' or not. If your shoulder hits their head, illegal, if its shoulder to shoulder, it's a fair and legal bump. Now the thing is, Thomas, Douglas, Fyfe, they did actually implement a legal bump. They had an effort not to be reckless and hit their head. Which is why the headclash part is purely accidental.

 

[Pack Specialist]

You seem to be upset that Adelaide fans have been correct in what would happen

Don't for a second think this means we think this is the way football should go

ANY Hip and Shoulder (BUMP) that causes a head injury will be suspended

All cases will be different but that one fact remains that is how they are tied together that is the new rule being enforced.

Correct?

On the Melbourne board, Crows fans have been telling them Viney will get 5+ weeks (what a joke)

This will be dismissed on appeal or everyone will just give up on the game.

 

[Pack Specialist]

Back to the bay champ, this is for real discussions. Not cheap pot shots.

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

Does it sink in that the only people who think this is correct are Adelaide fans?

How about your fans actually worry about staying for the whole game instead of legitimate physical contact in a contact sport?

 

[AJB84]

Correct?

On the Melbourne board, Crows fans have been telling them Viney will get 5+ weeks (what a joke)

This will be dismissed on appeal or everyone will just give up on the game.

4 Weeks based on High impact as the impact is supposed to be directly linked to the injury

 

[DangerSloane]

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

Does it sink in that the only people who think this is correct are Adelaide fans?

How about your fans actually worry about staying for the whole game instead of legitimate physical contact in a contact sport?

You're not listening, or reading.

Adelaide fans dont agree with the suspension. The agree with the suspension on the basis of the rules...which it just so happens the Tribunal did too.

Its not right, but neither was Douglas, Thomas or Fyfe.

Get it now? Or do you need me to produce you a picture book so you can figure out that nobody is complaining, we're discussing in a mature manner....well until you got here.

 

[DangerSloane]

Correct?

On the Melbourne board, Crows fans have been telling them Viney will get 5+ weeks (what a joke)

This will be dismissed on appeal or everyone will just give up on the game.

It takes a certain type of fan to go onto another teams board to rub in a suspension.

Your club has them, my club has them...so does every club.

Take your head out of the sand and go back through some of the geel v haw crap from the last 5 years.

 

[Pack Specialist]

4 Weeks based on High impact as the impact is supposed to be directly linked to the injury

Which would be the result if Viney had actually deliberately lined him up and made head high contact.

Which he didn't.

A rule of thumb is that the harder you go in, the less chance you have of being hurt.

Viney went in hard and didn't get hurt.

What was Lynch doing? He just looked like a deer in headlights.

Not Viney's fault.

 

[DangerSloane]

Correct?

On the Melbourne board, Crows fans have been telling them Viney will get 5+ weeks (what a joke)

This will be dismissed on appeal or everyone will just give up on the game.

4 Weeks based on High impact as the impact is supposed to be directly linked to the injury

Correct. If it had gone to the MRP this would've been the penalty.

This is why it went straight to the tribunal, becuase 4 weeks is beyond unfair and into downright disgraceful.

 

[DangerSloane]

Which would be the result if Viney had actually deliberately lined him up and made head high contact.

Which he didn't.

A rule of thumb is that the harder you go in, the less chance you have of being hurt.

Viney went in hard and didn't get hurt.

What was Lynch doing? He just looked like a deer in headlights.

Not Viney's fault.

Its almost as if lynch was picking the ball up and being tackled...oh wait... he was.

The fact that he was found guilty means the tribunal decided it WAS his fault (which is wrong). Rightly or wrongly that doesnt match up with your redicilous summary of the situation.

And if Lynch was a deer in the headlights what does that make George Burbury's from the NAB cup?
Definitely his fault his jaw got broken...right douche?

 

[Xtreme]

So if he loses the appeal does the suspension increase ? If so the punishment fits the crime.

 

[Pack Specialist]

You're not listening, or reading.

Adelaide fans dont agree with the suspension. The agree with the suspension on the basis of the rules...which it just so happens the Tribunal did too.

Its not right, but neither was Douglas, Thomas or Fyfe.

Get it now? Or do you need me to produce you a picture book so you can figure out that nobody is complaining, we're discussing in a mature manner....well until you got here.

Under the rules Viney did nothing wrong, he didn't intend to bump but braced for the impending contact.

Douglas' was a dirty snipe off the ball*, Fyfe lined his man up and Thomas' can only be discribed as a brain fart.

*Formerly known as a shepherd.

 

[AJB84]

Which would be the result if Viney had actually deliberately lined him up and made head high contact.

Which he didn't.

A rule of thumb is that the harder you go in, the less chance you have of being hurt.

Viney went in hard and didn't get hurt.

What was Lynch doing? He just looked like a deer in headlights.

Not Viney's fault.

He was in a tackle

Here is an idea I will tackle you and someone else will bump you and see how you go

 

[Pack Specialist]

He was in a tackle

Here is an idea I will tackle you and someone else will bump you and see how you go

Yeah I cop that dozens of times a weekend.

I don't cry about it though, contact is why people play contact sports.

 

[PAdman]

I really liked Adelaide supporters before this incident happened. Not anymore.

 

[cmndstab]

Which would be the result if Viney had actually deliberately lined him up and made head high contact.

Which he didn't.

A rule of thumb is that the harder you go in, the less chance you have of being hurt.

Viney went in hard and didn't get hurt.

What was Lynch doing? He just looked like a deer in headlights.

Not Viney's fault.

This is a very poor post.

You mention "deliberate" and "head high", but they are the other two categories adjudicated on. The third one is impact, which is generally judged by the severity of the injury.

For the record, I think the tribunal got it right by choosing medium. They rightly stated that the severity of the injury was made worse by factors out of Viney's control, and I think that's a reasonable thing to say.

However, they also say (and have set a precedent in the past) that those factors being out of his control don't absolve Viney of responsibility. Just that the level of impact attributed to him is lessened.

As for Lynch looking like a deer in headlights, he was literally in the process of being tackled. Not a lot he could have done.

Rather than pissing and moaning about Crows supporters, you should focus on the issue. Most Crows supporters recognise that this suspension is ridiculous - but unfortunately, it is following the precedent already set several times in the past. It's been a joke every time, and it's still a joke. Thank goodness people actually bothered to give a damn this time and put some pressure back on the AFL. Pretty disgraceful that it didn't happen in the past, but at least it's happening now.

 

[DangerSloane]

Under the rules Viney did nothing wrong, he didn't intend to bump but braced for the impending contact.

Douglas' was a dirty snipe off the ball*, Fyfe lined his man up and Thomas' can only be discribed as a brain fart.

*Formerly known as a shepherd.

The people that are there to enforce the rules decided he did something wrong.
I agree that he didnt.

Neither did Douglas, he layed a shepherd to the body.
Neither did Thomas (head clash)
Neither did Fyfe (head clash)

 

[cmndstab]

Yeah I cop that dozens of times a weekend.

I don't cry about it though, contact is why people play contact sports.

I haven't seen Lynch crying about it. What are you on about?

 

[Monkey King]

But none of this changes the fact that the charge will be a result of the consequences.

Of course. Certainly you can't be charged with manslaughter if no one died. That's stating the obvious. But the result has nothing to do with being charged in the first place. You can injure, maim or kill and never be charged if your action is not deemed an offense. Only the action itself can establish wrongdoing, not what results from the action. Once wrongdoing is established, the charge will be graded according to what resulted.

And this is the question - was Viney contesting the ball and then protecting himself an offense? The severity of Lynch's injury should have nothing whatsoever to do with this question.

And for me, the answer to this question is a resounding no. All Viney did was play football.

 

[JackFlash]

I hate that brand name AFL, it's the Australian Football League and yet we don't use the word 'Football' anymore, we've just handed that over to Soccer. It's insane, who is running this circus? Fix the brand name, fix the MRP, fix the score review system and for God's sake fix the freaking rules! The people want their game back.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Viney was stationary which is why this is being challenged. Herp a derp.

 

[melbournemartin]

Of course. Certainly you can't be charged with manslaughter if no one died. That's stating the obvious. But the result has nothing to do with being charged in the first place. You can injure, maim or kill and never be charged if your action is not deemed an offense. Only the action itself can establish wrongdoing, not what results from the action. Once wrongdoing is established, the charge will be graded according to what resulted.

And this is the question - was Viney contesting the ball and then protecting himself an offense? The severity of Lynch's injury should have nothing whatsoever to do with this question.

And for me, the answer to this question is a resounding no. All Viney did was play football.

It's odd because if they were thinking "Viney broke Lynch's jaw" then it should have been high or even severe impact. Instead, it was classed as medium. This is possibly because the tribunal could not budge on the other categories, but did not think a 4 week suspension was warranted.

This is where I think we might have a chance with the appeal, as said by Andrew Demitriou, because there is no flexibility within the current points system.

 

[Pack Specialist]

This is a very poor post.

You mention "deliberate" and "head high", but they are the other two categories adjudicated on. The third one is impact, which is generally judged by the severity of the injury.

For the record, I think the tribunal got it right by choosing medium. They rightly stated that the severity of the injury was made worse by factors out of Viney's control, and I think that's a reasonable thing to say.

However, they also say (and have set a precedent in the past) that those factors being out of his control don't absolve Viney of responsibility. Just that the level of impact attributed to him is lessened.

As for Lynch looking like a deer in headlights, he was literally in the process of being tackled. Not a lot he could have done.

Rather than pissing and moaning about Crows supporters, you should focus on the issue. Most Crows supporters recognise that this suspension is ridiculous - but unfortunately, it is following the precedent already set several times in the past. It's been a joke every time, and it's still a joke. Thank goodness people actually bothered to give a damn this time and put some pressure back on the AFL. Pretty disgraceful that it didn't happen in the past, but at least it's happening now.

This post is terrible, cherry picking words.

The most important word in all that is "if"

Viney hd no malicious intent with contesting the ball.

Adelaide fans are just ignoring this fact.

Those would be the categories adjudicated on "if" Viney had made a conscious decision to initiate contact, which he didn't.

A bunch of posters with Sloane avatars whinging about a guy going in hard to a contest is hilarious imo.