Jack Viney

[Monkey King]

As you say Viney chose to enter into that physical position which is identical to the position taken in a bump, rather than any other position, thus meaning he chose to bump.

The AFL's recommended position to brace for oncoming contact.

 

[Trav 20]

There are plenty of people who think he's guilty, they're just being drowned out by the enormous amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who refuse to let go of their emotion when making their judgment.

You are probably right, but I'm not sure how you know.

At speed Viney was chasing a ball that was about to bounce. Two players were approaching the same ball at speed from the opposite direction. The ball could have bounced towards Viney, but instead bounced towards the other two players. Viney slowed slightly, went low, had his arm down and inadvertently made contact to Lynch's jaw as he braced for contact. Lynch was lower than usual at the point of collision because he was dragged lower by Georgiou.

There was no malice by Viney, no intent to hurt and purely accidental. He wasn't in a position to jump out of the way and imo he was as low at the collision as could reasonably be expected.

I cannot fathom how people think Viney is guilty of anything.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Lynch gets a broken jaw and Viney gets only 2 weeks.That itself tells me that they got it wrong either way.(BTW he should not have been cited imo)

 

[The Swert]

Lynch gets a broken jaw and Viney gets only 2 weeks.That itself tells me that they got it wrong either way.(BTW he should not have been cited imo)

Mitchell pulled his hammy and will miss 8 weeks. Should the MCG turf be suspended for that?

Injuries do not always have a culprit.

 

[DNine]

If you put 36 people out on a field and tell teach them to run fast and do weights to minimise collision injury, OF COURSE you're going to get collisions. Maybe like the roads we need to put give way signs, lights, stop signs, speed limits and every othe directional sign so if there is a collision, we can blame the guy heading in the wrong direction. But until then, there will be accidents that don't have a single person to blame.

If AFL were running our roads, they would assess a smashed car, they would be like, you are perfectly in the right to be travelling down that road at that speed, but unfortunately the driver bumped his head on the the side bar in his car, so your going to jail for careless driving.

I really gotta stop, the dumb brigade will not be taught, the ones smart enough to understand don't need it, so it is pointless.

 

[wowlace]

DA, can you help me, I've asked this question on the Adelaide board, but to no avail. What is the difference between a bump and a brace? As you've said, these words have specific meaning, and you clearly know the difference. I'm not sure how they differ, other than intent.

Can you bump off of one step? Don't you brace for impact when you bump someone as well? What does a bump 'without bracing for impact' look like?

I don't think this is even relevant to the appeal, as rough conduct is just about 'making forceful contact'. I'm just curious.

A bump is a tactic used with the intent of gaining an advantage over an opponent.

There is no intent to gain an advantage when bracing for contact.

 

[go_the_dockers]

They actually are the same, that is the whole point of the tribunal decision. As you say Viney chose to enter into that physical position which is identical to the position taken in a bump, rather than any other position, thus meaning he chose to bump. Once the tribunal reached a decision that it was a concious decision to enter into that position then the result is a forgone conclusion, hence the two weeks, negligent, high, severe.

He only got Medium contact. Severe would have been 4 week roughly.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I'm sure this point has been made. But it irritates me no end hearing Freo, Adelaide and Nth Melbourne supporters saying "See? We told you!" as if the Viney situation is like the Thomas, Fyfe or Douglas scenarios, when it is NOTHING LIKE THEM.

All 3 of those other guys undertook a deliberate action. Viney was defending himself. That's what makes this ruling so incredibly stupid. I don't want to get into the bump debate right now (For the record, I think Thomas and Douglas should have copped a week and Fyfe should have got off) but surely everyone with eyes can see this is irrelevant to that debate.

Thomas, Fyfe, and Douglas made the man their object. Viney made the ball his object and then tried to bail out in the most practical way when the ball got beyond him. Different people will have different views about the bump - but surely we can all agree that the AFL is trying to get rid of most bumps. That is clear.

By contrast, Viney did EXACTLY what the AFL has been professing it wants. He went for the ball, and then when a collision became inevitable he tried to minimise the consequences as much as self-defence would allow. And while doing that he accidentally caused damage. To me this is the same as if he went for a mark and accidentally kneed Lynch in the jaw. Damage was done by him pursuing exactly the course he has been told to pursue by the AFL.

This couldn't be further removed from Douglas sniping a player who was off in la la land.

So "told ya so"s from Brad Scott and a few others are misplaced, self-serving and tacky in my view.

They are not the same, but it should have been a warning to the Viney incident. The pattern was simple, if you elect to bump and you get the player high you will get reported.

Viney did elect to bump (yes stepping out the way would have been unprofessional but he had the choice).

So once the made that choice to turn his shoulder towards the opposition player he had a duty of care to protect the player and not get him high.

The only surprising bit was he got Medium contact, not high or severe.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Mitchell pulled his hammy and will miss 8 weeks. Should the MCG turf be suspended for that?

Injuries do not always have a culprit.

It should.Had Mitchell in SC & FF sides.
But seriously if they were serious about the punishment as a result of the outcome of the broken jaw then 2 weeks is a joke.I just think they hedged their bets.

 

[RandB]

"Elect to bump"

This is exactly what the AFL have to define. It is at the heart of the debate here. Until they confront this and give the greater football public clarity on what constitutes electing to bump we're all going around in circles.

Viney turned side on to protect himself (and to a degree Lynch) from a front on clash at high speed.

If the AFL can't/won't distinguish that from a player who consciously decides to instigate contact via a bump with the intention to deliver force - when tackling or not making contact at all were genuine options - then God help us and this great game.

 

[JackFlash]

The main culprit is the MRP, they hand balled the case to the tribunal, it should never have gone to tribunal. The MRP should've acknowledged that the contact was a 'racing incident' and Viney had no case to answer. The entire fabric of the game is on trial tonight.

 

[The Scales]

I am amazed that you needed to actually explain that.

If you read this thread without prejudice, you would appreciate both Demonic Ascent and myself were replying to a direct question from MattyB_76. Your condescension is duly noted, and is befitting of your chosen user name.

Edit: Demonic Ascent corrected me later in this thread that you were being sarcastic, unreserved apology offered.

 

[base615]

This decision was a joke. I think the AFL should just cut to the chase and remove all contact from the game instead of gradually eroding it. Just play tag football and be done with it. Alternatively, have everyone play in those inflatable sumo suits.

 

[Slax]

Mitchell pulled his hammy and will miss 8 weeks. Should the MCG turf be suspended for that?

Injuries do not always have a culprit.

Mitchell's injury didn't effect the outcome of the match, Lynch's I have little doubt did.

 

[Bluelegs]

Doctor peter larkins has said that if viney tried to push off his foot to spin out of the contest he likely would have ruptured his acl

EDIT:

 

[Mijhaa]

Mitchell's injury didn't effect the outcome of the match, Lynch's I have little doubt did.

Cool? So we will just suspend people for injuries BUT only if they have an impact on the game? LOL

 

[Bluelegs]

Mitchell's injury didn't effect the outcome of the match, Lynch's I have little doubt did.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[wowlace]

Mitchell's injury didn't effect the outcome of the match, Lynch's I have little doubt did.

Filthy you are out right bottom lol?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Doctor peter larkins has said that if viney tried to push off his foot to spin out of the contest he likely would have ruptured his acl

EDIT:

That's the whole point, Viney could not have avoided contact even had he wanted to once he had committed to contesting the loose ball. By the time Lynch took possession it was too late to avoid contact which is why he braced for the collision.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If you read this thread without prejudice, you would appreciate both Demonic Ascent and myself were replying to a direct question from MattyB_76. Your condescension is duly noted, and is befitting of your chosen user name.

Wood_Duck actually agrees with us on this one as his posts earlier in the thread demonstrate; his post is in regards to how stupid it is that some people actually can't differentiate between the two actions and that it is necessary for us to have to explain it.

 

[Bluelegs]

That's the whole point, Viney could not have avoided contact even had he wanted to once he had committed to contesting the loose ball. By the time Lynch took possession it was too late to avoid contact which is why he braced for the collision.

Exactly. The action was deemed negligent, how did Viney fail his duty of care should be the question raised tonight.

His only other option to put himself at high risk of injury. Unless the tribunal thought Viney should have seen into the future.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

"Elect to bump"

This is exactly what the AFL have to define. It is at the heart of the debate here. Until they confront this and give the greater football public clarity on what constitutes electing to bump we're all going around in circles.

Viney turned side on to protect himself (and to a degree Lynch) from a front on clash at high speed.

If the AFL can't/won't distinguish that from a player who consciously decides to instigate contact via a bump with the intention to deliver force - when tackling or not making contact at all were genuine options - then God help us and this great game.

This is spot on.

Viney didn't 'elect to bump'. Ziebell didn't 'elect to bump'. Scott Thompson didn't 'elect to bump'.

Douglas did. Wellingham did.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Douglas elected to bump. Viney did not elect to bump. Viney braced for contact. Ergo, massive difference.

They actually are the same, that is the whole point of the tribunal decision. As you say Viney chose to enter into that physical position which is identical to the position taken in a bump, rather than any other position, thus meaning he chose to bump. Once the tribunal reached a decision that it was a concious decision to enter into that position then the result is a forgone conclusion, hence the two weeks, negligent, high, severe.

100% incorrect.

Have a look at any dictionary.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

"Elect to bump"

This is exactly what the AFL have to define. It is at the heart of the debate here. Until they confront this and give the greater football public clarity on what constitutes electing to bump we're all going around in circles.

Viney turned side on to protect himself (and to a degree Lynch) from a front on clash at high speed.

If the AFL can't/won't distinguish that from a player who consciously decides to instigate contact via a bump with the intention to deliver force - when tackling or not making contact at all were genuine options - then God help us and this great game.

This is "electing to bump"

 

[Mr Magic]

This is "electing to bump"

In time common sense will prevail IMO and the AFL should will use of hip or shoulder or bony part of body(which could include elbow) to replace bump or brace because bump and brace references are simply descriptions that are too narrow and football terminologies that are really unrelated to football injuries.

What is key is it was shoulder on jaw whether from a bump or brace and tbh it is debatable Viney soley braced , very debatable given forward movement!