MRP

[free at last]

Unlike the risks (and frequency) of concussion, most pro surfers understand the infinitesimally small risk of being attacked by a shark whilst surfing. Also, pro surfers tend to be self employed rather than through an employer. It is still encumbent event organisers to hold the event in a safe venue and to take steps to eliminate unnecessary risks.

Good points.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Interesting similiarity between Viney and Fyfe's case.
I think I hear in that 1 week more praises for Fyfe (fair, clean player, outstanding, brownlow contender,....) than I did the entire last year from the media. Now everyone is praising Viney to the same effect

Viney's case seem to be gathering support and momentum.
I'm curious what you guys think.
Did we goofed up not contesting for Fyfe in the tribunal (and subsequently appeal)?

Undoubtedly . Even though it would have failed just as Viney's no doubt will, it would have kept the controversy in the media longer.
In fact, when the appeal failed I would have liked to see Fremantle Football club take it to a court of law. That would definitely have been worthwhile.
After all it is Nat's livelihood and there just has to be some grounds that would bring the entire ridiculous system down.

 

[estibador]

Undoubtedly . Even though it would have failed just as Viney's no doubt will, it would have kept the controversy in the media longer.
In fact, when the appeal failed I would have liked to see Fremantle Football club take it to a court of law. That would definitely have been worthwhile.
After all it is Nat's livelihood and there just has to be some grounds that would bring the entire ridiculous system down.

Like you say it would have failed, then Nat's livelihood would have been furthered compromised. Plus it would have created an necessary distraction in the middle of the season. We don't have the luxury of martyring one of our best players in a futile attempt to prove a point.

 

[Rob]

Like you say it would have failed, then Nat's livelihood would have been furthered compromised. Plus it would have created an necessary distraction in the middle of the season. We don't have the luxury of martyring one of our best players in a futile attempt to prove a point.

So instead of copping a 2 week suspension, if we challenged and failed he would have copped......a 2 week suspension.

I reckon the downside wasn't all that bad.

 

[Thistle]

So instead of copping a 2 week suspension, if we challenged and failed he would have copped......a 2 week suspension.

I reckon the downside wasn't all that bad.

So our best player gets added carry over points just to prove a point. With Fyfe's luck I could see how that would have come back to haunt him.

 

[Wigarus]

sorry Jimbos1, after clicking so many facebook likes for Fyfe's case (including Sam Newman's rubbish page ), I've concluded that AFL have no concept of what the facebook actually is.

Don't sell it short! You and the other 11 people that have already liked the page could make a real difference!

 

[Taylor]

Don't AFL players have their own agents... That would suggest that they aren't employees of the clubs or AFL. I suppose, their agents are more setup as a labour hire company, which takes it all back to the hirer (club/afl) being responsible for all oh&s when on site.

Their contracts are with the AFL club though, not the agent contracting to lease the player to the club.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Like you say it would have failed, then Nat's livelihood would have been furthered compromised. Plus it would have created an necessary distraction in the middle of the season. We don't have the luxury of martyring one of our best players in a futile attempt to prove a point.

But that is the point; His charge and suspension was absurd, as much or more so than the current Viney issue.
It has to start somewhere. It is poorly conceived and implemented to the letter and it impacts on a man's earning capacity.
He would be protected under commonwealth laws.
The only way to end this circus is to take it to the limits of provisions in law.

Fremantle could not muster enough public support and just because of some fool on TV with an online protest garnering a big number, it does not mean we could right an injustice.

Now because it is a Victorian player and club involved the groundswell of disquiet is significant; Melbourne's challenge has to fail under the current system.

There is only one other recourse. I have voiced that.

A club has to threaten to go all the way.
It should have been Fremantle.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

I must be in the minority in terms of agreeing with the Viney suspension.

I thought the freeze-frame replay in Barrett's article was pretty telling (even though the article itself was largely trash) - Viney simultaneously connects with Lynch's chest AND head. The shoulder, the point with which he is attempting to hit, takes the jaw. If Viney hits him 5 inches lower, we aren't having this conversation.

That hit aside, I think inevitably the AFL will move towards a rule whereby hits with the head being a principle (intended or otherwise) point of contact are illegal when the hitter is playing the man and not the ball (as in Viney's case). The risk of permanent neurological damage, and the legal liabilities resulting from it is simply too great. Drew Petrie can release as many 'player's accept the risk' podcasts as he likes, all it takes it one player who has permanent and lasting disability to say 'this isn't what I signed up for'. As a fan, I may not like that it takes something away from the spectacle of the game, but realistically it needs to be done.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I must be in the minority in terms of agreeing with the Viney suspension.

I thought the freeze-frame replay in Barrett's article was pretty telling (even though the article itself was largely trash) - Viney simultaneously connects with Lynch's chest AND head. The shoulder, the point with which he is attempting to hit, takes the jaw. If Viney hits him 5 inches lower, we aren't having this conversation.

That hit aside, I think inevitably the AFL will move towards a rule whereby hits with the head being a principle (intended or otherwise) point of contact are illegal when the hitter is playing the man and not the ball (as in Viney's case). The risk of permanent neurological damage, and the legal liabilities resulting from it is simply too great. Drew Petrie can release as many 'player's accept the risk' podcasts as he likes, all it takes it one player who has permanent and lasting disability to say 'this isn't what I signed up for'. As a fan, I may not like that it takes something away from the spectacle of the game, but realistically it needs to be done.

I think I am more in the minority in suggesting he was very lucky to get only Medium force, as I thought he should have at least got High.

 

[yoong]

I must be in the minority in terms of agreeing with the Viney suspension.

I thought the freeze-frame replay in Barrett's article was pretty telling (even though the article itself was largely trash) - Viney simultaneously connects with Lynch's chest AND head. The shoulder, the point with which he is attempting to hit, takes the jaw. If Viney hits him 5 inches lower, we aren't having this conversation.

That hit aside, I think inevitably the AFL will move towards a rule whereby hits with the head being a principle (intended or otherwise) point of contact are illegal when the hitter is playing the man and not the ball (as in Viney's case). The risk of permanent neurological damage, and the legal liabilities resulting from it is simply too great. Drew Petrie can release as many 'player's accept the risk' podcasts as he likes, all it takes it one player who has permanent and lasting disability to say 'this isn't what I signed up for'. As a fan, I may not like that it takes something away from the spectacle of the game, but realistically it needs to be done.

I hope Viney's suspension stands only because I feel the AFL must be consistent(fair?) in their ruling across all the players, which mean that the same rule that was slapped on Fyfe, Hunt and a host of others must also be applied to Viney. They have already chickened out by giving him a "medium" impact, that should be the limit. Rules changes will have to happen at the end of the season, so that it can be applied uniformly, players got time to be educated on it and teams are given time to adjust their training and game plan.

That being said, it's still a bad rule. The intention is good, but the rule in its current form is effectively penalizing players for accidental contacts. And I suspect it'll not reduce the number of high contacts. For all the cases cited so far, their "other options available" is either to not contest at all or put themselves in further risk by taking inappropriate actions.

Concussion is a serious injury, and if I am not wrong, cannot be fixed and will get cumulatively worse with repeated hits. Still, this particular rule is changing the fundamental way the game is played (in a bad way) but doesn't seem like it'll reduce concussion cases (we'll have to wait and see I guess). I can criticise, but I admit I don't think I have a solution to how the problem can be dealt with.

 

[TheMcManusNose]

I hope Viney's suspension stands only because I feel the AFL must be consistent(fair?) in their ruling across all the players, which mean that the same rule that was slapped on Fyfe, Hunt and a host of others must also be applied to Viney. They have already chickened out by giving him a "medium" impact, that should be the limit. Rules changes will have to happen at the end of the season, so that it can be applied uniformly, players got time to be educated on it and teams are given time to adjust their training and game plan.

That being said, it's still a bad rule. The intention is good, but the rule in its current form is effectively penalizing players for accidental contacts. And I suspect it'll not reduce the number of high contacts. For all the cases cited so far, their "other options available" is either to not contest at all or put themselves in further risk by taking inappropriate actions.

Concussion is a serious injury, and if I am not wrong, cannot be fixed and will get cumulatively worse with repeated hits. Still, this particular rule is changing the fundamental way the game is played (in a bad way) but doesn't seem like it'll reduce concussion cases (we'll have to wait and see I guess). I can criticise, but I admit I don't think I have a solution to how the problem can be dealt with.

Good thoughts.

The question of 'how do we reduce head injuries?' is incredibly difficult. I think the approach with this rule is reasonable in theory: make sure the player initiating contact knows he is liable for any head contact that occurs. Can head contact be defined as accidental, when it is a reasonably foreseeable action from a player bumping another in the chest or shoulder region? (Ala Viney) Sure, the player laying the bump can (and has) say 'I tried not to hit the head'. Great, I applaud you for that, but that fact remains you did. I don't see how the AFL can eliminate or even drastically reduce high-impact head contact from current levels without penalising accidental but foreseeable head contact. I guess the question is to what extent do we want to?

 

[Seppo]

TheMcManusNose i'm with you too.
It me be the bias due to the Fyfe decision, but I wonder what the view point of this Viney decision is of Crows fans who think he needs to cop something for injurying one of their players?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

I must be in the minority in terms of agreeing with the Viney suspension.

I thought the freeze-frame replay in Barrett's article was pretty telling (even though the article itself was largely trash) - Viney simultaneously connects with Lynch's chest AND head. The shoulder, the point with which he is attempting to hit, takes the jaw. If Viney hits him 5 inches lower, we aren't having this conversation.

That hit aside, I think inevitably the AFL will move towards a rule whereby hits with the head being a principle (intended or otherwise) point of contact are illegal when the hitter is playing the man and not the ball (as in Viney's case). The risk of permanent neurological damage, and the legal liabilities resulting from it is simply too great. Drew Petrie can release as many 'player's accept the risk' podcasts as he likes, all it takes it one player who has permanent and lasting disability to say 'this isn't what I signed up for'. As a fan, I may not like that it takes something away from the spectacle of the game, but realistically it needs to be done.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but players have been killed playing football in the past, and there are already numerous examples of players receiving permanent injuries. Unnecessary hysteria isn't helpful.

 

[Nickos66]

This appears to be the main reasoning behind the rule change - the AFL fears an NFL style class action in future that could put an unprecedented dent in their brand to a tune similar to in the USA - $765 million.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-07/afls-class-action-warning

On the other hand, the USA has proven time and time again that suing makes the world go around and I couldn't see this happening to a similar tune here any time soon. Not many other places in the world would allow a driver who hit and killed a cyclist on the road to sue the victims parents for mental anguish. Just sayin'.

 

[Kram]

I thought the freeze-frame replay in Barrett's article was pretty telling (even though the article itself was largely trash) - Viney simultaneously connects with Lynch's chest AND head. The shoulder, the point with which he is attempting to hit, takes the jaw. If Viney hits him 5 inches lower, we aren't having this conversation.

Well unfortunately in the real world the game isn't played in slow motion and frame by frame..

I seriously can't believe how anyone can agree with this especially if they've played the game at any level, I can see what they are trying to do with protecting players but surely common sense has to prevail, there was pretty much nothing else he could do in that situation.

Forget being angry over Fyfe, that was bullocks but at least he potentially could have done something else, this decision takes it to another level of stupidity.

 

[estibador]

Not many other places in the world would allow a driver who hit and killed a cyclist on the road to sue the victims parents for mental anguish. Just sayin'.

Is that for real? My Mum passed away after being hit by a car while crossing the road, if the driver had tried to sue us for mental anguish we might have ended up with two funerals.

 

[Danny Cullen]

this decision takes it to another level of stupidity.

Dunno about the players, but it makes my head hurt!

 

[Nickos66]

Is that for real? My Mum passed away after being hit by a car while crossing the road, if the driver had tried to sue us for mental anguish we might have ended up with two funerals.

Sorry to hear it, and yes it's true. The driver sued the victims' parents for reasons of severely impacted quality of life since the unfolding of that fateful incident, apparently as a counter claim against the parents of the victims who also sought monetary compensation.

 

[Freo Shark]

Is that for real? My Mum passed away after being hit by a car while crossing the road, if the driver had tried to sue us for mental anguish we might have ended up with two funerals.

Think the dickhead may have been drunk too.

P.s sorry too mate. Not sure liking your post is quite right either mate but agree with your sentiment is what I meant.

 

[go_the_dockers]

i almost posted something about the Melbourne bias of the MRP, but I thought Viney wouldn't get off.

All I want is consistency

 

[scon]

Previously I would have said "common sense prevails at MRP" was one of AFLs many oxymorons.
Happy to be proven wrong with Viney's appeal upheld.
First time I've said well done Melbourne for a while.

 

[pokerspiv]

Viney got off on appeal.

 

[fine wines]

Viney got off on appeal.

I heard they're going to add the games to Fyfe's suspension a couple of weeks back so now he misses the Port match Yay

 

[estibador]

I heard they're going to add the games to Fyfe's suspension a couple of weeks back so now he misses the Port match Yay

Don't give them any ideas.

I guess we should just be thankful the MRP haven't fined any of our players this year at the request of one of their former teammates.