Oppo Camp Viney

Remove this Banner Ad

Eagle87

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts
Aug 21, 2005
19,942
4,100
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
Not sure where to post this but seriously him being found guilty and hit with 2 matches is just wrong.

I'm not ranting about fixed MRP penalties here, I'm talking about 3 members of a tribunal who on hearing all the evidence decided a complete bloody accident in which the bumper was essentially stationary and made zero high contact warranted 2 weeks...

We Eagles fans could argue karma for the c##t trick his dad did re Lewis back in the day but I won't...

This is a truly horrible and I say completely unjust suspension. He did precisely nothing wrong. The simple fact is there was an accidental clash of heads that broke the jaw, Viney made zero high contact and is was a complete bloody accident and a very unlucky one at that.

I hope they take this to an actual court and win. To ensure the clowns who sat in the tribunal are exposed as the amateurs they undoubtedly are ...

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news...nd-banned-for-two-matches-20140506-zr5ts.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah really poor.

But I think it's more the ruling then the tribunal that is the problem, although both have big issues.

In all honesty though what is Viney supposed to do in that situation. just skip to the side?

A pretty sad day for football.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I've said a bit in the Jack Viney thread but I'll repost it here:

Jack Viney in that situation has three options:

1. The football option- attack the footy, protect yourself at the last moment, and hope that no one gets hurt and you don't get suspended
2. The sacrificial option- move facing straight forward and allow the Lynch-Gorgiou train to run through you, and hope that you don't get your jaw broken
3. The squib option- literally jump out of the way of the conest, and hope your coach doesn't drag you and play you in the reserves next week

Options 2 and 3 cannot be accepted. The AFL has to allow situtations where option 1 is the only legitimate one to occur without penalty. They have failed in this aspect, spectacularly so, in their crusade to eliminate any injury that results from another player.

The ONLY scenario where there is no contact in this situation is one where Viney chooses not to contest a ball that is in dispute. This should never be the right decision, but apparently the MRP thinks it is the way to go.

I don't understand it, we cannot allow players to be unsure if they should go for the ball because they might accidentally hurt their opponent while putting themselves in harms way also. It goes again every level of coaching, instinct, and the fundamental principles of the sport.
 
I've always thought that the club and supporters should speak out strongly against these decisions, even if it doesn't affect us or have an effect on the result, because eventually the MRP gun gets turned at one of your players, and you'd like everyone else to back you up.

This is the worst MRP decision of the year by a fair stretch. They took it to the tribunal because they saw what the actual points system would give him and didn't agree with it- that should have be the warning sign that it should be thrown out, but they got scared of the injury and had to give him something.

#freejackviney
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
eagles rule said:
Nothing wrong with Viney.moving aside he elected to hurt Lynch so 2 weeks seems fair.
Click to expand...

If you genuinely believe that you have no business following football OR you are as blind as a bat ...

He elected to brace when contact was inevitable. Lynch was hurt from banging his head into the Melbourne player chasing him. Viney, by any reasonably just standard, did absolutely nothing wrong. At all.

I hope you're trolling.

If not, give up, leave immediately and never darken our doors again.
 
Eagle87 said:
If you genuinely believe that you have no business following football OR you are as blind as a bat ...

He elected to brace when contact was inevitable. Lynch was hurt from banging his head into the Melbourne player chasing him. Viney, by any reasonably just standard, did absolutely nothing wrong. At all.

I hope you're trolling.

If not, give up, leave immediately and never darken our doors again.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not falling for the outrage that has occurred and just blindly letting emotion cloud my view.
Sure it was a fine line the bump but Viney needed to get lower or not get involved in a bump on a player who was being tackled and falling to the ground ..
 
eagles rule said:
Well I'm not falling for the outrage that has occurred and just blindly letting emotion cloud my view.
Sure it was a fine line the bump but Viney needed to get lower or not get involved in a bump on a player who was being tackled and falling to the ground ..
Click to expand...
Jack left his 'super slow mo' powers at home on the day so he had to deal with it all in realtime.
 
The questions for the tribunal were:
1. Did he 'bump'?
2. Did that cause forceful contact?
3. Was he contesting the ball?
4. Did he have a reasonable alternative?
5. Was the bump caused by forces outside of his control?

I think the answers are:
1. Maybe, assume Yes otherwise the rest is irrelephant
2. Yes, obviously
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes, his teammate tackling Lynch at the same time.

4 is critical, and probably where the tribunal differed from 99.9% of commentators last night and this morning. There isn't a reasonable alternative. He was contesting the ball, and when a collision with two blokes coming the other way was imminent he braced for contact.

I don't think the problem is with the rules. The tribunal has just got this one wrong, plain and simple.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

to me, its clear Lynch got launched into Viney by the tackler. you can see that there is a sudden push by tackler forward. viney just turned to avoid contact.

viney got low, so i am not sure how people are arguing he didnt get low. maybe he should have crawled towards lynch like a baby.
 
The Passenger said:
Yeah really poor.

But I think it's more the ruling then the tribunal that is the problem, although both have big issues.

In all honesty though what is Viney supposed to do in that situation. just skip to the side?

A pretty sad day for football.
Click to expand...

They said on 360 that the AFLs counsel said he should have pirouetted out of the way....

I'm generally not one for "the game was better back in the old days" rants, but seriously "pirouetted out of the way"?







**had to look up how to spell pirouetted :oops:
 
amazingjoshy said:
They said on 360 that the AFLs counsel said he should have pirouetted out of the way....
Click to expand...

I think the SC actually said "spun" rather than proposing a ballet move, but in any event it's pretty unrealistic.
 
watching the game he was gone 2-4 weeks. he did bump and he did make high contact. he also was not contesting the ball which was in the possession of a crow - who had his arms pined or held in a tackle - third man in to tackle (but he didn't want to tackle)
 
AFL is doing it's best to ruin the game. They are too conscious of the grass roots competition of soccer. Soccer is it's own unique and great game, just like the Aussie Rules is. The AFL is blurring lines here by trying to change the game too much and taking away some of the physicality which makes it a great game. We the fans and the players themselves don't even know what holding the ball looks like week to week. Umpiring and rules changes have been terrible.

The NRL doesn't bother sanitising the game. Their games biggest asset is the physical nature of it, and it won't stop thousands of Sydney and Qld kids from dismissing their mothers feministic concerns and playing a game of Rugby.

Horrible horrible decision.
 
amazingjoshy said:
They said on 360 that the AFLs counsel said he should have pirouetted out of the way....

I'm generally not one for "the game was better back in the old days" rants, but seriously "pirouetted out of the way"?







**had to look up how to spell pirouetted :oops:
Click to expand...


Aussie Rules or Strictly Ballroom? Administrators have lost the plot!!!!!
 
ziad said:
watching the game he was gone 2-4 weeks. he did bump and he did make high contact. he also was not contesting the ball which was in the possession of a crow - who had his arms pined or held in a tackle - third man in to tackle (but he didn't want to tackle)
Click to expand...

There was a split second between Lynch taking possession (never really had it cleanly) and the bump. Viney was chasing the ball out of the centre square and Lynch is coming the other way. If the ball bounced and sat up Viney wins possession, it bounced and rolled on and reached Lynch first.
 
FiveStrings said:
The questions for the tribunal were:
1. Did he 'bump'?
2. Did that cause forceful contact?
3. Was he contesting the ball?
4. Did he have a reasonable alternative?
5. Was the bump caused by forces outside of his control?

I think the answers are:
1. Maybe, assume Yes otherwise the rest is irrelephant
2. Yes, obviously
3. Yes
4. No
5. Yes, his teammate tackling Lynch at the same time.

4 is critical, and probably where the tribunal differed from 99.9% of commentators last night and this morning. There isn't a reasonable alternative. He was contesting the ball, and when a collision with two blokes coming the other way was imminent he braced for contact.

I don't think the problem is with the rules. The tribunal has just got this one wrong, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Given your background, Fivey, I think you might concur here. I think 'Did he bump?' is the critical question. There is no consistent definition of what constitutes a bump which is the majority of the problem with cases such as these.

Define what a bump actually is then the AFL can move on and adjudicate fairly. It seems to me that a definition is pretty much ad hoc at present. If I were appealing it I would be honing in on whether it was a bump in the first place, then the rest arguably goes away.
 
Another thing, Who are these people on the panel ? Have they ever played footy?.......At any level?

They slow the vision down and pick out points and where he should of acted.....Really. Anybody that has played footy will know, Viney made the decision to go for the ball 3-5 metres before the collision. Once you make that spit second decision there is no going back. Thats why once he knows he cant get the ball, he braces himself for the hit. I honestly dont see any other way around what happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top