Oppo Camp Viney

[Miguel Sanchez]

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.

He was moving forward and turned side-on, I think that's a bump.

Bigger issue for me is the lack of a reasonable alternative. The only other options (as Quinz set out) were to leave himself open to take the brunt of the impact, or to somehow avoid the contest - even if he could physically change direction in the short amount of time he had, I don't think squibbing a contest should be considered a reasonable alternative.

 

[QS]

He was moving forward and turned side-on, I think that's a bump.

I would've thought a bump is attempting to apply force to the player rather than taking evasive action. Your words 'I think that's a bump' support my contention! Nobody knows what a bump actually is; least of all the players.

 

[eaglesfan84]

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.

It was pretty obvious he was firstly contesting the ball, then bracing for contact, not bumping, and he actually tried to shift his weight backwards to ease the level of force of contact that he realised was coming, you can see from the footage how easily he gets forced backwards when contact occurs and how he bends his knees to get low and to lesson the impact, the tackle from Geourgiou forced Lynch even lower than Viney could have expected. Accidents occur, and this was unfortunate, but you can't penalise players for attacking the ball and protecting themselves, it's ludicrous, that's the fundamentals of the game, pretty much the fundamentals for every sporting game with a ball. There's need to be a clause 5.8 "Accidents happen sometimes."

 

[lewigie]

Definitely weeks. Moved towards Lynch and from the footage I've seen it has looked like he left the ground.

He should have just got low and gotten poleaxed, it happens in games all the time.

 

[lyall]

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.

3,4 and 5 are the main ones for mine. Pretty much says in bold it was an accident. Just a bizarre ruling and then even more bizarre penalty, kind of feels like his papers were stamped before the hearing even occurred.

I think the MRP should just be about ridding the game of sniping/dog acts and general thuggery.


Also irelephant? I like it

 

[Eaglemaniac]

Ridiculous decision. Soon all the players will have to stand around and hope someone hands the ball to them slowly so that no-one accidentally makes contact with them so they dont get suspended.
There are numerous facebook pages being made about this to send a message to AFL headquarters that they ae ruining iour game. Find one and like it to send Dimwitrio & co a message that they are ruining our game turning it into netball.

 

[Small Moves]

Nothing wrong with Viney.moving aside he elected to hurt Lynch so 2 weeks seems fair.

Have you ever played a game of football? Why would he elect to hurt Lynch?

.........

 

[eagles rule]

Have you ever played a game of football? Why would he elect to hurt Lynch?

.........

When a player sandwiches someone , he is going for hurt factor .

 

[eagles rule]

I think there is.

If Lynch was free wheeling and Viney stepped aside that is squibing the contest .

His teammate had lynch done in the tackle and usually players stay out of the way unless they are bound to infringe.
Happens all the time now Vic media have used the term squibing which is leading the outrage and implies Viney shouldn't approach with caution.

 

[Marlin01]

If Lynch was free wheeling and Viney stepped aside that is squibing the contest .

His teammate had lynch done in the tackle and usually players stay out of the way unless they are bound to infringe.
Happens all the time now Vic media have used the term squibing which is leading the outrage and implies Viney shouldn't approach with caution.

We have very differing opinions on what took place.

 

[Matera92]

When a player sandwiches someone , he is going for hurt factor .

You can tell who's never played the game above auskick.

 

[Scotland]

Does anyone remember when Matthew Lloyd KO'd (teammate) Henry Slattery a few years ago?

Deliberately went to bump (an opponent) and collected his own man in the head, causing severe concussion.

Under today's rules would he be suspended?

What if you go for a hanger and accidentally knee someone in the head?

How about Matt Rosa's mark vs Carlton. He turned his body and braced for contact. If he collects one of their guys in the face and KO's them does he get weeks?

The AFL has totally ****ed this rule up. Fyfe, now Viney get two week holidays and people debate the issue along the lines of 'well that's what the interpretation, in the letter of the law...'. *.

 

[Magnum27]

The AFL are hell bent on avoiding any more players ending like Greg Williams, and i applaud them for that.

However this was not a deliberate attempt to take someone out, it was an accident and should not have been looked at. Yet both the MRP- Ex AFL players and tribunal also ex AFL players thought it should, what were they thinking is beyond me. I know the AFL has set rules for this, but surely the tribunal last night could have said we think it was an accident and let it go. Questions need to be asked of them and their decision making, because they had the power to stop these bullshite suspensions.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The issue is the AFL don't seem to understand the difference between "electing to bump" and "bumping"

Any collision is a bump, it is also natural to brace for contact.

If someone is flying at you and you brace for contact - that isn't electing to bump, it is self preservation.

Viney didn't elect to bump, he merely slowed to reduce any contact and braced for impact.

That's a far cry from say Lindsay Thomas who changed direction and jumped into a bloke.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The AFL has totally ****** this rule up. Fyfe, now Viney get two week holidays and people debate the issue along the lines of 'well that's what the interpretation, in the letter of the law...'. *.

The main issue with Fyfe was that he is a big name in Footy. Where the attention should have been in that incident was the Taylor Hunt ban.

The AFL would be laughing at the all the attention to Fyfe which was somewhat defendable in that he could have chosen to tackle. Taylor Hunt was shepherding quite fairly and made accidental head to head contact. He did everything right and had no other option and still got pinged.

Unfortunately Fyfe grabbed the headline when unfortunately Hunt was the bigger story

 

[Marlin01]

I had no problem with the Fyfe one. He intended to bump and a head collision occurred. It wasn't his intention to impact his opponent's head, but it was a reasonable chance of happening.

 

[Xsess]

Soon the maggots will blow their whistles calling "contact, contact, contact!!"

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

The main issue with Fyfe was that he is a big name in Footy. Where the attention should have been in that incident was the Taylor Hunt ban.

The AFL would be laughing at the all the attention to Fyfe which was somewhat defendable in that he could have chosen to tackle. Taylor Hunt was shepherding quite fairly and made accidental head to head contact. He did everything right and had no other option and still got pinged.

Unfortunately Fyfe grabbed the headline when unfortunately Hunt was the bigger story

Fyfe should have been suspended, he went for the bump and collected his opponents head. Vineyard was trying to collect the ball and didn't hit his opponent in the head, the contact forced his opponent to hit another players head. Polar opposites really

 

[Marlin01]

Soon the maggots will blow their whistles calling "contact, contact, contact!!"

Stand aside ruck rover.

 

[Xsess]

Stand aside ruck rover.

PPPFFFFFIIIT!! Dangerous mark, dangerous mark. . .....

 

[MIKE85]

Not really 100% on it either way. Like has been said, if you elect to bump, you are flirting with danger, & all the players know the new rule, as stupid as it may be. He chose to bump, he turned side on and did get him in the head, it was made far worse by his head then smashing into the other demons player's head. The moment he stopped trying to get the ball, and braced is considered "choosing to bump" which is easy to say watching it in super slow motion, real time is much harder, and obviously being the player, it is a split second decision. The stupid thing is if he had of put his arms out, either trying to grab the ball, or trying to tackle, he would've been fine, which is rediculous!

The Fyfe one is much different, he had time to tackle, and chose not to, so he wears it, as he should, according to the rules, again that's people opinion on whether the rules are s**t. Having said that, Accidental head contact should be deemed just that, accidental, carry on. Glass' jumping off the ground with his back to the ball is much more dangerous and lucky he didn't get him in the head or he would have got plenty.

The thing that really s**t's me, even more than the crazy decisions that come out of the MRP, is the old timers that call up talk back radio and say "the game is boring, it's gone soft, back in my day blah blah blah" The game is harder & faster than ever, the main difference is the behind the play stuff, and the deliberate dodgy stuff, & just trying to hurt blokes cause they have more skill than you, kicked a goal on you etc is gone, & so it should be. Everyone goes on about what a legend Matthews was, and what a tough guy Dermie was, why, because they cheap shotted blokes behind the play or had no eyes on the footy and just tried to run through guys to feel tough, that's a load of s**t & it's a good thing that sort of s**t has been rubbed out the game. Some of those old dinosaurs wouldn't get a kick these days! There is nothing wrong with protecting the players heads, but accidents need to be viewed as just that, accidents.

 

[Xsess]

I'm conviced the HTB interpretation is also to remove "contested" situations. The bloke who attacks the footy the hardest gets penalised by those who just stand off the contest and simply pile on with three mates. Heavens forbid two players attacking the same footy, they might bonk heads.

 

[QS]

ATFL soon.
'You touched him on the bottom, free kick'

 

[clogged]

Fyfe should have been suspended, he went for the bump and collected his opponents head.

With his own head. For which he had to get bandaged.

I'm not sure why a new rule had to be brought in just because Collingwood cracked the sads over Lindsay Thomas bumping Ben Reid.

 

[Quinz]

Not really 100% on it either way. Like has been said, if you elect to bump, you are flirting with danger, & all the players know the new rule, as stupid as it may be. He chose to bump, he turned side on and did get him in the head, it was made far worse by his head then smashing into the other demons player's head. The moment he stopped trying to get the ball, and braced is considered "choosing to bump" which is easy to say watching it in super slow motion, real time is much harder, and obviously being the player, it is a split second decision. The stupid thing is if he had of put his arms out, either trying to grab the ball, or trying to tackle, he would've been fine, which is rediculous!

He would have been fine from an MRP standpoint. But he probably would have had his own jaw broken from the 200kg player train crashing straight through him. I didn't see his actions as anything more than instinctive self-preservation, he had no other reasonable option (obviously the MRP disagrees).