Jack Viney Guilty

[azabob]

Reports coming through that Jack Viney is guilty and has been suspended for two weeks.

What are peoples thoughts on this from the bump perspective?

[azabob]

I can't believe it to be honest.

Here is the link to the incident for those who have not seen it.

http://www.AFL.com.au/news/2014-05-05/mrp-full-statement-round-seven

[anfo27]

Feel sorry for the kid. Not sure what on earth he was suppose to do. What do the AFL want him to do?

[SlimPickens]

Is it much different to the bump that Cameron did on JJ(which had some on here screaming blue murder)? With Lynch getting injured he was always going to get suspended, for mine he doesn't deserve the suspension but that unfortunately is the world we live in.

[bulldogtragic]

Ah well, clubs will be asking to increase the size of their lists if their players will get 2 weeks suspension for purely 100% accidental bumps.

[azabob]

Is it much different to the bump that Cameron did on JJ(which had some on here screaming blue murder)? With Lynch getting injured he was always going to get suspended, for mine he doesn't deserve the suspension but that unfortunately is the world we live in.

If Gerogiou wasn't involved in incident then Viney gets off? (from what I can see Viney actually never makes contact with Lynch's head).

[Happy Days]

"He could have avoided the contest or spun out of it" should say it all really.

[azabob]

"He could have avoided the contest or spun out of it" should say it all really.

Blind turn without the footy!

[bulldogtragic]

Blind turn without the footy!

Should get Pat Bowden back to the club to teach us that! :)

[Maddog37]

All I can think about is I'm glad he is not playing against us. The tribunal continuously throws up inconsistencies and we win this one.

[SlimPickens]

If Gerogiou wasn't involved in incident then Viney gets off? (from what I can see Viney actually never makes contact with Lynch's head).

Viney initiated the bump, Lynch got injured. It's that simple, the bump in my opinion is fair but "if you choose to bump and the player gets injured" you're responsible. This is the interpretation they are going with and it has killed the bump which injures an opposition player. Fair or not

[soupman]

Just watched it. It's actually amazing. I cannot believe how stupid a verdict it is.

Funnily enough Damian Barrett (official AFL journalist) has come out on twitter declaring it's 100% correct and then leaving it at that so he can cop the barrage of abuse he deserves. I'm tipping his response will come in a couple of hours with a smug "read the rules, players owe a duty of care" or some bullshit like that.

[anfo27]

Viney initiated the bump, Lynch got injured. It's that simple, the bump in my opinion is fair but "if you choose to bump and the player gets injured" you're responsible. This is the interpretation they are going with and it has killed the bump which injures an opposition player. Fair or not

Agree with the bolded bit but seriously i can't see how Jack could avoid contact. Unless he was superman & leaped over the 2 oncoming players and don't think he could of done anything else.

[SlimPickens]

Agree with the bolded bit but seriously i can't see how Jack could avoid contact. Unless he was superman & leaped over the 2 oncoming players and don't think he could of done anything else.

Exactly if anything he bumped to protect himself, turned his body and went low. It's a terrible decision but I'm staggered people still get surprised with these decisions. He was always going to go, to the letter of the law he deserved to go.

[LostDoggy]

It gets harder and harder to keep loving this game.

[soupman]

Viney initiated the bump, Lynch got injured. It's that simple, the bump in my opinion is fair but "if you choose to bump and the player gets injured" you're responsible. This is the interpretation they are going with and it has killed the bump which injures an opposition player. Fair or not
There has to be a point where the injury is just bad luck though, even if the players "chooses" to bump.

The only reason Viney went the bump was as a last minute reflex to protect himself. He didn't come flying in, he didn't accelerate into the contact, he was slowing down as the ball bounced, he didn't leave the ground and his elbow was tucked in. Lynch comes in just as fast, it's just the ball bounced to him and not Viney meaning Lynch was too busy grabbing the ball to turn and bump himself.

Viney turns for the bump in the last quarter of a second to absorb the momentum of Lynch and Georgiou. I would argue that he had no other alternative to the bump, any other move would have resulted in him getting cleaned up and probably hurt himself.


*I understand that your views don't necessarily align with the tribunals either.

[SlimPickens]

There has to be a point where the injury is just bad luck though, even if the players "chooses" to bump.

The only reason Viney went the bump was as a last minute reflex to protect himself. He didn't come flying in, he didn't accelerate into the contact, he was slowing down as the ball bounced, he didn't leave the ground and his elbow was tucked in. Lynch comes in just as fast, it's just the ball bounced to him and not Viney meaning Lynch was too busy grabbing the ball to turn and bump himself.

Viney turns for the bump in the last quarter of a second to absorb the momentum of Lynch and Georgiou. I would argue that he had no other alternative to the bump, any other move would have resulted in him getting cleaned up and probably hurt himself.


*I understand that your views don't necessarily align with the tribunals either.

Agree with everything you have said. My views certainly dont align with the tribunal.

[boydogs]

Rubbish suspension, Viney didn't move just tensed up. Makes more sense to charge the Adelaide player with charging him.

[Ghost Dog]

Poor decision. Well posted Soupaman.

[always right]

This is simply a very bad decision. The verdict is based on the conclusion that he chose to bump which is bulltish. He didn't choose to bump.....he chose to brace himself for inevitable contact. This decision beggars belief.

For the good of the game the demons need to appeal.

[Flamethrower]

What is wrong with Viney actually tackling Lynch rather than the pseudo-bump, pseudo-brace that he executed. Not surprised at all that he copped a suspension, as the break in Lynch's jaw was on the side that made contact with Viney according the Dr Pete Larkins. Therefore the break was caused by Viney's actions, and in the new age AFL every time a player is injured like this someone will pay the penalty.

[Twodogs]

He could have turned away. If he was Mikhail Baryshnikov maybe.

[FrediKanoute]

Wow, as a coach you would have praised his courage and attack on the footy, his willingness to put his body on the line. Nothing wrong with that bump.

[Happy Days]

He could have turned away. If he was Mikhail Baryshnikov maybe.

Or if he felt like being banished to the VFL 4-life.

This is so dumb.

[soupman]

What is wrong with Viney actually tackling Lynch rather than the pseudo-bump, pseudo-brace that he executed. Not surprised at all that he copped a suspension, as the break in Lynch's jaw was on the side that made contact with Viney according the Dr Pete Larkins. Therefore the break was caused by Viney's actions, and in the new age AFL every time a player is injured like this someone will pay the penalty.

Not sure the concept of copping 200kg's (Lynch and Georgiou) running at near sprint speed straight at you with your arms open is the smartest move. I would imagine the bits of his ribs they actually managed to find post-incident in this case would be inside various internal organs. Maybe Dr Pete Larkins could determine if the considerable damage done to Viney from not protecting himself was on the same side as the contact from Lynch.

Viney had no choice and was not put in a position where he had no choice by any kind of recklessness or stupidity on his behalf.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Predictable decision given the laws of the game.

All it reinforces is how crap the game of AFL footy now is.

[always right]

Not sure the concept of copping 200kg's (Lynch and Georgiou) running at near sprint speed straight at you with your arms open is the smartest move. I would imagine the bits of his ribs they actually managed to find post-incident in this case would be inside various internal organs. Maybe Dr Pete Larkins could determine if the considerable damage done to Viney from not protecting himself was on the same side as the contact from Lynch.

Viney had no choice and was not put in a position where he had no choice by any kind of recklessness or stupidity on his behalf.
100% correct Soupa

[Twodogs]

Melbourne should protest on the weekend by by sitting down for the whole of the first quarter while we silently protest by running around them and kick goal after goal.

[bulldogtragic]

Melbourne should protest on the weekend by by sitting down for the whole of the first quarter while we silently protest by running around them and kick goal after goal.

Yes. Peaceful resistance :)

[bornadog]

It gets harder and harder to keep loving this game.

Ditto

The AFL administrators have killed a once great game

[bulldogtragic]

Ditto

The AFL administrators have killed a once great game

Then shouldn't State League's prosper if they restored than rules back to a decade or so back?

[1eyedog]

It's actually Georgiou's half push / momentum that propels Lynch into Viney at almost double the speed he would have otherwise hit. This is what caused the damage. Georgiou affected the incident far more than Viney.

[Remi Moses]

Pretty staggered to be honest.
What's he meant to do ? Become invisible ?
He braced for contact

[Twodogs]

It's actually Georgiou's half push / momentum that propels Lynch into Viney at almost double the speed he would have otherwise hit. This is what caused the damage. Georgiou affected the incident far more than Viney.


Yep. Georgiou had more impact on that piece of play. I don't think the Tribunal have really thought through the consequences of this decision.

[soupman]

Another part that I previously hadn't considered was the inconsistency. I know the MRP/tribunal are not the models of consistency they like to think they are, but how the hell does Glass get 1 week for his hit on Wingard and Viney 2 for his "hit" on Lynch?

Viney's was a reflex move to protect himself at the last second.

Glass's was one where he took his eyes off the ball, was running at high speed and accelerating into the contest, jumped for maximum crashing effect, didn't get the ball and cleaned up Wingard in the head (which somehow got classified as body contact).

The difference? Wingard was lucky and only looked woozy after the incident and played out the rest of the match, Lynch was unlucky and broke his jaw.

I understand to a degree taking the injury into account, but the intention should be paramount. Glass's intention was to hurt, Viney's was to get the ball. Injury's happen naturally, you don't have to find someone to blame.

Too much weight is now put on whether someone got hurt, instead of whether a players actions were designed to hurt. Brodie Holland's bump on Montgomery all those years ago probably gets graded as low impact because he played out the game. Anyone tackling or bumping Tom Williams in the future will have to be very careful.

[Mantis]

Shocking decision.. The AFL are doing all they can turn everyone (players, coaches & fans) against them.

[Scorlibo]

I'm not as convinced on this one. Seems to me that Viney came charging in, from the opposite direction, and has an obligation to either change his line or attempt to tackle. If his main defence is that he was bracing himself rather than bumping... well that's never going to hold up in court - and it didn't. Yes, he might have been hesitant, but his shoulder has hit an opponent's jaw at high speed. Anyone trying to bump at that kind of speed should be suspended because it's more than likely going to result in a player getting hurt.

[The Pie Man]

Not sure the concept of copping 200kg's (Lynch and Georgiou) running at near sprint speed straight at you with your arms open is the smartest move. I would imagine the bits of his ribs they actually managed to find post-incident in this case would be inside various internal organs. Maybe Dr Pete Larkins could determine if the considerable damage done to Viney from not protecting himself was on the same side as the contact from Lynch.

Viney had no choice and was not put in a position where he had no choice by any kind of recklessness or stupidity on his behalf.

I don't necessarily disagree with this - but is Lynch being considerably bigger than Viney relevant? It explains why he braced for contact, but the tackle was still an option*, whether it would've hurt Viney or not. *Having said that, the tribunal's wording of how Viney could've 'pirouetted' out of the contest as an alternate option is beyond ridiculous.

Jordan Lewis on 360 last night said that players coming into those contested situations just have to think 'tackle tackle tackle'

Having said all this, I do hope Melbourne appeals and he gets off

[soupman]

I don't necessarily disagree with this - but is Lynch being considerably bigger than Viney relevant? It explains why he braced for contact, but the tackle was still an option*, whether it would've hurt Viney or not. *Having said that, the tribunal's wording of how Viney could've 'pirouetted' out of the contest as an alternate option is beyond ridiculous.

Jordan Lewis on 360 last night said that players coming into those contested situations just have to think 'tackle tackle tackle'

Having said all this, I do hope Melbourne appeals and he gets off

In a scenario where Viney is almost stationary and Lynch is nearly sprinting straight at him I think it is. The tackle was an option, but never a realistic one. It would never have stuck, and would have almost certainly sat Viney on his bum and quite probably hurt him. Lynch is simply too big, especially with Georgiou added to his momentum.

Maybe if it was Eddie Betts he tackles, but not Tom Lynch, and even then he'd probably still bump.

The tribunal are idiots.

[azabob]

The tribunal are idiots.

Tribunal or AFL exec commitee?

[soupman]

Tribunal or AFL exec commitee?

The general AFL payroll.

[The Pie Man]

They are officially appealing - glad they've done so

[always right]

I'm not as convinced on this one. Seems to me that Viney came charging in, from the opposite direction, and has an obligation to either change his line or attempt to tackle. If his main defence is that he was bracing himself rather than bumping... well that's never going to hold up in court - and it didn't. Yes, he might have been hesitant, but his shoulder has hit an opponent's jaw at high speed. Anyone trying to bump at that kind of speed should be suspended because it's more than likely going to result in a player getting hurt.

Wrong. You seem to be suggesting he was charging in to lay a tackle or a bump. If this was true you would have no argument from me about the tribunal decision.

The fact is he charged in to get the ball and it was only when the ball bounced favourably for Lynch that the situation changed where Viney had to react to the prospect of impact with Lynch and Georgiou. With less than a second he had no time to make a considered decision as to whether to bump, tackle or avoid contact. His perfectly natural reaction was to brace for contact...a perfectly reasonable action. Whether it would stand up in court is debateable but irrelevant....as the AFL constantly reminds us, the tribunal is not a court.

[bornadog]

They are officially appealing - glad they've done so
Melbourne must take this to the highest appeal possible, even the Supreme Court to challenge the rules of the game. This was a pure accident with heads clashing after a legal bump

[always right]

I don't necessarily disagree with this - but is Lynch being considerably bigger than Viney relevant? It explains why he braced for contact, but the tackle was still an option*, whether it would've hurt Viney or not. *Having said that, the tribunal's wording of how Viney could've 'pirouetted' out of the contest as an alternate option is beyond ridiculous.

Jordan Lewis on 360 last night said that players coming into those contested situations just have to think 'tackle tackle tackle'

Having said all this, I do hope Melbourne appeals and he gets off

That's fine but shouldn't players be thinking "get the ball, get the ball, get the ball"....as was the case with Viney? The intent to tackle should only be the option when getting the ball isn't.

[always right]

This article from Barrett is simply embarrassing. His final comparison with a motorist running a red light is laughable.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-07/vineys-suspension-simple

He also seems to be saying that as soon as someone is injured the player will automatically be found guilty. This is not the case if contact has not occurred through a conscious decision to bump. The player will get off if it is found that there was no realistic option available to the player and the injury was simply an accident.

[Scorlibo]

That's fine but shouldn't players be thinking "get the ball, get the ball, get the ball"....as was the case with Viney? The intent to tackle should only be the option when getting the ball isn't.

Well then Jack Viney should have made the decision to tackle at the same point that he made the decision to bump - when getting the ball wasn't a possibility.

Tom Lynch suffering a broken jaw is not an incidental, it could have been avoided and it wasn't.

[1eyedog]

Well then Jack Viney should have made the decision to tackle at the same point that he made the decision to bump - when getting the ball wasn't a possibility.

Tom Lynch suffering a broken jaw is not an incidental, it could have been avoided and it wasn't.

As far as I can gather Viney seemed to turn his body to bump at the last second for the impact. You can see the momentum Georgiou creates a moment before impact where he almost pushes Lynch into Viney. If I was Viney there is no way in hell I would think that I could tackle Lynch front on at that speed regardless if he had tried to stop, break to one side or just went full steam ahead. No thanks to Georgiou Lynch came crashing through at a dangerous speed and an attempt to tackle may have had serious consequences for Viney. Georgiou not only propels Lynch forward he also pushes him down almost onto Viney's shoulder. I have little doubt that if Georgiou was not in the contest it would have been a fair bump and Lynch would not be nursing a broken jaw.

[lemmon]

Well then Jack Viney should have made the decision to tackle at the same point that he made the decision to bump - when getting the ball wasn't a possibility.

Tom Lynch suffering a broken jaw is not an incidental, it could have been avoided and it wasn't.

How anyone could think tackling in that situation is astounding. Not enough time and too much coming back the other way.

[Scorlibo]

As far as I can gather Viney seemed to turn his body to bump at the last second for the impact. You can see the momentum Georgiou creates a moment before impact where he almost pushes Lynch into Viney. If I was Viney there is no way in hell I would think that I could tackle Lynch front on at that speed regardless if he had tried to stop, break to one side or just went full steam ahead. No thanks to Georgiou Lynch came crashing through at a dangerous speed and an attempt to tackle may have had serious consequences for Viney. Georgiou not only propels Lynch forward he also pushes him down almost onto Viney's shoulder. I have little doubt that if Georgiou was not in the contest it would have been a fair bump and Lynch would not be nursing a broken jaw.

Except Georgiou was and Lynch is.

I understand what you're saying in regards to the sandwich effect, and I completely agree that the speed both parties were travelling towards the ball at was very dangerous. That's kind of the point though. Viney shat his pants at the last minute and opted out of danger by placing a very sturdy body part of his in line with a very fragile one of Lynch's - effectively transferring his momentum and Lynch's momentum both onto Lynch's head. If Viney is half-responsible for creating the high speed collision, and he's second to the ball, then in my opinion he has to wear what comes from it rather than take what I consider to be the soft option.

[Scorlibo]

How anyone could think tackling in that situation is astounding. Not enough time and too much coming back the other way.

There was enough time for him to think bump/brace (what's the difference, really?), so why not enough time for him to think tackle?

[bornadog]

There was enough time for him to think bump/brace (what's the difference, really?), so why not enough time for him to think tackle?

and what is wrong with bump/brace (legally). At the end of the day its a contact sport and there will be accidents like this.

[1eyedog]

There was enough time for him to think bump/brace (what's the difference, really?), so why not enough time for him to think tackle?

Most AFL players think bump not brace. They are taught the bump at junior level and it is instinctive - not sure there is too much of think involved.

[always right]

There was enough time for him to think bump/brace (what's the difference, really?), so why not enough time for him to think tackle?

The basis of your argument seems to be that he had time to make a considered decision. My counter argument is that he didn't and his motion to brace himself was instinctive.

[The Pie Man]

That's fine but shouldn't players be thinking "get the ball, get the ball, get the ball"....as was the case with Viney? The intent to tackle should only be the option when getting the ball isn't.

Yeah it should - and obviously was in this instance....though the sliding rule is challenging that very instinct in my opinion (will save that rant for another day)

[lemmon]

Yeah it should - and obviously was in this instance....though the sliding rule is challenging that very instinct in my opinion (will save that rant for another day)
And is officiated incredibly inconsistently, some of the decisions in the Geelong-Richmond game were head scratching

[Scorlibo]

The basis of your argument seems to be that he had time to make a considered decision. My counter argument is that he didn't and his motion to brace himself was instinctive.

And this is where we end up debating semantics :). Of course it's not a considered decision, is any decision on the football field made with even 2 seconds to spare? As I see it, the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process is the one which should be used to classify these sorts of cases. Viney puts himself in the situation where he forfeits the opportunity to make a conscious/considered decision and that in itself is fine. But if the resultant instinctive decision jeopardises another player's safety, he has failed to employ his duty of care. It's the combination of the decision to attack the ball so bullishly and the instinct to bump/brace which has him defined as negligent - in my opinion. IIRC Dale Morris was suspended for a 'reckless' trip. This is from the same family, I think, of 'negligent' (ie. Dale shouldnt have been suspended). They're instinctive actions but they have to register as negligent because another player gets hurt as a result of the offending player breaking the rules (and Viney has broken the rules by making high impact, high contact).

[lemmon]

And this is where we end up debating semantics :). Of course it's not a considered decision, is any decision on the football field made with even 2 seconds to spare? As I see it, the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process is the one which should be used to classify these sorts of cases. Viney puts himself in the situation where he forfeits the opportunity to make a conscious/considered decision and that in itself is fine. But if the resultant instinctive decision jeopardises another player's safety, he has failed to employ his duty of care. It's the combination of the decision to attack the ball so bullishly and the instinct to bump/brace which has him defined as negligent - in my opinion. IIRC Dale Morris was suspended for a 'reckless' trip. This is from the same family, I think, of 'negligent' (ie. Dale shouldnt have been suspended). They're instinctive actions but they have to register as negligent because another player gets hurt as a result of the offending player breaking the rules (and Viney has broken the rules by making high impact, high contact).

But the act which put him in the "situation where he forfeits the opportunity to make a conscious/considered decision" is simply hunting the ball. It not only strikes at the heart of footy it goes to the heart of sport itself, surely a player is not simply allowed but encouraged to go and win the ball for his own side? What happens after that is in my eyes and the eyes of most simply an unavoidable collision and comes under the banner of accidental rather than negligence.

[always right]

Originally Posted by Scorlibo

And this is where we end up debating semantics . Of course it's not a considered decision, is any decision on the football field made with even 2 seconds to spare? As I see it, the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process is the one which should be used to classify these sorts of cases. Viney puts himself in the situation where he forfeits the opportunity to make a conscious/considered decision and that in itself is fine. But if the resultant instinctive decision jeopardises another player's safety, he has failed to employ his duty of care. It's the combination of the decision to attack the ball so bullishly and the instinct to bump/brace which has him defined as negligent - in my opinion. IIRC Dale Morris was suspended for a 'reckless' trip. This is from the same family, I think, of 'negligent' (ie. Dale shouldnt have been suspended). They're instinctive actions but they have to register as negligent because another player gets hurt as a result of the offending player breaking the rules (and Viney has broken the rules by making high impact, high contact).


But the act which put him in the "situation where he forfeits the opportunity to make a conscious/considered decision" is simply hunting the ball. It not only strikes at the heart of footy it goes to the heart of sport itself, surely a player is not simply allowed but encouraged to go and win the ball for his own side? What happens after that is in my eyes and the eyes of most simply an unavoidable collision and comes under the banner of accidental rather than negligence.

Couldn't agree with you more Lemmon.
To Scorlibo's point that "It's the combination of the decision to attack the ball so bullishly and the instinct to bump/brace which has him defined as negligent - in my opinion".......it seems slightly rediculous that the preferred option is for a player to either not attack the ball at all or only go half-heartedly for the ball just in case the situation arises where he may need to brace himself unexpectedly for contact.

[AndrewP6]

Appeal upheld, he's free to play. Sanity prevails
http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/live-coverage-jack-viney-free-to-play-after-afl-appeals-board-sides-with-melbourne/story-e6frf3e3-1226910592979?from=public_rss

[GVGjr]

Commonsense has prevailed.

[Remi Moses]

Common sense has prevailed and hopefully the hysteria now dies down.

[Go_Dogs]

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Couldn't agree more.

Everything about this is a joke.

[Bulldog4life]

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Agree 100% Griff. The AFL does it again.

[Ozza]

Should have gotten 1 week!!!:D

[Happy Days]

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Spot on; the whole situation is a farce.

[always right]

Personally I think it's crazy that a player can do everything right....turn their body, tuck their arm in, take a low trajectory and make contact fair and square with the opposition player's shoulder....yet still be suspended if contact somehow leads to the other player injuring their head in some way by whatever means.

Whilst some will maintain the bump is not dead, you have to ask the question why anyone would take the risk. The fear of litigation has changed our game forever.

[Scorlibo]

Personally I think it's crazy that a player can do everything right....turn their body, tuck their arm in, take a low trajectory and make contact fair and square with the opposition player's shoulder....yet still be suspended if contact somehow leads to the other player injuring their head in some way by whatever means.

Whilst some will maintain the bump is not dead, you have to ask the question why anyone would take the risk. The fear of litigation has changed our game forever.

Sorry AR... I love your work usually but surely you know how incorrect this bolded bit is? You're wrong on every count. The right thing would have been for Viney to not turn his body, to extend his arms, to try and tackle! He leaves the ground before making contact (ie. doesn't keep a low trajectory) and his shoulder makes contact with Tom Lynch's head!

I don't like this decision at all, I think it's wrong, two-faced and weak. The juggernaut which has built in Viney's favour is nothing more than the straw breaking the camel's back on the ol' fashioned bump, this case has not been judged on its merit, it's been an outpouring of emotion and frustration. The AFL has buckled under the pressure.

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

[bornadog]

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

and all of those suspensions have been direct contact to someone's head.

[Sedat]

Maybe it's my general lethargy with footy and footy 'reporting' at the moment, but I cannot believe the overblown hysteria over this incident. If this is the height of footy interest this week, the game is in quite some trouble - obviously the quality of the footy being played in most games on most weekends is not much of a talking point, so incidents like this one are highlighted so that the scribes have something remotely interesting to write about.

[always right]

Maybe it's my general lethargy with footy and footy 'reporting' at the moment, but I cannot believe the overblown hysteria over this incident. If this is the height of footy interest this week, the game is in quite some trouble - obviously the quality of the footy being played in most games on most weekends is not much of a talking point, so incidents like this one are highlighted so that the scribes have something remotely interesting to write about.

I suspect this is something that has been building for a while and the Viney episode simply brought it to a head. For once I don't think this is a media beat-up......I know in my own workplace it was the topic of conversation from the moment the tribunal's original finding was handed down. It might not be a big issue for you but I know plenty of people who felt very strongly about it. I think there is definitely an air of exasperation about the AFL at the moment and it's not all media driven.

[always right]

Sorry AR... I love your work usually but surely you know how incorrect this bolded bit is? You're wrong on every count. The right thing would have been for Viney to not turn his body, to extend his arms, to try and tackle! He leaves the ground before making contact (ie. doesn't keep a low trajectory) and his shoulder makes contact with Tom Lynch's head!

I don't like this decision at all, I think it's wrong, two-faced and weak. The juggernaut which has built in Viney's favour is nothing more than the straw breaking the camel's back on the ol' fashioned bump, this case has not been judged on its merit, it's been an outpouring of emotion and frustration. The AFL has buckled under the pressure.

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

Mine was a general observation and not a reference to the Viney incident specifically. The fact is an incident that occurs exactly as I've described could result in a suspension if the opponent is injured.

Why the outrage in the Viney case and not others beforehand? I think you're right in stating it's the straw that broke the camel's back but many people (myself included) simply disagree with your assessment and believe that Viney had a reasonable defence against the charge. Not saying that we're definitely right and you are wrong.......actually I am saying that;)

Not sure why you are surprised there wasn't the same outrage for the Morris incident. Can you explain?

[Scorlibo]

and all of those suspensions have been direct contact to someone's head.

Are you saying Viney didn't make direct contact with Lynch's head?


Mine was a general observation and not a reference to the Viney incident specifically. The fact is an incident that occurs exactly as I've described could result in a suspension if the opponent is injured.

Why the outrage in the Viney case and not others beforehand? I think you're right in stating it's the straw that broke the camel's back but many people (myself included) simply disagree with your assessment and believe that Viney had a reasonable defence against the charge. Not saying that we're definitely right and you are wrong.......actually I am saying that;)

Not sure why you are surprised there wasn't the same outrage for the Morris incident. Can you explain?

Harking back to my previous post on the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process: I can't see any difference between Viney's split second reaction to compact his body, turn side on, hit Lynch high and Morris' split second reaction to reach out with his leg to stop the oncoming player. Neither were 'intentional' or 'reckless' but what is the 'negligent' category for if not for these sorts of cases, and where is the difference between Viney's reaction and Morris'?

The difference between the two incidents is that Morris makes medium impact with the other bloke's leg, whereas Viney makes high/severe impact with Lynch's head. I can't for the life of me understand how Morris could be suspended on that evidence and Viney not.

[soupman]

Harking back to my previous post on the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process: I can't see any difference between Viney's split second reaction to compact his body, turn side on, hit Lynch high and Morris' split second reaction to reach out with his leg to stop the oncoming player. Neither were 'intentional' or 'reckless' but what is the 'negligent' category for if not for these sorts of cases, and where is the difference between Viney's reaction and Morris'?

The difference between the two incidents is that Morris makes medium impact with the other bloke's leg, whereas Viney makes high/severe impact with Lynch's head. I can't for the life of me understand how Morris could be suspended on that evidence and Viney not.

Not sure if serious?

Viney was going to hit Lynch regardless, but he only had one method of doing so which wasn't suicide.

Morris' trip, whilst instinctive, was completely avoidable and would have been averted completely if he chose not to act.

What I'm getting at is that Viney was put in his situation by bad luck, Morris by bad choice, however instinctive.

[bornadog]

Are you saying Viney didn't make direct contact with Lynch's head?



Harking back to my previous post on the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process: I can't see any difference between Viney's split second reaction to compact his body, turn side on, hit Lynch high and Morris' split second reaction to reach out with his leg to stop the oncoming player. Neither were 'intentional' or 'reckless' but what is the 'negligent' category for if not for these sorts of cases, and where is the difference between Viney's reaction and Morris'?

The difference between the two incidents is that Morris makes medium impact with the other bloke's leg, whereas Viney makes high/severe impact with Lynch's head. I can't for the life of me understand how Morris could be suspended on that evidence and Viney not.

didnt touch his head

tripping is a dog act

[Scorlibo]

Not sure if serious?

Viney was going to hit Lynch regardless, but he only had one method of doing so which wasn't suicide.

Morris' trip, whilst instinctive, was completely avoidable and would have been averted completely if he chose not to act.

What I'm getting at is that Viney was put in his situation by bad luck, Morris by bad choice, however instinctive.

I just don't agree, if Viney opts to tackle there is most likely no high contact, both players take a hit but nothing more than what happens 20 times during the course of a match. By turning his body and not bothering to slow down he diverts all of his momentum into Tom Lynch's jaw.

Both Viney and Morris had an instinctive reaction to an awkward situation.


didnt touch his head

tripping is a dog act

You must be taking the piss.

[bornadog]

You must be taking the piss.

No I am not.

Viney never hits anyone above the shoulder during the bump.

[Scorlibo]

No I am not.

Viney never hits anyone above the shoulder during the bump.

452

He broke his jaw, BAD. How do you think that happened?

[jeemak]

Sorry if it's already been covered, but I thought that the rules were changed to suggest if you decide to bump and someone gets hit in the head or ends up being affected by head high contact then the player that bumps loses all rights to mitigation.

It was clear to me Viney decided to bump. I don't and never will buy that players don't choose to bump, and it was clear to me in this instance he chose that course of action over others.

Whether you think it's right, is irrelevant. The rules as I understand them are no longer up for interpretation (if my interpretation is wrong, then fair enough).

Just another example of the inconsistency the AFL applies to decisions depending on what they see as an optimal commercial outcome.

I highly doubt that Nathan Hrovat doing the same thing would have resulted in an appeal at the AFL tribunal if it happened to be him, let alone a successful appeal.

[chef]

Should have gotten 1 week!!!:D

Yep, would have rather the suspension stuck:D

[bornadog]

452

He broke his jaw, BAD. How do you think that happened?

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.

[Go_Dogs]

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.

Agreed, that was what I had assumed. Not sure which side of Lynch's jaw was broken so I'm not sure we've really got any clarity on it, do we?

[Greystache]

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.


Agreed, that was what I had assumed. Not sure which side of Lynch's jaw was broken so I'm not sure we've really got any clarity on it, do we?

He broke the side that Viney hit.

[always right]

Sorry if it's already been covered, but I thought that the rules were changed to suggest if you decide to bump and someone gets hit in the head or ends up being affected by head high contact then the player that bumps loses all rights to mitigation.

It was clear to me Viney decided to bump. I don't and never will buy that players don't choose to bump, and it was clear to me in this instance he chose that course of action over others.

Whether you think it's right, is irrelevant. The rules as I understand them are no longer up for interpretation (if my interpretation is wrong, then fair enough).

Just another example of the inconsistency the AFL applies to decisions depending on what they see as an optimal commercial outcome.

I highly doubt that Nathan Hrovat doing the same thing would have resulted in an appeal at the AFL tribunal if it happened to be him, let alone a successful appeal.

You are right but there is a caveat. The tribunal assesses wheth the player had any reasonable alternative to bumping the opposition player. That's what is in dispute here.

Some posters like you believe he made a conscious decision to bump. Others like me believe his intent was to get the ball and it was only when this was no longer an option that the collision became inevitable. The only question here is whether the circumstances were such that there was sufficient time to make a decision and was there a realistic alternative.

I'm not going to argue anymore as to whether he did or didn't have time to make a conscious decision as we simply disagree. It's wrong however to suggest that there are no mitigating factors taken into account by the tribunal in a situation of this type.

[Scorlibo]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-10/duffield-collects-wingard-high

Not identical to the Viney case but fairly similar. It will be interesting to see how the MRP act.

[jeemak]

You are right but there is a caveat. The tribunal assesses wheth the player had any reasonable alternative to bumping the opposition player. That's what is in dispute here.

Some posters like you believe he made a conscious decision to bump. Others like me believe his intent was to get the ball and it was only when this was no longer an option that the collision became inevitable. The only question here is whether the circumstances were such that there was sufficient time to make a decision and was there a realistic alternative.

I'm not going to argue anymore as to whether he did or didn't have time to make a conscious decision as we simply disagree. It's wrong however to suggest that there are no mitigating factors taken into account by the tribunal in a situation of this type.

Thanks.

I suppose that's what it comes down to. If it's decided the intention to bump was there - and there was other alterneratives, then no mitigation exists. If that's disputed then that obviously has to be considered.

You're right, there'll never be agreement on whether he did it intentionally and had other options (or otherwise).

[always right]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-10/duffield-collects-wingard-high

Not identical to the Viney case but fairly similar. It will be interesting to see how the MRP act.

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

[jeemak]

Apparently Cameron didn't touch JJ's head in this one though.......

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-07-06/cameron-in-trouble

The Wingard one is obvious.

[Go_Dogs]

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

I haven't seen it, but assume similar to Roughead last night?

Any targeting of a player going the ball is exactly what they're meant to be stamping out.

After Glass got off for his hit on Wingard I've got no idea what they may do.

[boydogs]

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

Head high bump, free kick. Will probably get weeks but shouldn't IMO

[Scorlibo]

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

In each example there is a situational change moments before the offending player arrives. Tom Lynch gets to the ball first, Wingard kicks. No doubt Duffield intends to tackle him but once the kick is made can't do so and thus the momentum takes him forward to catch Wingard high. The exact same level of apprehension and 'bracing'. The difference I think is that Duffield's hit was low impact, whereas Viney's was severe. It will be a joke on that evidence if Duffield gets suspended.

[jeemak]

Man, seriously?

Viney went for him without much time, but he still went for him.

Duffield went for him, with plenty of time but still went for him.

The latter clearly hit him late and high, and had a long time to alter his actions. These cases for the same topic, are so far removed from each other it's not funny.

[Twodogs]

Duffield is gone. He takes his eye off the ball to look at Wingard and makes a decision to bump him. Whether he meant to make head high contact or not doesn't matter. Duffield did and that's what he will be judged on.

[bornadog]

Jones looked like he was trying to get out of the way but still clipped him with his shoulder. Watch is action as he turns his body.

[G-Mo77]

Jones looked like he was trying to get out of the way but still clipped him with his shoulder. Watch is action as he turns his body.

He's gone. At least 2 weeks.

He really did Melbourne a favour with getting him off the ground. Terlich was putrid, one of our best players up until that point.

[Scorlibo]

Man, seriously?

Viney went for him without much time, but he still went for him.

Duffield went for him, with plenty of time but still went for him.

The latter clearly hit him late and high, and had a long time to alter his actions. These cases for the same topic, are so far removed from each other it's not funny.

It all depends on how much time you think Viney had.

[LostDoggy]

All I hate about the new bump rule is the season-long hand-wringing over every single contact on the field. When it's blatant, sure, give weeks, but when it's obviously just in the course of play, let it go.

How ex-footballers can't get that right is beyond me. All I know is that I'd love to read about something in the papers other than whether the bump is dead.