The Age is reporting a two-week suspension for the bump, to be served concurrently with the one-week ban for the striking charge. A weak decision from the Tribunal. This is a fraction of what he would have copped under the AFL points system. Maybe they were influenced by Chris Scott telling the media that 3 weeks would effectively mean 7? Alternatively, they may have been swayed by his evidence that "I intended to tackle, then at the least minute he changed direction" what a load of carp that is. You need to brace yourself to bump; it's not an instinctive reaction to another player's change of direction. Quite the contrary. If he'd flung an arm out and copped him high I might believe it. The reality is he lined him up (probably influenced by the earlier niggle) and should have payed for it. He got off extremely lightly and that reflects poorly on the VFL Tribunal.

2 weeks for inflicting 6 weeks....

Well at least the tribunal is consistent between AFL and VFL.... (Consistently shite)

The Age is reporting a two-week suspension for the bump, to be served concurrently with the one-week ban for the striking charge. A weak decision from the Tribunal. This is a fraction of what he would have copped under the AFL points system. Maybe they were influenced by Chris Scott telling the media that 3 weeks would effectively mean 7? Alternatively, they may have been swayed by his evidence that "I intended to tackle, then at the least minute he changed direction" what a load of carp that is. You need to brace yourself to bump; it's not an instinctive reaction to another player's change of direction. Quite the contrary. If he'd flung an arm out and copped him high I might believe it. The reality is he lined him up (probably influenced by the earlier niggle) and should have payed for it. He got off extremely lightly and that reflects poorly on the VFL Tribunal.

Shame on the AFL

2 weeks for inflicting 6 weeks....

Its 2 weeks for inflicting 4 weeks on the latest estimate.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/wojcinski-facing-four-weeks-on-sidelines-after-vfl-ban-20120508-1yb36.html

Shame on the AFL

I think this was a VFL decision...

I think this was a VFL decision...

.......well, it was as pi55weak as an AFL decision.

So, he gets in effect 2 weeks for head high charge breaking an opponent's jaw; like 66% of a Jack Trengove tackle following which the 'victim', allegedly concussed, went out and kicked a bag of goals?

Einstein's theory of relativity is certainly easier to understand that that of AFL and VFL tribunals.

.......well, it was as pi55weak as an AFL decision.

So, he gets in effect 2 weeks for head high charge breaking an opponent's jaw; like 66% of a Jack Trengove tackle following which the 'victim', allegedly concussed, went out and kicked a bag of goals?

Einstein's theory of relativity is certainly easier to understand that that of AFL and VFL tribunals.

He'll miss 4 weeks of AFL/VFL footy.

The VFL took into account how many weeks of AFL he'lll miss. They knew that give him 2 weeks was in effect 4 weeks. If he'd have had a 4 week suspecion, due to byes/state games etc, he would have missed 7 weeks of footy.

So he's essentially been given 4 weeks, which seems pretty fair to me

He'll miss 4 weeks of AFL/VFL footy.

The VFL took into account how many weeks of AFL he'lll miss. They knew that give him 2 weeks was in effect 4 weeks. If he'd have had a 4 week suspecion, due to byes/state games etc, he would have missed 7 weeks of footy.

So he's essentially been given 4 weeks, which seems pretty fair to me

4 weeks is fair but byes and state league games should never come into it that's just bad luck crap decision IMO

Revenge is best served cold my friends...

What revenge? 2 weeks? Pathetic! Sends a terrible message.

4 weeks is fair but byes and state league games should never come into it that's just bad luck crap decision IMO

Had he been a VFL listed player I might agree with you, but he's not. The bottom line is he's ineligible to play in the AFL for four weeks - who cares whether the VFL happens to play or not during that time? It seems fair to me.

Having to sit out 7 weeks of AFL football to serve a 4 match ban is what would've been BS. This site would be in meltdown if that happened to an MFC player. I'm glad the VFL tribunal showed a little bit of intelligence in this decision.

Revenge is best served cold my friends...

What do you have planned?

Had he been a VFL listed player I might agree with you, but he's not. The bottom line is he's ineligible to play in the AFL for four weeks - who cares whether the VFL happens to play or not during that time? It seems fair to me.

Having to sit out 7 weeks of AFL football to serve a 4 match ban is what would've been BS. This site would be in meltdown if that happened to an MFC player. I'm glad the VFL tribunal showed a little bit of intelligence in this decision.

Fair assessment.

Revenge is best served cold my friends...

Wojcinski will retire at season's end and Viney will never get a chance to even the ledger...

So he can play AFL in two weeks????????

Read the first line of Nashers post #37.

He'll miss 4 weeks of AFL/VFL footy.

The VFL took into account how many weeks of AFL he'lll miss. They knew that give him 2 weeks was in effect 4 weeks. If he'd have had a 4 week suspecion, due to byes/state games etc, he would have missed 7 weeks of footy.

So he's essentially been given 4 weeks, which seems pretty fair to me

So you can wack someone the week before a bye and you'll be fine? Ridiculous.

Read the first line of Nashers post #37.

Don't think that's right. He has been suspended for 2 games not weeks. Happy to be proved wrong....Just the way I read it???????

So you can wack someone the week before a bye and you'll be fine? Ridiculous.

ffs stuie, it's not that hard to grasp. The VFL suspension was engineered so that he'll miss 4 AFL matches. It doesn't matter about the state matches, byes etc - the outcome would've been modified to suit so the end result was still missing 4 AFL matches.

Don't think that's right. He has been suspended for 2 games not weeks. Happy to be proved wrong....Just the way I read it???????

He must sit out two VFL matches. In the time that those two VFL matches have been played, four AFL matches will have been played. He's an AFL listed player, so his suspension must scale to the AFL.

If there were no state matches or byes in the VFL, he'd have been given four weeks, and still missed four AFL games.

AFL matches: 1 2 3 4

VFL matches: 1 x x 2

Chinese proverb say "draw picture", I don't know why they didn't just draw a picture

To save all the confusion, they should've just said 4 WEEKS instead of 2 MATCHES.

ffs stuie, it's not that hard to grasp. The VFL suspension was engineered so that he'll miss 4 AFL matches. It doesn't matter about the state matches, byes etc - the outcome would've been modified to suit so the end result was still missing 4 AFL matches.

Byes should NOT be taken into consideration. The whole team is not playing. Really bad precedent has been set with this decision, that's the point.

Byes should NOT be taken into consideration. The whole team is not playing. Really bad precedent has been set with this decision, that's the point.

Look, I don't want Wojak to miss more games than is fair, but we're talking about a legal matter and now a precedent has been set, just think it's dangerous territory.