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.

The point is that the whole team IS playing. The Geelong seniors, who David Wojcinski is listed to play for, will play on all four weeks that he is rubbed out for. It's four AFL matches that he is not eligible to play for. That a couple of them happen to fall on weeks where the VFL team doesn't play is what seems to be confusing for you.

The point is that the whole team IS playing. The Geelong seniors, who David Wojcinski is listed to play for, will play on all four weeks that he is rubbed out for. It's four AFL matches that he is not eligible to play for. That a couple of them happen to fall on weeks where the VFL team doesn't play is what seems to be confusing for you.

OK, just to be difficult (devil's advocate)

What if the penalty was one week

The player is senior listed, not a regular and unlikely to play seniors in near future (speculation obviously)

VFL team has bye next week

AFL team has no bye

What is your decision?

See, it's not easy unless there are well defined pre-existing rules

The point is that the whole team IS playing. The Geelong seniors, who David Wojcinski is listed to play for, will play on all four weeks that he is rubbed out for. It's four AFL matches that he is not eligible to play for. That a couple of them happen to fall on weeks where the VFL team doesn't play is what seems to be confusing for you.

No, I get it, I just worry about the future of tribunal decisions now that they've stated byes are the same as suspended games.

OK, just to be difficult (devil's advocate)

What if the penalty was one week

The player is senior listed, not a regular and unlikely to play seniors in near future (speculation obviously)

VFL team has bye next week

AFL team has no bye

What is your decision?

See, it's not easy unless there are well defined pre-existing rules

I doubt the VFL would issue a zero week suspension. I think it'd have to be a minimum of one (two) weeks for it to work in that situation.

No, I get it, I just worry about the future of tribunal decisions now that they've stated byes are the same as suspended games.

But you still don't seem to acknowledge that it'll be one less AFL match Wojcinski can play in. If I were Wojcinski I wouldn't give a shit about missing two VFL matches, but I sure would give a shit about being ineligible for four AFL matches.

I doubt the VFL would issue a zero week suspension. I think it'd have to be a minimum of one (two) weeks for it to work in that situation.

Why?

In the example I gave its either 1 actual week or 2 actual weeks (1 VFL fixture)

Now, what if player is senior/rookie listed but never played AFL, or is just a VFL only player?

So what are the 'new' rules? What is the precedent?

Seems as clear as mud to me.

But you still don't seem to acknowledge that it'll be one less AFL match Wojcinski can play in. If I were Wojcinski I wouldn't give a [censored] about missing two VFL matches, but I sure would give a [censored] about being ineligible for four AFL matches.

But it's the VFL tribunal...

As I understand it-even if you are suspended for the Wonthaggi 3rds ,you cannot play whilst suspended for anyone anywhere .

The low penalty handed down to wojinski, opens the door for teams to target players in the vfl....

Nice way to take out players, that you might come across in the afl....take out a player for six weeks and only get penalized for two!!!!!

Afl and vfl penalties must be equal!!!!!!!

Watching wojinski get chaired of the ground last night, [censored] me off! he should still be suspended, for his hit on Viney.......

Watching wojinski get chaired of the ground last night, [censored] me off! he should still be suspended, for his hit on Viney.......

Time to move on Tatu. I'm sure Jack did weeks ago.