The Jack Viney bump that never was!

[John Crow Batty 8,823]

I would be happy to see an appeal but only if there is a good chance of JV getting off. I am not in favour of just going by the principle of the matter. I am more concerned how this will affect our future progress. Will be a needless distraction and a waste of time and energy for the club if the chances of a positive outcome is remote.

Edited May 7, 2014 by america de cali

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

I don't think the AFL would risk increasing the ban - purely because of the uproar it would create

Except using the above logic the Tribunal would have found him not guilty.

[Vipercrunch 2,820]

Not sure if its been said, but the Jude Bolton article in The Age is excellent.

[Fat Tony 5,183]

The best avenue to appeal would be to time the period in which the ball enters Lynch's hands and then the collision occurs. And find an expert to testify that impact was inevitable from this point on.

We should also show that Viney's arm was down at the point of impact, indicating he was not attempting to bump. Rather that the collision was a brace to protect himself.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Same crap, different year.

Happy to call the game AFL now.

Aussie Rules it ain't.

actually, If we ban tackling from front on, only allowing pressure from behind (cough now please) & maybe restrict tackles to 'no more than 5 in a row', before handling the ball to the opposition?

that could stop head clashes? No

then again we could just join the NRL ?

[McQueen 17,864]

And the Deadline is, now!

[The Chazz 4,077]

Appealing! Good work MFC.

[The Chazz 4,077]

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-05-07/melbourne-to-appeal-viney-suspension

[bananas 428]

Appealed.

[DemonOX 8,733]

Good stick it up em I say.

Edited May 7, 2014 by DemonOX

[McQueen 17,864]

The club will be appealing on the grounds that “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it".

[Akum 2,660]

The rationale for declaring Viney guilty can only be either: (a) they think "I braced, I didn't bump" was an outright lie; or (b) they believe that bracing for contact is exactly equivalent to bumping - they're one and the same; if you brace for contact, it's now the same as bumping.

If they chose (a), it's plain disgusting. If (b), it should be easily argued that it's an unreasonable and irrational to equate "bracing" with "bumping". Moreover, equating "bracing" (which happens several times a game) with "bumping" (which happens much less often) almost makes the game ungovernable in trying to determine what's acceptable & what isn't.

It's insane having to decide on appeal without knowing the grounds for the decision.

[Lucifers Hero 39,045]

If Lynch was roughly upright his shoulder would have gone into Viney's head as he is much taller than Viney. It was Georgiou's tackle dragging Lynch down which caused Viney to connect with Lynch.

If the proscecutor, Gleeson, can mount the side-step argument surely our legal team can demonstrate it was the tackle, which Viney could not have seen nor aniticpated as his eyes were on the ball.

Bit surprised our legal people didn't highlight this to the Tribunal. Hate to say it but feel a bit let down by our legal reps last night.

ps

Regardless of the appeal outcome this is my last word on this sad and sorry episode.

[SaberFang 7,151]

Excellent, and the basis of the argument will hopefully come from a sports scientist who will mathematically prove that their argument for Viney to "step aside" was physically impossible within the time frame from the bounce of the ball until the collision.

Stick it up these wankers, we have now earned the respect of the whole AFL community.

[Ted Lasso 18,911]

Will the appeal be heard by a different source?

[Webber 10,442]

The rationale for declaring Viney guilty can only be either: (a) they think "I braced, I didn't bump" was an outright lie; or (b) they believe that bracing for contact is exactly equivalent to bumping - they're one and the same; if you brace for contact, it's now the same as bumping.

If they chose (a), it's plain disgusting. If (b), it should be easily argued that it's an unreasonable and irrational to equate "bracing" with "bumping". Moreover, equating "bracing" (which happens several times a game) with "bumping" (which happens much less often) almost makes the game ungovernable in trying to determine what's acceptable & what isn't.

It's insane having to decide on appeal without knowing the grounds for the decision.

Perfectly outlined, Akum.

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

It was always a political decision, and now the AFL know it went down very badly with the public and past and present players. Will they persist in order to save face, or reverse a poor and very unpopular decision? I reckon they'll persist, because that's the way they roll. Hope I'm wrong.

[Jaded No More 68,602]

Great work. Very proud of this club.

[Webber 10,442]

I reckon Jude Bolton has just installed himself as the favourite for the Apprentice coaching gig under Paul Roos, based on his article in 'The Age'.

[dee-luded 2,959]

new boss at helm.

PR,just loves these fights and also enjoys using it.

we are in a no lose situation.

and the support has bought the old fans out of the woodwork.

its a win win for our club.

the people are ready for a fight, this ones to save Our Game. this is beyond Jack Viney, he'll be fined

this is about the personality of our game going forward, & enough Erosion of our original Native game.

Enough is Enough.

.

[Scoop Junior 3,411]

I think the burden of proof is now higher, as previously we just had to prove that it was not a bump, whereas now not only do we need to prove our case but also that the tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision.

That is a higher threshold than just proving your case. The Appeals Board could well say "we agree with you and don't think it is a bump, but it wasn't unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that it was a bump". Then it's game over for us.

So it's a tougher gig. Having said that, I think there are strong grounds to support the unreasonableness of the tribunal's decision.

[jnrmac 19,931]

Will the appeal be heard by a different source?

I believe three different MRP members

[jazza 1,323]

the people are ready for a fight, this ones to save Our Game. this is beyond Jack Viney, he'll be fined

this is about the personality of our game going forward, & enough Erosion of our original Native game.

Enough is Enough.

.

game was eroded when they bought in interchange.

discussion over.game over as we knew it.

[DeeZee 7,347]

If we lose the appeal, are we at risk of more weeks?

[jazza 1,323]

I believe three different MRP members

thought there was an ex carlton player on this board.

cant quite recall which one,but he had some recent playing form and common sense.