This is what the tribunal thinks Viney should have done. Seriously.

  On 07/05/2014 at 06:06, TGR said:

An isolated incident for our captain at the time, when we were debt-free at the time.

I could raise you 10 examples for every one of your poor attempts...that I would give you one at a time to digest/debate. You can start with the tanking that wasn't tanking but we had to be punished saga. You can also go to the penalty we paid when enticing J. White from Freo when we were paying over the odds.

If you don't think the MFC has been a white ass to a big AFL stick in the last 40 years, you have rocks in your head.

For a start he wasn't captain at the time at all.

He was a kid playing hard footy exactly like this incident. And exactly like this incident there were people crying out for an appeal because for far too long we had bent over and copped it.

Guess what, we appealed.

So in your lifetime, and although your memory is hazy, we have taken a stand, just like we are now. Which I was originally pointing out.

"Every one of my poor attempts" ? I gave you one example, and it was as bang on as one can get.

I'm not hear to debate how weak we have been as a club, that has been obvious for all to see, I'm here to refresh your memory.

No rocks in my head, Ron, just a decent memory and a razor sharp wit.

Good to see you contributing BTW.

  On 07/05/2014 at 04:45, iv said:

The accompanying vision in that article can be slowed to frame by frame using your mouse. I am not sure what side of the jaw Lynch sustained the break, and conceding I'm an old codger and my eyesight may be failing a little, it appears to me that the impact with Viney cannons Lynch's head into Georgiou's head. Viney comes from Lynch's left and Georgiou is at first behind Lynch and then to his right at impact. As Lynch hits the ground, he appears to clutch at the right hand side of his face, suggesting the impact with Georgiou's head has caused the damage. In other words, as severe as the injury is to Lynch, it resulted from incidental contact.

Or is it from connecting with Georgiou's shin as he hits the ground?

There are several possibilities that make any definitive assessment tenuous. Surely the tribunal can see that Viney had no time to sidestep and that there is some doubt about how Lynch broke his jaw.

Can common sense prevail just this once in AFL land?

  On 07/05/2014 at 06:46, Deestroy All said:

For a start he wasn't captain at the time at all.

He was a kid playing hard footy exactly like this incident. And exactly like this incident there were people crying out for an appeal because for far too long we had bent over and copped it.

Guess what, we appealed.

So in your lifetime, and although your memory is hazy, we have taken a stand, just like we are now. Which I was originally pointing out.

"Every one of my poor attempts" ? I gave you one example, and it was as bang on as one can get.

I'm not hear to debate how weak we have been as a club, that has been obvious for all to see, I'm here to refresh your memory.

No rocks in my head, Ron, just a decent memory and a razor sharp wit.

Good to see you contributing BTW.

I see a definite distinction with the Trengove case, and I'm a big enough person to admit that the sling tackle rule has worked out. They over-adjudicated it in the beginning (some absolutely farcical suspensions came from it) but they have found a middle ground now and the players have stopped using as a natural course of action.

The difference is that there is a clear choice available, if you get someone in a tackle you can do the second action to sling him onto his head. In Viney's case there is no choice, he ran hard to get to the contest and a collision was inevitable. He braced to protect himself and an unfortunate injury occurred.

Barrett's article is such typical attempt to rile fans up and get his name front and centre in the papers. Such an ego.

The reality of the collision is that Jack would not have damaged the Lynch's jaw if Georgio was not driving him to ground in a (premature) tackle. Hence the responsibility for the broken jaw lies with both MFC players. To single Viney out a solely responsible and punishable for the brake is akin to blaming a bus driver if someone trips and falls under their bus (or in this case is pushed under it), when they are doing everything to avoid injuring them.

Sometimes accidents happen in a high speed and impact sport and to finger an individual up for it is simply unjust.

Interesting that we've heard nothing about fining players for criticising the decision publicly. Some of the MFC players were careful in what they said but others have been pretty brutal.

I have been listening to talk back on SEN all day while I work at my desk and I don't remember ever when an issue involving the MFC has been so universally supported on our side by the wider football community. There were no dissenters, even rusted on Magpie supporters were scathing. I cannot believe that the highly focused PR machine that is the AFL will not take heed of this because the comments were not of the "poor Melbourne" variety. They were more about the game itself and the way this decision has changed the very nature of it. With the competition coming from soccer and NRL, and the need to shore up the traditional fan base, I don't think the AFL can ignore this. I do not remember an issue in the AFL which has been so uniformly condemned by the press , ex players, power brokers and most importantly the rusted on fans.

The question is what is the way out of this mess. Can I offer a scenario. I think Demitriou has deliberately opened the door. He said he thought Evans (the AFL Operations guy) would look at it. He knows he has the power to appeal against the decision on behalf of the AFL, irrespective of what the MFC does. You would think if this happened then Viney would get get off on the ground of the wider good of the game.

My bet is that this is what will happen.

I say its all Lynch's fault, surely he should have just stepped out of the way !!

How can you not brace to protect yourself!! It was a split second. No malice. No intent. He stops his momentum. He goes low which is why his shoulder connects the jaw and not the eye/facial area. Lynchs injury was an unfortunate accident. A ridiculous decision by the jury. Get the human bioscientist in. Appeal.

  On 07/05/2014 at 02:53, Mr. White said:

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say: Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

It's simple is it Damien no I would say u r simple.

  On 07/05/2014 at 07:50, spirit of norm smith said:

How can you not brace to protect yourself!! It was a split second. No malice. No intent. He stops his momentum. He goes low which is why his shoulder connects the jaw and not the eye/facial area. Lynchs injury was an unfortunate accident. A ridiculous decision by the jury. Get the human bioscientist in. Appeal.

because of Absolutely F.....d Logic

  On 06/05/2014 at 03:40, RalphiusMaximus said:

I think it's got to do with the way they train them now to "put the head over the ball." Once upon a time players were taught how to come at a contest in a way that would both allow them to get the ball and protect themselves. Since they changed the rules to give free kicks to the player who dives in head-first, players have stopped taking that approach and charge in full-frontal secure in the knowledge that even if they don't win the ball they're likely to get a free kick. The rare player who does it the right way (such as Viney) finds himself being penalised and even booked for being the only player in the pack to do things correctly.

It's a lot faster the game nowadays too.

Hodge on Murphy lined him up from ten metres away. He new what he was doing and did it well, deliberately broke his jaw.

Imagine if viney went full tilt trying to hit him, we'd be talking about one of the worst footy injuries of all time

  On 07/05/2014 at 07:40, beelzebub said:

I say its all Lynch's fault, surely he should have just stepped out of the way !!

If he Lynch, had of stuck out the forearm, none of this would be necessary. and JV would be in the clear. but then again we may be going into bat for Lynch, to get him off.

this is all a problem because the AFL are trying to be Politically Correct, & also protect against court actions.

the trouble starts because not all are with the AFL in this effort of softening the game, & many payers don't like it, but have remained silent. til now.

they're gutting the game of its Unique ways & its hardness, that separates it from ordinary folk being willing & able to perform it. the WoW factor is being whittled away with the commissions nod, & the rules of the game committee just rubber stomp it. maybe Fitzpatrickz behind this to.

Every single news broadcast in Melbourne tonight had a story on this in their first break, and not even in their Sport segment. The amount of criticism from high profile personalities was staggering, and not a good look for the AFL.

If they have any idea what is good for the future of this game, he will get off. If this is rejected again on appeal, the poisonous vitriol from fans going into the round will be savage. Not what they want or need at a time like this.

  On 06/05/2014 at 19:51, nutbean said:

In a game played at breakneck pace what I don't like is that no benefit of doubt was given in this case. There is so much doubt as to what was and wasn't possible in that split half second yet the tribunal determined exactly what he could have done..they determined there was alternatives.

Exactly, murderers get benefit of the doubt! Why was he guilty because they weren't sure if he was bracing or bumping?

  On 07/05/2014 at 01:03, jazza said:

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.

You were spot on Jazza.

What a great leader we have at the helm. Finally some real fight and not just bluster/blunder from Demon HQ. The worm is well and truly turning and not just on the field.

This is a great sign for the players, us as members and yes even past disgruntled supporters, not to mention it's a must in order to overturn the injustice done to young Viney.

  On 06/05/2014 at 23:02, Lucifer said:

Agreed. I was referring to the penalty process not the decision, which is also appalling. The Tribunal could have found that a collision/bump occurred but had the flexibility to give a reprimand rather than suspension.

We all know that a colliosin occurred - even the three blind mice at the "tribunal" would know that. But a self defensive brace isn't a bump, so there was no wrongdoing to deserve even a reprimand.

Not guilty!!!

  On 06/05/2014 at 23:48, jabberwocky said:

There must be a high ranking, senior type pulling the strings out of those three.

Would be completely consistent.

It is a sad day that I have lost all interest in footy at a time our club is just getting back on its feet.

About as corrupt as the IOC and FINA, FIFA etc

A sad day for the game.

One may have hoped that having a new CEO may have changed the culture, but he is obviously in as deep as his predecessor.

  On 07/05/2014 at 01:03, RobbieF said:

No they're not, but they haven't played the game for a long time, Shimma 1987, Dunne 1985 and Henwood 1992, so are they basing their judgement on how a player could react in a game to now, or to when they played the game and it was at a much slower pace?

The tribunal should be comprised of people that understand the modern game and have experienced the pace of it unlike the old days when you could do a few twists and turns and pirouette out of trouble.

Robbie this has some validity i think. While i respect the 3 panel members have played the game at the highest level it's been over 2 decades since they did so.

I was worried when i heard these 3 were involved in the hearing for the above reasons in your post.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-ceo-peter-jackson-says-jack-viney-incident-should-be-assessed-in-real-time-as-industry-condemns-tribunal-ruling/story-fni5f91a-1226909426305

  On 06/05/2014 at 23:00, Crawf52 said:

The AFL must have a good hard look at themselves here. They run the risk of being the laughing stock of the sporting world. Not only is the decision laughable, it's dangerous. They speak about duty of care but fail to consider the ramifications for Viney had he not protected himself. The only way he could have avoided the contact was to have made a decision not to go after the hard ball. Do they want that stat to disappear from the game? Does contested possession become the next casualty. What will happen if Jeremy Howe collects somebody's head during his next big mark? Goodbye to the specky?

My oh my. FMD.

This is exactly the kind of point I've argued earlier ( actually, I don't think I've found anyone to argue with yet but it's DemonLand so there is a possibility). Sorry I digress, based on the current muddy thinking; whoever kneed Jessie in the back needs to be rubbed out for at least 6 weeks. Look at severity, avoidability, impact, negligence in that case, I think it's warranted. Sanitize away you AFL cretins. Just as well Matthew Whelan isn't around, wouldn't want to break anybodies leg in a smother, is the smother banned yet? Bloody dangerous the smother, could ruin a career.

  On 07/05/2014 at 11:29, dees189227 said:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/melbourne-ceo-peter-jackson-says-jack-viney-incident-should-be-assessed-in-real-time-as-industry-condemns-tribunal-ruling/story-fni5f91a-1226909426305

PJ 100% spot on as usual

Absolutely no reason for the tribunal to watch the footage in slow motion and totally unrealistic to judge an incident that way

There is a lot of rubbish being thrown around regarding this saga.

First, we get morons like Damian Barrett who spurt the 'we have to protect the head' line. Of course we do, no one is debating that. It's not the policy of the AFL's that we're concerned with here, it's the implementation of that policy, and in particular, it's implementation in Viney's circumstances. For that reason Barrett's entire article is, like the rest of his pathetic existence, irrelevant.

Second, we get those who say 'it's not Viney's fault, it's the rule'. Actually, I think the rule is relatively decent. It provides that if you elect to bump and you had a realistic alternative to bumping, then the onus is on you to avoid the head. That's fair, I think - if you are on the field, you have the option of bumping and the option of, for example, tackling, then if you make that decision to bump, and you hit a player in the head, then you should be penalised.

Again, the issue is in the application of that rule to this situation - Viney did not 'elect' to bump. He 'elected' to brace himself for impact.

The rule also provides that if you don't have a realistic alternative to bumping, then you can't be held liable for the consequences. The word 'realistic' gets lost in this debate. It's one thing to say he had alternatives - yes, theoretically he could have jumped, or he could have dropped to the ground to let Lynch run over him, or he could have leaped forward, or he could have pivoted, or whatever. But is any one of those options 'realistic'? Of course not. Realistically, he had no alternative course of action but to brace himself for impact given he and Lynch were running towards each other and the ball had bounced away from him.

So I'm not upset at the wording of the rule, or the AFL's general policy to attempt to reduce head injuries. I'm upset at the way that rule has been implemented by the Tribunal, which IMO has got it unquestionably and unjustifiably wrong.

The appeal ground, that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to it given the evidence, is a high bar to clear. Very high. But it's designed to avoid decision-makers coming to conclusions that are pre-conceived or irrational. Here, the evidence before the Tribunal simply does not, in any manner, lend itself to the conclusion that Viney had a realistic alternative to contesting the ball. To me, that's sufficient to clear the bar, and that's without acknowledging that Viney didn't even bump, or elect to bump, in the first place.

  On 07/05/2014 at 02:58, TGR said:

But I will say, this appeal adds to the culture change at Melbourne.

In my lifetime, MFC have whimpered....AFL or others have barked... MFC have walked away with tail between legs. Groundhog day? Groundhog year.

Except for, you know, the Trengove appeal. All of two years ago.

  On 07/05/2014 at 05:01, binman said:

Funny article from Barrett. By his logic Hodge should have been suspended last year when he accidentally broke Murphy s jaw. He wasn't. Surely that case is precedent for this one as in that case it was determined it was accidental as it is in this scenario. Realistically he only had one other option which was to run into Lynch front on.

Agreed - Hodge got off last year through a correct implementation of this rule. He had no realistic alternative.

Unfortunately, the Tribunal (and, I suppose, the Appeals Board) do not operate on a model of precedent. It's a disgrace, it's something the AFLPA under Matt Finnis wanted changed, but it's how things are.

The whole thing is a total farce - it was only a matter of time until we fell victim to this utterly stupid ruling. If a broken jaw is sustained as a result of incidental contact from a fair bump, bad luck. Incidental contact should be viewed as just being part of the game. If the head is targeted, it's a different story. A reckless action should also be punished. Viney did none of that.

If the appeal fails, the precedent has been set. Or has it? It might depend on the circumstances (Prelim final?) and the club involved. What if Pendlebury, Mitchell or Bartel are involved in a similar incident in a finals game? Does the hammer come down just as hard?

One thing is for sure, incidents like these are going to happen again and again - our sport is a collision sport and that can't change. Players sustain all sorts of injuries because of just normal footy stuff.

The rule is ridiculous and wouldn't even be in existence if it weren't for the AFL's own paranoia. It's a classic case of taking things too far. Sadly, I can't see the AFL doing an about face on this type of incident. What I can see is an inconsistency in the findings in all these type of incidents. As if we needed another grey area to our game!