The Jack Viney bump that never was!

[PaulRB 6,435]

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

How long until someone does a hitler voice over of this incident?

[Demon Dynasty 17,135]

Gee the more you look at that one, the more you shake your head. Premeditated, Intentional, high contact but because by pure luck he didn't concuss or break something, there is no case?

Again I say the AFL is just acting if there is damage. All the forensic evidence in the world is useless. If someone is concussed or has a broken jaw, someone will be punished. Oh umm unless you play for the Hawks that is.

Big boys have been protected for years Hood. Follow the money and you will witness leniency for some of the big names in the game

[Ethan Tremblay 31,261]

The bump is out, pirouette's are in

[Ron Burgundy 8,588]

Was the umpire who waved 'play on' called to give evidence at the tribunal hearing?

Surely his view is relevant.

[monoccular 17,678]

The bump is out, pirouette's are in

Sadly, yes.

And what an appropriate week to implement it - pink round or whatever.

[ex52k2 250]

It seems to me the AFL have just exposed themselves to future possible defences for thugry. Would we be where we are now if Lynch was not injured? NO So it is the result of the action not the action itself that is the determining factor.

So if you belt somebody and that player keeps on playing with no perceived effects of the thump, there is no harmful result hence nothing illegal has been done. Logical yes AFL no.

The way the AFL is going it is handing the biggest amount of help to soccer and the arl that it can. Those 2 bodies must be laughing as the AFL does its very best to get its supporters offside.

[nutbean 8,838]

Firstly - the incident needs to be assessed from the time the ball was no longer in dispute and that is less than one second.

Even the AFL ex Boss is suggesting that he is unlucky and you can argue "bracing" not "bumping".

I keep coming back to burden of proof. Surely if the football world at large is suggesting that it was bracing himself and even the sceptics are saying there is no certainty if it was brace or bump then you have to find him not guilty.

[DemonOX 8,837]

I am not holding my breath that the decision will be overturned tbh.

I think only one case has been overturned in the past on appeal.

On a positive AD did come out yest in support of JV.

The tension mounts.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,059]

Interesting comment tweeted by Dr Larkins. Adds an additional issue to the question of "realistic alternative"

Dr Peter Larkins ‏@doclarkins 1h

Memo to AFL legal teams - expecting a player to change direction & pivot on one foot at speed is a recipe to invite an ACL knee rupture

Edited May 7, 2014 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[dees189227 12,453]

i dont get why people are ringing up the radio station and saying about head protection. Viney didnt knock him out flat cold. It was an accidental broken jaw. He didnt mean to do it. Viney was going to fast to get out of the way. Sadly I dont think he will get off but at least its kept us in the news. 1 week I could have handled but not 2.

[Fat Tony 5,317]

The MFC should find a biomechanist as a witness explaining that it is impossible to change direction mid stride.

My take from the video is that there was just a single Viney step between when Lynch had collected the ball cleanly AND the collision. If you accept that Viney was not negligent in chasing after the ball, the collision was really unavoidable given Viney’s momentum. The only case then is that Viney was negligent thereafter. Are the prosection really saying that Viney should have created a front on collision, opening himself up to facial, rib and genital injuries? I don’t even think this would have helped Lynch. And the fact that Viney's arm was down at contact shows that he had not intent to bump.

The decision is madness.

[Pates 9,680]

A question I have about the tribunal is why do they need a prosecution? I would've thought a tribunal hearing could just hear and view the evidence in front of them and make a deliberation without having someone on the otherwise arguing that he should be found guilty. It really feels like an innocent before guilty system. Even the prosecution left the door open for it to be thrown out!

I think we have a good case to argue but it feels like an uphill battle, even with the negative public pressure. I think the AFL will look at this one in the future in shame but they feel painted into a corner. Common sense doesn't seem to enter into the debate with the tribunal.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,059]

A question I have about the tribunal is why do they need a prosecution? I would've thought a tribunal hearing could just hear and view the evidence in front of them and make a deliberation without having someone on the otherwise arguing that he should be found guilty. It really feels like an innocent before guilty system. Even the prosecution left the door open for it to be thrown out!

I think we have a good case to argue but it feels like an uphill battle, even with the negative public pressure. I think the AFL will look at this one in the future in shame but they feel painted into a corner. Common sense doesn't seem to enter into the debate with the tribunal.

Just think of the "prosecution" as being "counsel assisting". Someone has to lead the evidence for the Tribunal.

[Machsy 2,858]

Does anyone else feel like Jack Viney was destined to be involved in a landmark case involving attack on the footy?

He could be "the man that saved football."

[Redjacket 758]

The AFL/Tribunal will not back down on this one lest it create a precedent of players appealing decisions.

I think the whole system needs to be overhauled.

Why not be judged by a jury of their peers? Perhaps 12 current day players. Not one would have convicted in this case. Then again there would probably never be a conviction.

[Webber 10,627]

We're just not dealing with the application of logic and fairness in respect to this ruling. As so many have pointed out, deliberate elbows to the head can get 1 week, high profile players/clubs get lenience, Jack Viney was bracing and had no option for avoidance. The game is a heavy impact sport and injuries will occur, unfortunately even the occasional death. All indisputable facts, but irrelevant when it comes to the application of a dysfunctional law, and a broken system of arbitrating that law.

Logic has taken a holiday with this, and justice is the victim. I'd be amazed if common sense were applied tonight, and the game will continue to suffer. The saddest part is the blindness to reason from those in charge of the game, but if ever there were a chance for the new CEO of our sport to win the hearts and minds of the football loving populous, it's right now.

[Scoop Junior 3,569]

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.

Fantastic post.

It's not the rule itself. It is the ludicrous extension and application of the rule by the tribunal to Viney's circumstances.

The rule was not intended to apply to genuine collisions where players did not make an election to bump. It is clearly contrary to the policy reasons supporting the rule.

The tribunal's decision is equivalent to finding a player guilty of kneeing if he took a screamer and as he jumped up to take the mark his knee made contact with the opposition player's head.

The tribunal have failed dismally in their application of the rule and their decision should not be allowed to stand.

[nutbean 8,838]

MRP/TRibunal and Appeal board repeat after me 5 times

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Edited May 8, 2014 by nutbean

[Machsy 2,858]

MRP/TRibunal and Appeal board repeat after me 5 times

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Yes! God, yes.

It amazes me they think it's reasonable (and not laughable) to adjudicate referrals any other way.

[1858 285]

Fantastic post.

It's not the rule itself. It is the ludicrous extension and application of the rule by the tribunal to Viney's circumstances.

The rule was not intended to apply to genuine collisions where players did not make an election to bump. It is clearly contrary to the policy reasons supporting the rule.

The tribunal's decision is equivalent to finding a player guilty of kneeing if he took a screamer and as he jumped up to take the mark his knee made contact with the opposition player's head.

The tribunal have failed dismally in their application of the rule and their decision should not be allowed to stand.

Agreed.

This is the problem with AD's comment though. He inferred JV was unlucky because of the rule. He is actually muddying this. He's not helping at all like some think.

The rule did not deem that JV "elected to bump", the tribunal did. AD essentially giving the tribunal an alibi here.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Does anyone know what time the hearing starts? If it isn't over turned I'll take my truck down there and drive straight at the tribunal panel. I hope they know how to brace for contact.

[Ted Lasso 19,550]

starts at 5 at Etihad stadium mate.

[PaulRB 6,435]

OMG it's like deja vou all over again!

[dee-luded 2,959]

The bump is out, pirouette's are in

looks a bit like james hird.