The Jack Viney bump that never was!

[Whispering_Jack 31,304]

We certainly owe David Grace a huge thank you, no doubt about that. Interesting that he has a solid sporting background including footy which would have helped him prepare for the hearing. By the way Jack, which athletics club did you belong? I competed for Frankston many moons ago.

AJAX Maccabi strictly D grade in those days but I was well past my prime and it was only as a fill in to pick up the odd point or two for the team. I did once collide with an opponent who veered into my lane but the tribunal cleared me because the contact was unavoidable.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,407]

AJAX Maccabi strictly D grade in those days but I was well past my prime and it was only as a fill in to pick up the odd point or two for the team. I did once collide with an opponent who veered into my lane but the tribunal cleared me because the contact was unavoidable.

Good one Jack I'm glad you were cleared without requiring the services of David Grace.

[Slartibartfast 18,040]

We certainly owe David Grace a huge thank you,

Unlike many, and while I'm grateful for David Grace's representation, I think his job was pretty easy. I'm not sure that he presented anything new and if I'm to believe what almost everyone here has been saying he had a remarkably strong case which he won. Money for jam I reckon.

I'm more grateful to the appeals tribunal who had the good sense to overturn what was a surprising decision by the initial tribunal.

It was a risky strategy taken by the MFC if it's correct that Jack could have had his sentence increased but thankfully the system found him not guilty. I'm particularly relieved as I reckon that Jack is really starting to find his feet in AFL football and to consolidate that he needs to play each week. I'm also pleased because it will have been a very good learning curve for him in what he can do and can't do. Jack plays really aggressive footy and he needs to be continuously aware that he treads close to the line. Whilst I don't want him to stop that he will have had an insight into what it's like to be suspended and that can't do him any harm.

On Saturday we beat a team on their home patch which contained a midfield of Dangerfield, Sloane and Thompson. Three top notch players by any measure. We are as good or better than the Dogs everywhere except the midfield but with Viney playing we are a very good chance to add another midfield notch to our belt.

[P-man 13,367]

It's easy to say DG's job was easy, imo.

We only got snippets of what was happening in the tribunal room. He presented a compelling case that got the desired result.

Certainly other external factors came into play, but let's not hose down something that had only been achieved once before in 15 attempts.

[Sir Why You Little 37,342]

There are ways of presenting a case.

DG did it correctly. I hope we can use him again when needed.

Overturning the tribunal decision is very rare.

Thanks.

[Demon_JB 1,389]

I have it on good authority we will be appealing the case and a QC lawyer will be taking it on and representing Viney. Stay tuned.

Knew the appeal was going to be upheld from the beginning.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,407]

Knew the appeal was going to be upheld from the beginning.

Ok Juzzk1d if you are a fortune teller who is going to win tomorrow night?

[binman 44,726]

AJAX Maccabi strictly D grade in those days but I was well past my prime and it was only as a fill in to pick up the odd point or two for the team. I did once collide with an opponent who veered into my lane but the tribunal cleared me because the contact was unavoidable.

But surely you were moving forward WJ as opposed to our boy Jack who slammed the brakes on

[daisycutter 29,919]

I think we owe a debt of thanks to my colleague David Grace QC who played a bit for my old amateur footy club and competed for my old athletics club (where he's a life member). He's been involved in a number of interesting cases involving the AFL and in particular, has now been involved in two interesting cases where, against the odds IMO, he had two major decisions overturned. We know about Vineygate but he also had the Sirengate result of a Dockers/Saints game overturned in 2006.

Gracey is President and Chairman of Athletics Australia and interestingly, made it as a QC through the unusual channel starting as a solicitor rather than as a barrister.

I know there are bad lawyers and there's bad law but I hope posters around here stop bagging the legal profession. This bloke has performed a great service for our player, club and the game in general.

and there for the Grace of the Demons went David

and there did he smite the Philistine MRP dead

and the people did rejoiceth

and there was peace in the land once more

[Grapeviney 9,914]

Someone called it earlier in the thread, and here it is: (not particularly funny)

[dee-luded 2,959]

I think we owe a debt of thanks to my colleague David Grace QC who played a bit for my old amateur footy club and competed for my old athletics club (where he's a life member). He's been involved in a number of interesting cases involving the AFL and in particular, has now been involved in two interesting cases where, against the odds IMO, he had two major decisions overturned. We know about Vineygate but he also had the Sirengate result of a Dockers/Saints game overturned in 2006.

Gracey is President and Chairman of Athletics Australia and interestingly, made it as a QC through the unusual channel starting as a solicitor rather than as a barrister.

I know there are bad lawyers and there's bad law but I hope posters around here stop bagging the legal profession. This bloke has performed a great service for our player, club and the game in general.

thanks to David Grace, for his help with this bad AFL law.

[dee-luded 2,959]

wj I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

surely let the MRP & prosecutor show their hand first, before appeal. the appeal may not be necessary if Jack got off in the first place?

[1858 285]

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)

The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough

conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or

unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of

his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless

a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic

alternative way to contest the ball; or

b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by

circumstances outside the control of the player which could not

reasonably be foreseen.

This is from the rule book.

He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it.

Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame.

If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks.

Don't blame the law.

*put the above in the training thread for some stupid reason...

A day after the appeal was held and still absolutely nobody (I've heard) has once mentioned this law in its entirety with the two applicable exception clauses which, both offer lifelines of common sense to this incident. It beggars belief. So many idiots including Barrett still saying the original decision was correct in context of the rule. I bet he doesn't even know the full rule.

So no, the tribunal was not even close to being correct. The tribunal believed they were towing an AFL line (that never existed in this way unbeknownst to them). If they applied the rule on its merits this mess never would have occurred.

Further, I noticed this spiel at the end of the rule:

"In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the rule."

In light of this, given the head is sacrosanct, why did they not take the time to consider the fact that Viney actually avoided a front on head clash by bracing? A potential sickening head clash. These muppets never explored the full rule in either application or substance.

[jumbo returns 6,741]

In another litmus test, Roughie's bump on McGlynn will be scrutinised.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,074]

AFL statement re Appeals Board written decision

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-23/afl-statement-jack-viney

[rpfc 28,966]

The Bump is dead! Long live the Brace!

[Bang Bang Bang 5,850]

AFL statement re Appeals Board written decision

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-23/afl-statement-jack-viney

Makes sense. The original 3-man jury should all have lost their jobs for gross incompetency.

Sweet justice was done in the end, with us beating the Tiges during that 2-week window with Viney close to BOG.

[Macca 17,120]

On 5/5/2014 at 4:35 PM, beelzebub said:

this game is getting soft

It certainly is (3 years later)

[Macca 17,120]

On 5/7/2014 at 11:03 PM, Macca said:

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!

And I haven't changed my stance