The Jack Viney bump that never was!

[Deestroy All 14,262]

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

When were you born? We appealed the Trengove one, wasn't that long ago.

[Webber 10,072]

Misses the point completely

Sure does, Loges. He is merely iterating the situation as we know it. Why bother writing anything? And in his very Damien Barrett way, he has neither the talent or the judgement to use his commentary to highlight the dysfunction in the system, and how with good policy and implementation, the AFL can change the course of the current trend, which punishes outcome regardless of incident. It's the perfect 'accident versus intent' dilemma. For a real journalist, read Greg Baum in today's (ex) big paper.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Misses the point completely

Yes he does, doesn't he and the analogy with the running of the red light is simply bizarre.

[1858 219]

"The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen," the AFL announced.

The exact thing Viney took measures to avoid i.e. a clash of heads. If Viney continues at same speed and attempts a front on tackle we potentially have 2 players going off on stretchers. Why the tribunal don't want to consider this notion is mind boggling if the AFL is indeed worried about the rough image of the game.

Getting out of the way was not an option.

Edited May 7, 2014 by 1858

[sue 8,434]

<The Demons will appeal on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.>

I'd be surprised if the AFL will allow the appeal on these grounds because otherwise they'd have to sack the Tribunal members as being unreasonable persons. hmmm,.....

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,435]

Interesting comment from Demetriou. Clearly gives the appeals board an opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's decision

[Dwight Schrute 16,786]

Damien Barrett would have the exact opposite opinion if this were Jack zeibel

[Damo 2,995]

<The Demons will appeal on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.>

I'd be surprised if the AFL will allow the appeal on these grounds because otherwise they'd have to sack the Tribunal members as being unreasonable persons. hmmm,.....

Yes it sounds like it lacks the depth required.

I would have thought more information has come to light with either injuries being on the other side or (hopefully) Lynch releasing a statement saying he thought he was pushed by Georgiou into Viney.

Saying they dont have a clue may not be best practice.

[DEE fence 4,471]

Club appealed, super happy, that's an extra $200 from me to the club, small beer for some, but i'm going to get 3 more people to sign up as members before QB as well.

[Vipercrunch 2,808]

Re comments from Demetriou - Glad to read it. Still doesn't ensure a better outcome but certainly glad to read it.

[rpfc 27,476]

Interesting comment from Demetriou. Clearly gives the appeals board an opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's decision

That is a blatant call to those below to reverse the decision.

[John Crow Batty 8,255]

Well AD is still in charge and welcome comments. All but said the decision was not right. One last string for him to pull?

Edited May 7, 2014 by america de cali

[P-man 13,168]

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say:

Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

What a buffoon.

"It's just the way it is."

Yes Damian, and that is the point. It shouldn't be that way.

Injury = automatic suspension, regardless of the nature of the act, is WRONG. Any idiot can see that.

[wmth 69]

Interesting comment from Demetriou. Clearly gives the appeals board an opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's decision

One of the most insipid and ill-thought out articles I've ever read. Thankfully, there is no comments function on afl.com

He has failed to grasp that, faced with the same situation again, Viney will be in the same place. Because it's unavoidable!

If we are pandering to mothers who are worried about their sons, then it's game over. It will be unrecognizable.

There's been very little wrong with the game for over 150 years, before this sudden spate of rule changes. I just don't understand. It's an identity crisis that is incredibly amateur for a professional sport.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,213]

When's the appeal? Thursday night?

[Pennant St Dee 11,279]

Appeal is what we all want, but don't forget, any error made in relation to bump versus brace, could be equally matched by the mistake of "low impact (given) versus the medium/high impact" it should have got.

I don't think Viney hit him hard, but how does a jaw break with low impact?

Those that go for appeal should brace themselves for the possibility of a 4-6 week ban.

The AFL/tribunal is like an elite private school in Melbourne. They don't like being held to account for minimum standards. They defend like Rod Marsh swinging like a dunny door hoping you'd shut up and go away.

I agree TGR somewhat but sometimes you have to make a stand and whilst there are risks I think long term benefits for our club making a stand will assist in setting a new culture.

We believe Viney is the victim of a misscarriage of justice and we are doing all we can to back our player

[rjay 23,922]

What a buffoon.

"It's just the way it is."

Yes Damian, and that is the point. It shouldn't be that way.

Injury = automatic suspension, regardless of the nature of the act, is WRONG. Any [censored] can see that.

Quoting Barrett, "From now, realise that the "good old days", whatever and whenever they were, are no longer and that "good, old-fashioned shirtfronts" that accidentally involve the head will be acted on."

Yes Damien, you are correct but what does it have to do with the Jack Viney case. Absolutely nothing you condescending oh-so-predictable frothing-at-the-mouth FW. I must have missed something but where was the "good old-fashioned shirtfront" from Viney, when did he pick some unsuspecting player off behind the play. What a waste of space.

[Pennant St Dee 11,279]

You do all realise that embarrasment for a human trolls through all supporter sites and he will be getting his rocks off with the acknowledgement that people have read his column. I haven't and will not read anything he has written and I refuse to watch the FS or SFS due to him being on them.

I would advise others to do the same and boycott anything to do with him.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Pennant St Dee

[nutbean 8,837]

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.

Does anyone know what the burden of proof is ?

I know this is not a court but simply in a criminal court a charge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and for civil matters it is on the balance of probabilities.

How any tribunal could suggest that his intention was to bump not to brace beyond reasonable doubt is mind blowing. Even on balance of probabilities is hard to argue what his intention was.

Forget about Demonland - the community at large - coaches, players, ex players, media commentators - an overwhelming majority have viewed the footage and said the decision is wrong. Doesn't that tell the decision makers something ? A complete cross-section of the footballing has made it loud and clear that they have got it wrong.

[Outside fifty 967]

You do all realise that embarrasment for a human trolls through all supporter sites and he will be getting his rocks off with the acknowledgement that people have read his column. I haven't and will not read anything he has written and I refuse to watch the FS or SFS due to him being on them.

I would advise others to do the same and boycott anything to do with him.

Well said PSD, the more we acknowledge his existence the more power and influence he has. Treat him with the disdain he deserves and ignore him.

[rjay 23,922]

You do all realise that embarrasment for a human trolls through all supporter sites and he will be getting his rocks off with the acknowledgement that people have read his column. I haven't and will not read anything he has written and I refuse to watch the FS or SFS due to him being on them.

I would advise others to do the same and boycott anything to do with him.

Of course you are right 'Pennant', I've been sucked in on this one and his rubbish about Tyson. He really doesn't offer anything of value so rather than boycott I just don't watch the rubbish shows, time to give his trolling away as well.

[McQueen 17,863]

Forget about Demonland - the community at large - coaches, players, ex players, media commentators - an overwhelming majority have viewed the footage and said the decision is wrong. Doesn't that tell the decision makers something ? A complete cross-section of the footballing has made it loud and clear that they have got it wrong.

Indeed.

This is the largest jury in the land and the decision is overwhelming.

How the tribunal (supposed experts) can not agree is incredible.

[Dwight Schrute 16,786]

Can't believe the line "frothing at the mouth supporters" how disrespectful is that, absolutely shocked the afl would allow that from one of their employees on their website.

Will be complaining about that.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Interesting comment from Demetriou. Clearly gives the appeals board an opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's decision

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.

[Redleg 37,617]

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.

Sorry for the paranoia but it is Melbourne, that lowly performing AFL club. I cannot imagine Selwood, Swan or Hodge going for the same thing. No not one of the big clubs. Their fans would have burnt down AFL house and their Presidents would have had the entire AFL administration sacked. I can just see Eddie now if it was one of his. He would be comparing it to the World Cup scandal in giving the next one to Qatar in the middle of their summer.