From the AFL rules I believe:

  Quote

The Match Review Panel may refer any matter to the Tribunal if it considers it appropriate to do so based on the circumstances of the offence, the record of any player involved, any suspected mitigating factors or any other unusual feature of any report.

There is no record, so it must be based on the circumstances, the unusual nature or the suspected mitigating factors.

Hopefully their opinion is "he bumped his jaw so must be suspended however we suspect he couldn't do anything but need the tribunal to clear him because it is an unusual case".

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:11, ManDee said:

So let me get this straight. If Lynch had bumped Viney and in the process Lynch's jaw is broken then it is Viney's Fault? Rubbish.

That's not what I said. I said that Lynch wouldn't have been injured if not for Viney's bump and it is silly to suggest I said the complete opposite.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:02, Undeeterred said:

Jake Spencer got three weeks (I think) last year for being a complete unco and crashing into McEvoy (again, IIRC). You hurt someone by bumping, you go.

Spencer's was different. He deserved to go because a player had his head down over the ball and he made a decision to go at him. It was clumsy but he had time to pull out. 3 weeks was harsh but he did deserve a penalty.

Viney couldn't really have done much different other than run away from the ball which for obvious reasons isn't a realistic choice.

There could be scenes from the Iranian hostage crisis at the tribunal if he gets weeks. This decision is a genuine threat to the future of football.

Looking at the footage what I've got to love is the fact that Dunstall when talking about it speaks about how the MRP is trying to eliminate the head high clashes and he says, "but nothings going to happen here, that was just a good old fashioned head clash". And yet this is going straight to the tribunal.

You look at the footage and you clearly see Viney's eyes for the ball running after it. By the time he drops in eyes to see the oncoming collision it's too late, what the tribunal has to consider is what were his options. Of course I'm biased but i can't see many. His body wasn't in the right position to try to tackle and if he had he probably could've broken is ribs in the collision. He was bracing himself for the contact and in fact slowed himself up.

Like most, I don't think he should have a case to answer. I hope we go there tomorrow all guns blazing with a clear defence. It will need to be better than the Trengove effort a few years back, when our defence was Kelly O'Donnell (or some other no-name assistant from the club) "the club told Jack it was a perfect tackle." Very sloppy.

On the bright side - Deledio probably won't be there when we play Richmond. He was offered 1 game and they have the Bye this week.

  On 03/05/2014 at 12:28, the master said:

Just saw a replay. Vineys right shoulder to Lynch's jaw.

Hate to say it but he's cooked boys

One point here, Viney doesn't run into Lynch, Lynch canons into Viney

I just don't see this as a bump. I see this as 3 players arriving at the exact same time to gather a loose ball.

Unfortunately common sense won't prevail. 3 weeks.

So based on AFL logic (if there is such a thing) Viney will also get charged for the domino affect which hurt his team mate Georgiou.

Another couple wks I reckon!!

What a joke.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:25, Sylvia Saint said:

Like most, I don't think he should have a case to answer. I hope we go there tomorrow all guns blazing with a clear defence. It will need to be better than the Trengove effort a few years back, when our defence was Kelly O'Donnell (or some other no-name assistant from the club) "the club told Jack it was a perfect tackle." Very sloppy.

On the bright side - Deledio probably won't be there when we play Richmond. He was offered 1 game and they have the Bye this week.

Deledio out for Richmond is a bigger loss for them than Viney out for us (should he be suspended). That's more because of the lack of depth at Richmond than anything else.

(Can't believe I just wrote that. Implies Melbourne has more depth than Richmond. On second thoughts...yep, I still agree with my first thought.)

It's interesting that the force of the collision actually moved Viney back a couple of metres towards where he came from. It shows he was bracing for collision and not going on with a bump. If he'd hit Lynch at speed, you'd think he'd have kept going forward.

Who came up with the ball? Viney. He was aware of where it was immediately after he got hit. That's all he had eyes for.

I just used the FVD media extension (for chrome or firefox) to download the vision currently on the AFL site. Then I used vlc to play the video at a very slow speed.

I revise my earlier reading of the play. Viney was originally going for the ball, when he saw Lynch would get there first he changed direction and slowed substantially to protect himself. His shoulder came nowhere near Lynch's head, it clearly hit Lynch's left shoulder. The jaw must have been broken on Georgio or later.

If he gets done for that then players should get done when any injury happens after a legal bump no matter what the circumstances. That would be ridiculous, but this is the AFL.....

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:03, S_T said:

The crux comes into whether he actually chose to bump and if he had an alternative to bumping.

I watched the footage on the AFL website over and over and these are the key points IMO.

• Initially he is chasing a bouncing, loose ball at full speed. He has every right to do this.
• On the final bounce, the ball sits up and it only then becomes clear that Lynch will take possession before Viney does. (until then, the ball could have changed direction meaning Lynch could have missed it and Viney could have run on to it).
• Viney responds to this by slowing considerably and in that very short period (I would love to know exactly how long it is from when the ball last bounces and it becomes clear that Lynch will take possession and whent the contact is made - very short period of time) he braces for impact.
• In that short period of time, there is no way he could change direction to avoid the contact.
• At no stage did Lynch secure possession. The ball was still bobbling around when contact was made.
• When two people pursue a loose ball and reach it at a very similar time, a collision is inevitable.
• Lynch took possession of the ball and was propelled forward so he could not brace himself.
• Viney barely had time to brace for impact.
• Any change of direction for Viney was because he was following the ball, not because he was trying to bump.

Would love to say that would be enough but history is against us.

So are you saying Lynch did not secure possession or that Lynch took possession? Or both?

Looks to me in the replay that Lynch bent forward and took possession, had it knocked out in the clash and that Viney ran onto the ball from there.

I think Viney possibly could have tackled, but that would have opened him up to being crunched by Lynch, so bracing himself was his only realistic option. Unfortunately the high contact has resulted in a broken jaw, it would appear.

  On 05/05/2014 at 06:55, Undeeterred said:

He barrelled in from 20 metres away and smashed Lynch's face into Georgiou's head. In the end, that's all that matters.

I HATE it, but they'll see it as completely unnecessary contact and give him a holiday.

NO He and Lynch both ran in, both intent on nothing but the ball and they clashed - aided by the Geouriou "push" which was in fact due in part to the sudden deceleration of Lynch. He didn't barrel in from 20 meters away intent on bumping Lynch, just intent on doing what one is supposed to do in this game....win the bloody ball.

Viney did not jump off the ground or lift his shoulder: he actually turned away, sure, bracing for the inevitable impact, but still with eyes only for the ball as the subsequent second or so proves. In fact an incredibly courageous attempt at winning the ball with a much bigger player bearing down on him.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:28, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Deledio out for Richmond is a bigger loss for them than Viney out for us (should he be suspended). That's more because of the lack of depth at Richmond than anything else.

(Can't believe I just wrote that. Implies Melbourne has more depth than Richmond. On second thoughts...yep, I still agree with my first thought.)

not really a lack of depth issue

delidio is an A-grade player. Losing an A-grader hurts much more and is harder for a depth player to replace

much as i like jack he is not (yet) an A-grade player

Did the afl also refer Packer and Gyngell directly to the tribunal?

  On 05/05/2014 at 06:55, Undeeterred said:

He barrelled in from 20 metres away and smashed Lynch's face into Georgiou's head. In the end, that's all that matters.

I HATE it, but they'll see it as completely unnecessary contact and give him a holiday.

So you're saying that if the ball is 20m away players are not to try to win it? It was a loose ball and he had every right to charge in and win it, which is exactly what he did.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:00, Nasher said:

What does it mean when it's referred directly to the tribunal? Does it mean they were unable to classify it? What is he then being charged with?

I generally think what it means is that the MRP want a certain outcome but are too cowardly to take the heat they know will come from actually making the call themselves. In this case, they want Viney rubbed out, they know the sort of response it will draw, so they figure they can have it both ways by passing the buck to the tribunal and letting them take the heat.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:30, mauriesy said:

It's interesting that the force of the collision actually moved Viney back a couple of metres towards where he came from. It shows he was bracing for collision and not going on with a bump. If he'd hit Lynch at speed, you'd think he'd have kept going forward.

...

This is the point to me. Viney slowed enough that he was knocked backwards by the force of Lynch & Georgiou coming in the opposite direction. It's not like he put his shoulder down and "ran through" him. It's simple physics - the main force of the impact was from Lynch's direction, not Viney's.

MFC should argue "accidental contact" and stick to their guns - no compromise deals (i.e. "negligent").

Fully expect the Crows' doctor to provide another catastrophic medical report that includes brain damage and permanent facial disfigurement.

The MRP really know how to take the gloss off such an awesome win. Will be very interesting to hear what Roos has to say tonight on 360.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:32, monoccular said:

NO He and Lynch both ran in, both intent on nothing but the ball and they clashed - aided by the Geouriou "push" which was in fact due in part to the sudden deceleration of Lynch. He didn't barrel in from 20 meters away intent on bumping Lynch, just intent on doing what one is supposed to do in this game....win the bloody ball.

Viney did not jump off the ground or lift his shoulder: he actually turned away, sure, bracing for the inevitable impact, but still with eyes only for the ball as the subsequent second or so proves. In fact an incredibly courageous attempt at winning the ball with a much bigger player bearing down on him.

Sorry, you're right re intent and I should have been clearer - I agree entirely he didn't intend to bump. But he did arrive, at speed, and bump, in my book.

As I said above, it is completely ridiculous, but on all readings of the AFL tea leaves, they want to stop these types of injuries. It is sad that the game is going that way...

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:22, Undeeterred said:

That's not what I said. I said that Lynch wouldn't have been injured if not for Viney's bump and it is silly to suggest I said the complete opposite.

I was not referring to your clarification as being rubbish. I used your quote as an entry point into the discussion. Sorry if it appears that I am having a go at your comments.

I am however having a go at the AFL's interpretation of its own rules.

I did say "If Lynch had bumped Viney and in the process Lynch's jaw is broken then it is Viney's Fault?"

Because as a defence Viney should say he was virtually stationary and Lynch ran into him as evidenced by Viney being thrown backwards after the impact. Then the injury is an accident and not as a result of Vineys bracing himselft for impact.

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:38, Akum said:

This is the point to me. Viney slowed enough that he was knocked backwards by the force of Lynch & Georgiou coming in the opposite direction. It's not like he put his shoulder down and "ran through" him. It's simple physics - the main force of the impact was from Lynch's direction, not Viney's.

MFC should argue "accidental contact" and stick to their guns - no compromise deals (i.e. "negligent").

Fully expect the Crows' doctor to provide another catastrophic medical report that includes brain damage and permanent facial disfigurement.

This is very important in my opinion.

Had Viney continued at his earlier pace and actually bumped Lynch I fear that they may still be looking for the contents of Lynch's head.

Just watched it several more times. Viney is charging at the ball like a bull at a gate, as he always does, sees contact is coming, braces himself for a good, fair hip & shoulder, which he effects to perfection, bounces off the other player like a rubber man, pounces on the ball and delivers it to a team mate. Absolutely sublime footy!

And, they refer it to the Tribunal??

Spare me...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We all know that it was beautifully executed football, the problem is that Trengove's tackle on Dangermouse was a perfectly executed tackle as well. The tribunal and MRP have a long history of ignoring their own rules and hitting players with over the top penalties to make a statement. They do this to players from "weaker" clubs who have less access to media to make a fuss over the inconsistency. This case has all the hallmarks of being another such occasion, so all the logical analysis of the incident in the world is not enough to make me confident that they are not going to throw the book at young Jack and give him a month-long holiday.

Incidentally, has anyone else noted that they tent to target Jacks with these beat-ups? Jack Trengove, Jack Ziebel, Jack Viney...

  On 05/05/2014 at 07:00, Nasher said:

What does it mean when it's referred directly to the tribunal? Does it mean they were unable to classify it? What is he then being charged with?

I'm worried the MRP and the AFL have refered it to make a statement. The death of the bump and Viney will be the example to discourage anyone else from doing it.

The AFL want the bump gone and this might be the ammo they need.