Umm... interesting no one has looked at the Tribunal show on the AFL site.

Nathan Schmook sp? actually is saying that the reason it has gone to the tribunal is that under MRP laws that with the severity of the injury (Broken jaw) that they would not have had any other option than to give Viney 3-4 weeks, and by referring it to the tribunal that they can actually not charge him, or give him a more lenient penalty than they are forced to with the MRP laws itself.

MRP has no discretion in how to assess an injury like this, but also with the bump and head high contact being stamped out of the game they basically have no other option but to refer it to the tribunal to determine.

Maybe some truth in this?? dunno what people think on this....

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-05/charged-round-seven

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Ouch!

I understand, but different era...

No matter what era, players can't expect to run in wide open to a contest and come out scott free...but I guess you are right it is the bruise free era where we are in fierce competition for the mothers of Australia to let their kids play football and not soccer.

I'm all for cleaning up the game with things like off the ball incidents and king hits condemned to the past but I think it is still (maybe was) a contact sport.

The difference is that Lynch had just taken control of the ball (so Viney could have theoretically tackled him as well) and was put in a vulnerable position by Georgiou's tackle, which pushed him forwards into Viney.

I personally think it should have been 'play on' as the umpire called in on the field and a shame but tough luck for the broken jaw.

I dispute that Lynch had control of the ball, if he did it was for about 0.01 seconds.

If Viney gets weeks it sets a precedent that players shouldn't attack the ball in case nearby players have accidental contact with something else and get injured, the whole thing is ridiculous

Nup . Cant cop the AFL line. Bit like honesty. Your are either honest or you are dishonest. They either have to find him clearly guilty or he's not guilty.

Jumbo, my issue is that he did not leave the ground and there was certainly no intent.

I know, I know.....but......

If Viney gets done for that then Aussie Football will become basically a non contact sport.

Impossible to make any sense of this at all. The first time in ten years a Melbourne player has played good hard football and he's now in danger. WTF?

No matter what era, players can't expect to run in wide open to a contest and come out scott free...but I guess you are right it is the bruise free era where we are in fierce competition for the mothers of Australia to let their kids play football and not soccer.

I'm all for cleaning up the game with things like off the ball incidents and king hits condemned to the past but I think it is still (maybe was) a contact sport.

That's right, I agree.

I, too, was taught to protect myself, but the game wasn't played at today's breakneck speed.

Not in the Goulburn Valley, anyway....

I dispute that Lynch had control of the ball, if he did it was for about 0.01 seconds.

Good point. I guess Viney wasn't sure if Lynch would take the ball, so if he was going to impact the contest he might as well bump

Umm... interesting no one has looked at the Tribunal show on the AFL site.

Nathan Schmook sp? actually is saying that the reason it has gone to the tribunal is that under MRP laws that with the severity of the injury (Broken jaw) that they would not have had any other option than to give Viney 3-4 weeks, and by referring it to the tribunal that they can actually not charge him, or give him a more lenient penalty than they are forced to with the MRP laws itself.

MRP has no discretion in how to assess an injury like this, but also with the bump and head high contact being stamped out of the game they basically have no other option but to refer it to the tribunal to determine.

Maybe some truth in this?? dunno what people think on this....

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-05/charged-round-seven

Ive been listening to a lot of radio today. I'm actually starting to think he will get off.

I wonder if Adelaide kicked up a stink.

It's the same scenario when Trenners tackled "glass jaw" Dangerfield. Sore losers Adelaide made a big deal,

Trenners gets 3 weeks and hasn't been the same since. Dangerfield excels the next round, so much for his concussion

as shown on the doctors report. What's with that club.

I had no idea their supporters were such whining little assholes! I have never seen a group of supporters be so bitter after a loss. It's quite amazing.

Turns out the club is too.

Umm... interesting no one has looked at the Tribunal show on the AFL site.

Nathan Schmook sp? actually is saying that the reason it has gone to the tribunal is that under MRP laws that with the severity of the injury (Broken jaw) that they would not have had any other option than to give Viney 3-4 weeks, and by referring it to the tribunal that they can actually not charge him, or give him a more lenient penalty than they are forced to with the MRP laws itself.

MRP has no discretion in how to assess an injury like this, but also with the bump and head high contact being stamped out of the game they basically have no other option but to refer it to the tribunal to determine.

Maybe some truth in this?? dunno what people think on this....

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-05/charged-round-seven

The issue I have with that claim is that the MRP did have another option. They could have straight-out said that there was nothing in the incident. He wasn't reported at the time, so there is absolutely no onus on them to even look at the incident, much less penalise him over it. If someone is claiming that the MRP don't have discretion to say "nothing to see here" then the alternative is that their formula has to be applied to every bit of contact that occurs in every game, resulting in pretty much every player getting suspended in round 1 since every contact made during a match would attract points if it were to be assessed.

And they wonder why people are turning away from the game in droves.

"Match Review Panel

Jack Viney, Melbourne, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Tom Lynch, Adelaide Crows, during the first quarter of the Round Seven match between Melboure and the Adelaide Crows played at the Adelaide Oval on Saturday May 3, 2014.

In summary, the matter has been directly referred to the Tribunal for its determination and he cannot accept an early plea on this matter."

Referring to Tribunal

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 the player involved, any suspected mitigating factors of any unusual features of any report.

A bigger issue maybe that it goes to the way Viney plays.

Id hate him to lose confidence in his attack.

He may have to take advice from JW about hard ball gets...

(Its a joke joyce)

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...

Except that he actually stopped...was projected backwards which doesn't happen if he "applies a bump".

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...

...and I am getting Jack of it, aren't you?

If the medical report shows Lynch's jaw was most likely broken by Georgiou's head clash, surely that has to be taken into account. Watching it again from several angles on the News tonight you can see Georgiou pushing Lynch forward and down just as Viney is arriving and turning to protect himself or take a hit to his mid section. He didn't come in from the side, they were coming at each other almost head on at high speed. What is he supposed to do in this situation?

Exactly - what is he expected to do...take it in his face??

Interesting to hear the AFL's reasoning for clearing Josh Kennedy on Colin Sylvia in 2010.

Come on, surely you don't expect that corrupt body aka AFL to have reasoning for such events? You are being a bit quite naïve I think. It was after all only a lowly team's player who was the victim.

Asked if the club will plead 'not guilty', Paul Roos replies "absolutely!" #AFL360

there is also a freejack or freeviney hashtag on twitter to

That's right, I agree.

I, too, was taught to protect myself, but the game wasn't played at today's breakneck speed.

Not in the Goulburn Valley, anyway....

Not in Box Hill either, but a shirt full of broken ribs hurt no matter where you played.

Yep Roos said they would fight it.. And everyone on AFL 360 agreed it should not result in a suspension

Even "Georgiou" is getting in on the #freejack movement. Demon fans on twitter, get on board, tweet the AFL and make a ruckus:

Uber Alex Georgiou ‏@UberAGeorgiou 2h

@BigFootyDemons @jackviney7 He got referred for that? Ridiculous. I've had rougher conduct in a vigorous bubble bath #SaveViney #freejack

Yep Roos said they would fight it.. And everyone on AFL 360 agreed it should not result in a suspension

Geeze that is refreshing after years of bending over and taking it.

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.

He barrelled in going for a loose ball - he did try to pick him off with a shirtfront lined up from 20 metres away Mark Yeates style. Once he realised he didn't win the loose ball and Lynch took possession he basically stops to a standstill, Lynch/Georgiou continue towards him and he turns side on to brace for contact. How this wasn't just dismissed by the MRP is beyond me. He didn't "choose" to bump, that wasn't his intention and that's not what occurred. His intention was to win a loose ball and when he didn't he turned his body so he didn't get collected front on by two guys 15cm taller than him.

Does anyone know who is on the tribunal panel? Any chance they have played some footy?

Does anyone know who is on the tribunal panel? Any chance they have played some footy?

It won't be David Neitz who might have a conflict of interest since he not only captained Viney's club but played footy with Jack's dad.