If Lynch was wearing a helmet cam it would have looked something like this:

He might need a helmet when he comes back.

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Deestroy All

The thing that I think gets Viney off, is he pretty much stops and they fly into him. If he ran through and bumped or chose to move forward in a bumping motion then he would get weeks.

Having said that I think he may get 1-2 due to the damage from his bump. Adelaide are good at providing medical reports, just like last week when dangerfield copped a love tap in the gut and they reported damage to the stomach.

we NEED Viney to be available against tbhe dogs. he is killing it at the moment. [censored] joke this is.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away ...

We may lose Viney, but Richmond have lost Deledio for their game against us the following week. (one match ban, and they have a bye)

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away ...

We may lose Viney, but Richmond have lost Deledio for their game against us the following week. (one match ban, and they have a bye)

i'm more fixated on winning back to back for the first time in ages, would really rally the troops.

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away ...

We may lose Viney, but Richmond have lost Deledio for their game against us the following week. (one match ban, and they have a bye)

Newman as well. That's 50% of the class in their side gone.

Going to be a busy Tuesday night for the Dees. Kent also up on a Rough Conduct charge, which he's contesting.

Melbourne Demons: the hard men of football.

(http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-05/demon-to-fight-vfl-charge)

Newman as well. That's 50% of the class in their side gone.

All we need now is the Trifecta: Martin suspended by the club after insert-your-offense-here.

Looked at the replays again and again. Viney turned in late to protect himself. Surely that is his right. No issue. i say. Any finding against Viney will be a travesty but I am confident the AFL will do exactly that.

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Viscount Hood

Going to be a busy Tuesday night for the Dees. Kent also up on a Rough Conduct charge, which he's contesting.

Melbourne Demons: the hard men of football.

(http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-05/demon-to-fight-vfl-charge)

damn, really like this kid.

Rjay, re Box Hill, still remember an unfortunate collision in under 17's with Alle Dewolde where I never saw him coming, last home and away game of the year I think. Had issues with sore ribs and lower back for several years after. I said at the time it should have bypassed the MRP and gone straight to the tribunal!

He was pretty good at doing that 'Hood', loved a good shirtfront. Was that one down at Sparkes reserve. I remember 1 or 2 down there, maybe you were one of them.

I found it particularly interesting that it was the two non footy people on FC (Caro and Barrett) that thought he should go.

Don't know Carey gets 5 weeks from, that sort of a ban is when someone has maliciously and deliberately acted with the intent (and result) to cause harm. Jack protected himself in the .02 seconds he had to react.

The amount of time and resources put into these things is incredibly ridiculous. The whole MRP/Tribunal system is one big complicator that invariably reaches the wrong decision half the time when going on public opinion and general consensus.

On this occasion and any other that a case is referred to the Tribunal, the MRP have basically admitted that their system is flawed in my opinion.

Viney was going to get shitmixed if he hadn't have taken the action he did. It was part of the play that is part of a game in which these things happen every so often. If Georgiou's weight was not behind Lynch it would have been a clash where Lynch's shoulder would've quite possibly connected with Jacks head.

So many variables but in essence it was a simple passage of play that involved a young gun of a footballer that only knows how to play the game one way - Full throttle.

The irony that it's what the footy public loves but the AFL are trying to eliminate is palpable.

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by McQueen

I'm resigned to Viney being suspended for this. I think it's wrong, I think it's yet another indicator of the AFL's many flaws, but I know it's going to happen anyway.

Probably not the right time to say it but I still cant get over how Viney just bounced back up and attacked the contest again. The guy should be talked up next to Joel Selwood Luke Hodge in terms of toughness and courage. Just as courageous as those two.

Saw more vision of it today and my confidence has diminished slightly.

When the game can lose 2 absolute bonefide ball players in Fyfe & Viney, it is poorer. Roos was confident we can defend it, but then again he said the same with Barry Hall in GF week 2005….who should have got a fortnight.

So many factors in this one. Lynch's goes down in the split second before impact. Viney is going for the ball at speed and has no time to weigh up "I'm gonna bump him"…unlike Fyfe.

His shoulder does touch his left jaw. Did Lynch break it then; or did he break it when he was pin-balled into Georgiou. That will be the deciding factor. If he goes, he will get a token penalty of 1-2 at worst.

St. Gerard Whately thinks he should get off without doubt…. so its fitty fitty.

Ollie Wines re-tweeted Robbo's comment on his Twitter feed. Love that kid, wish he was a Dee

https://twitter.com/wines16

Brad Scott also weighed into the debate on Footy Classified, and although he couldn't outright state his opinion (inappropriate for a coach), he made it very clear he thinks what the tribunal will do and what he hopes the tribunal do are two very different things. Obviously hoping he gets off.

Probably not the right time to say it but I still cant get over how Viney just bounced back up and attacked the contest again. The guy should be talked up next to Joel Selwood Luke Hodge in terms of toughness and courage. Just as courageous as those two.

A contraire. Exactly the time to say it - it just shows that Jack's focus was on the ball.

The thing that I think gets Viney off, is he pretty much stops and they fly into him. If he ran through and bumped or chose to move forward in a bumping motion then he would get weeks.

Having said that I think he may get 1-2 due to the damage from his bump. Adelaide are good at providing medical reports, just like last week when dangerfield copped a love tap in the gut and they reported damage to the stomach.

And don't forget Dangerfield's terrible concussion after Trengove's sling tackle - terrible concussion that saw him BOG the following week.

I'm resigned to Viney being suspended for this. I think it's wrong, I think it's yet another indicator of the AFL's many flaws, but I know it's going to happen anyway.

. You are being far too diplomatic with "many flaws"....corruption, or lack of integrity is what springs to my mind.

I still think he should get off with a decent defence.

Three other points I got from the vision:

• Viney had eyes on the ball and then Lynch got a very 'friendly' bounce.
• Viney's arm stayed pointed down which indicates there was no election to bump. Rather he was just bracing himself. This differs to the Fyfe case, where Fyfe elected to bump.
• Lynch's head lowered down towards the level of the shorter Viney's shoulder only due to Georgiou's pressure.

I'm resigned to Viney being suspended for this. I think it's wrong, I think it's yet another indicator of the AFL's many flaws, but I know it's going to happen anyway.

I agree I think he'll get at least two weeks and possibly anywhere from 3-6 which is a disgrace. Looking at the replays again last night the thing that works against him is that although he had basically become stationary at the last split second before contact he steps into the path of Lynch/Georgiou when turning to brace for the contact which they'll probably look at and say he has initiated the contact. Once they determine that any subsequent argument will be irrelevant.

Probably not the right time to say it but I still cant get over how Viney just bounced back up and attacked the contest again. The guy should be talked up next to Joel Selwood Luke Hodge in terms of toughness and courage. Just as courageous as those two.

He just knows one thing and thats "I want that ball". I think it was in the 3rd quarter when he jumped into a pack, got the ball, won a free kick, but didn't even stop to acknowledge it, just barged his way through the opposition and kept pushing forward

I still think he should get off with a decent defence.

Three other points I got from the vision:

• Viney had eyes on the ball and then Lynch got a very 'friendly' bounce.
• Viney's arm stayed pointed down which indicates there was no election to bump. Rather he was just bracing himself. This differs to the Fyfe case, where Fyfe elected to bump.
• Lynch's head lowered down towards the level of the shorter Viney's shoulder only due to Georgiou's pressure.

There is no question that Viney was bracing for impact, and that Georgiou's tackle put Lynch's head on a sharp downward trajectory, which is the only reason the contact was to the head, given Lynch is 10 or more centimetres taller than Viney. The defence would even be fair to say that Viney slowed AND lowered his own shoulder to avoid high contact, given his squat like position at impact. The mitigation of blame entirely rests on the forced downward movement of Lynch's head, something Viney could NOT compensate for.

This should not have passed the review stage. Ludicrous over-intervention.

I agree I think he'll get at least two weeks and possibly anywhere from 3-6 which is a disgrace. Looking at the replays again last night the thing that works against him is that although he had basically become stationary at the last split second before contact he steps into the path of Lynch/Georgiou when turning to brace for the contact which they'll probably look at and say he has initiated the contact. Once they determine that any subsequent argument will be irrelevant.

Hopefully they see that last moment where he appears to become stationary like most of the footy public do and rule it as an act of self-protection.

Agree with the sentiment that if he goes for it, it's a real watershed moment in the history of the game. I look at it and struggle to understand why it's even being mentioned, let alone sent to the tribunal.

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by AdamFarr

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.

I think it is a bit like the goal line replay - the MRP is bound to either give 3-4 weeks or clear - no discretion beyond that . I hope I am right in thinking that MRP wanted to pass the buck on it and not be the mugs who cleared a player that "broke another players jaw" or suspend a player for something that was a "collision - nothing to see here- move on". The MRP has absolved themselves of responsibility.

All logic tells me that he should get off - my nagging doubt is the use ofthe word logic and MRP/Tribunal in the same sentence.

Out of interest- how many weeks did Wojinski get for a forearm to the Viney jaw.

The game is turning into a handbag fest and the umpires are favouring wealthier clubs.

People are threatening to follow another sport over this.

Afl is a corporate social occasion now.

I want to watch the. Channel nine boardroom fight .

Teeth, hair pulling,flabby 40 something rich kids ripping each other apart and both hurt-that's entertainment.