It seems to me that Lynch should be the one fronting the tribunal for making head contact with Georgiou!

Do they want the player to drop to the ground (as if there's a sniper) to avoid contact?

Maybe not drop but if Viney goes then so will the bump. Players will be instructed to tackle only or, avoid the contact. So we will, in future, see players pulling out of the contest. Footy will be done and dusted.

Watching it again this morning, this is not a bump, it is an unplanned collision of two players attacking the ball. Viney managed at the last second to get side on to protect himself, Lynch couldnt because he had Georgiou hanging on.

Collisions happen in a contact sport. We are still playing a contact sport aren't we?

Watching it again this morning, this is not a bump, it is an unplanned collision of two players attacking the ball. Viney managed at the last second to get side on to protect himself, Lynch couldnt because he had Georgiou hanging on.

Collisions happen in a contact sport. We are still playing a contact sport aren't we?

Agreed.

One thing I noticed that will be against jack is when his body turns and braces his feet leave the ground.

RIP afl as a contested collision sport..

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.

Unfortunately none of that will be taken into account because the AFL have consistently said if you choose to bump and someone is hit in the head/injured you will be responsible for the consequences. Whether or not Lynch was tackled down, Viney tried to hit him lower etc is irrelevant. It will come down to whether they think he chose to bump (which I'd argue he didn't). If they find that he did choose to bump he will get anywhere from 2-6 weeks regardless of any other factors.

Forget what's said here, it's mostly pretty predictable. I haven't come across any media commentator who thinks Viney should go* - even the Crows fan forum is divided. The MRP have passed it to the tribunal because they are afraid to make a decision, IMO, which allows us to make an argument that there is no case to answer rather than appealing against an MRP decision. Despite the head-high contact and the broken jaw, I think the tribunal may just make the correct decision. They may recognise that a suspension is a bad signal to players and bad PR to boot. Right decision made accidentally for the usual reasons.

*I'm told Wilson does, but I can't find it.

Unfortunately none of that will be taken into account because the AFL have consistently said if you choose to bump and someone is hit in the head/injured you will be responsible for the consequences. Whether or not Lynch was tackled down, Viney tried to hit him lower etc is irrelevant. It will come down to whether they think he chose to bump (which I'd argue he didn't). If they find that he did choose to bump he will get anywhere from 2-6 weeks regardless of any other factors.

If lynch wasn't injured but georgiou suffered a broken jaw in this impact would this have been cited?

It's important to understand that the Tribunal isn't what it used to be. In the past, the Tribunal was there to keep play within the rules, and to stamp out "dirty" play.

It is now there to stop the AFL having to pay out large sums in the future for ex-players who were injured during their playing careers, and who allege that current medical problems were caused by past injuries, in which case they would have to prove that the AFL was negligent in that it did nothing to prevent such injuries occurring.

So in the past, a player who took a deliberate swing at an opponent but caused only a minor injury would be punished much more heavily than a player who did not intend contact but a severe injury resulted, because the Tribunal's role was to prevent "dirty play". In the present, it's reversed, so that non-deliberate-hit-severe-injury is punished far more severely than deliberate-hit-minor-injury, because the Tribunal's role is now to reduce the AFL's liability for severe injuries.

In other words, the Tribunal is now more about Claims Management, instead of its past role of the Sheriff trying to stamp out lawlessness.

The reason that this is a watershed case is that, despite Viney making substantial efforts to reduce the severity of the injury to Lynch - by staying on the ground, staying low, not "running through" the contact (a la Pickett) - and it being obvious that his main purpose was to win the ball, a severe injury occurred nevertheless. It was only at the last second, when Lynch's knees collapsed, that caused his face to contact Viney's shoulder, despite Viney's efforts to try to prevent this happening.

So is the critical factor that Viney did everything within reason to try to reduce the danger of the contact and to avoid severe injury? Or is it more important that, despite this care on Viney's part, a severe injury still occurred? That's what's at stake here. And that will hinge on whether the Tribunal accepts the argument that the contact between Lynch's face and Viney's shoulder was "accidental"; if it wasn't, it would have to be either "negligent" or "reckless", in which case there were steps that Viney could reasonably have taken to avoid the injury, but he failed to take them.

For most footy people, it's clearly accidental contact. But the other thing that worries me here is that Adelaide seem to be the one club that makes an effort to extract the maximum penalty in such situations. That shouldn't matter, but it does. Expect a medical report that highlights the catastrophic consequences, which will have the AFL's insurance company breathing down the necks f the Tribunal to find any pretext, no matter how flimsy, to extract the maximum penalty.

If lynch wasn't injured but georgiou suffered a broken jaw in this impact would this have been cited?

interesting the law does state ANY player,so 36 on the field id imagine.

fact is if he went to the MRP 4-6.

going to tribunal maybe 2,with a chance to get off.

viney was travelling in the direction of the pill and he braced no jumped for impact.

maybe the crow and georgie should be cited for not taking evasive action.

The reason why it is at the Tribunal, in my opinion, is because they couldn't agree on the first criteria - the conduct charge.

Was it reckless or accidental/incidental?

Because the first is the second highest charge for conduct and the latter means the charge is thrown out. I don't think the MRP could agree.

If Viney didn't turn at the last second to protect himself from the impact he would have had his face caved in like a car crash. Surely players have the right to protect themselves.

interesting the law does state ANY player,so 36 on the field id imagine.

fact is if he went to the MRP 4-6.

going to tribunal maybe 2,with a chance to get off.

viney was travelling in the direction of the pill and he braced no jumped for impact.

maybe the crow and georgie should be cited for not taking evasive action.

I disagree with 2 weeks.

To me the tribunal can only go two ways - they either have to deem it unavoidable and a "collision at the contest rather than a bump" and clear him or deem it a bump and give him 4 weeks. Giving him only two weeks would be like saying to a team that you didnt really tank but we are going punish you anyway... oohh wait on....

If lynch wasn't injured but georgiou suffered a broken jaw in this impact would this have been cited?

Good question. Would probably depend on if they still considered Viney had elected to bump and hit Lynch in the head. If not then probably not.

I disagree with 2 weeks.

To me the tribunal can only go two ways - they either have to deem it unavoidable and a "collision at the contest rather than a bump" and clear him or deem it a bump and give him 4 weeks. Giving him only two weeks would be like saying to a team that you didnt really tank but we are going punish you anyway... oohh wait on....

One thing to remember in all this is that this incident only got 2 weeks last year

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Dr. Gonzo

It's like the AFL want fans to switch off.

They are doing a fine job if that is their intention.

This is the Richard Douglas bump on Callan Ward a couple of weeks ago that some Crows supporters are trying to equate with Viney's - the two are clearly world's apart, Doufglas' occurred off the ball!

This is the Fyfe bump which got 2 weeks. Again, I think this decision is ridiculous and Fyfe should have got off but the two are incomparable I think, Fyfe clearly elected to bump rather than tackle, Viney was going for a loose ball and when the other player topok possession he slowed right down to an almost stop and turned his body to absorb the impact of the oncoming players.

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Dr. Gonzo

This is the Taylor Hunt bump which again is incomparable because Hunt clearly elected to bump a player off the ball (albeit within play). Again I think it is ridiculous Hunt got suspended but there are vast differences between this and Viney.

I don't believe Lynch ever had possession of the ball...which raises a different issue. Why is it considered that Viney bumped Lynch and not the other way around? Just because Lynch got injured (and possibly from a secondary incident with Georgiou)? If Lynch had been uninjured and Viney hurt, would Lynch have been charged? The logic of Viney being charged because Lynch got injured should mean that Viney should also be charged with causing a concussion to Georgiou.

I've changed my mind from yesterday. I'm not now convinced that Viney "bumped" Lynch. Instead two players were equally trying to gain possession with a third player involved. The three collided, two came out of it injured and the other with the ball. Play on.

Will have to prove that cause of injury was by contact from Viney and not secondary head clash with Georgiou. So going by the vision there is doubt, enough to throw the charges out IMO. Be also interesting what the Crow medical report says.

This^

Evidence: Georgiou concussed

I don't believe Lynch ever had possession of the ball...which raises a different issue. Why is it considered that Viney bumped Lynch and not the other way around? Just because Lynch got injured (and possibly from a secondary incident with Georgiou)? If Lynch had been uninjured and Viney hurt, would Lynch have been charged? The logic of Viney being charged because Lynch got injured should mean that Viney should also be charged with causing a concussion to Georgiou.

I've changed my mind from yesterday. I'm not now convinced that Viney "bumped" Lynch. Instead two players were equally trying to gain possession with a third player involved. The three collided, two came out of it injured and the other with the ball. Play on.

I think it was similar to the Hodge/Murphy incident in that both players were trying to get the ball and Viney ended up with it.

I know it's not precisely the same but the object was the ball, not to bump the player. Viney turned his body to protect himself as did Hodge.

The logic of Viney being charged because Lynch got injured should mean that Viney should also be charged with causing a concussion to Georgiou.

This is an interesting point

If lynch wasn't injured but georgiou suffered a broken jaw in this impact would this have been cited?

You already know the answer to that question.

This is an interesting point

We probably shouldn't talk about it though. It just might happen.

I seem to remember Tony Lockett being charged for an incident involving one of his team-mates in a St Kilda intra-club match.

What would happen if an umpire runs into a player and the player falls awkwardly and breaks their ankle.......

It they need a scapegoat for the broken Jaw you could argue Georgio was as much to blame as Viney, i.e. he was riding the Crows player into a contest and used his head to break his jaw...

There is something really dumb about all this...