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

player would probably miss 6-8 weeks if it wasn't a bad break

Serious question. Why hasn't Viney been charged with rough conduct causing injury to Georgiou?

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

Serious question. Why hasn't Viney been charged with rough conduct causing injury to Georgiou?

or conversely georgiou charged with rough conduct on lynch

or the afl for riding roughshod over a once great game, and for bringing the game into disrepute

just more of life's little mysteries that go unanswered

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..

That's not right, you are confusing that with players that jump into a bump. Jack didn't do that. Maybe one foot was off the ground but he was running at full pace to the ball. To me he turned his body, braced himself and 'crouched' down so as not to jump up.

IMO I think that the AFL will want to hang someone out to dry for this and unfortunately it will be Viney.

With that in mind do we call up Riley to replace him?

From all reports he is a hard nut too.

IMO I think that the AFL will want to hang someone out to dry for this and unfortunately it will be Viney.

With that in mind do we call up Riley to replace him?

From all reports he is a hard nut too.

I have no idea why they would. There has been no media discontent apart from most saying Viney doesn't have a case to answer, there is nothing to be hung out to dry for.

This is a collision of 3 players going for the ball.

I doubt Jack even saw Lynch or Georgio until it all happened.

Elbows in Feet on the ground.

Next.

Can we rename this thread "The Lynch - Viney Collision" just to make a it clear what actually happened??

This incident was not one player lining up another

I will add my two cents:

Viney has very little momentum into the contest - he actually gets pushed back in the direction he came in, so it safe to make the judgement he tried to stop. Lynch never controls the footy so Viney can't tackle, and the ball itself is 5 feet in the air so there is no protection of the ball player with his head over the footy.

Lynch is losing his feet at the time, probably due to Georgiou's pressure, and brings his jaw into play rather than his chest.

Lastly, Viney touches the footy. The ball is in dispute and he braces for contact, Lynch doesn't.

All these are mitigating circumstances that should see Viney play this Sat night.

I hope it goes well.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I present to you the new look of AFL!

Coming to a team near you!!

*Smug look sold seperately

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

Wojo got one week. They argued that due to the upcoming byes for the Geelong reserves any more than one week would amount to 4-6 weeks of no play with the byes added in, so the panel decided to reduce the penalty.

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

The player would be fined for umpire contact of course.

Lynch does not take possession prior to impact - Viney cannot tackle. ( Some angles it looks like he does - he does not)

Viney is virtually stopped, bracing for impact. Lynch hits Viney.

Viney is knocked backwards as a result of the impact.

Lynch's head hits Georgio's head both concussed.

Should Lynch be charged with charging? No accident in play.

Should Lynch be charged with head high contact on Georgio? No accident in play.

Should Viney have been charged with rough conduct? No accident in play!

Should Georgio be charged with head high contact? No accident in play.

This is one of those cases where a set of circumstances results in an injury where no player has broken a rule. If Lynch had been uninjured and Viney been concussed would they charge Lynch? I say no, it was chain of legal events leading to an unfortunate outcome.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I present to you the new look of AFL!

Coming to a team near you!!

*Smug look sold seperately

I don't think they got the red right - back to the drawing board

If he goes it will be for the injury sustained and that alone, which you have to say would be a sad turning point in the code.

Do they still want it to be a contact sport or don't they?

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

From memory I think Koschitzke once ran into an umpire in the VFL around 2006.

He was in the contesting a ball up, and the umpire backed straight into him.

He never took his eyes of the ball and could not know the umpire would back that way but still got reported and suspended for a week.

Was also an issue for him considering as he was starting to make a return after his fractured skull and from what I can remember a set back in his rehab

Generally AFL umpires a pretty good, they will always extend an arm behind them to clear any players and show their direction and when there is contact they will try to avoid penalties - VFL tends to take a more hard line approach...

From memory I think Koschitzke once ran into an umpire in the VFL around 2006.

He was in the contesting a ball up, and the umpire backed straight into him.

He never took his eyes of the ball and could not know the umpire would back that way but still got reported and suspended for a week.

Was also an issue for him considering as he was starting to make a return after his fractured skull and from what I can remember a set back in his rehab

Generally AFL umpires a pretty good, they will always extend an arm behind them to clear any players and show their direction and when there is contact they will try to avoid penalties - VFL tends to take a more hard line approach...

VFL umpires wear dayglo orange. Kozy always had tunnel vision, he often got bumped or tackled from the side and did not see them coming.

In his defence at the time VFL umpires would move to the boundary side after a bounce, the AFL umpires move towards the centre.

If he goes it will be for the injury sustained and that alone, which you have to say would be a sad turning point in the code.

Do they still want it to be a contact sport or don't they?

They've been doing it that way for a while now and it makes them look ridiculous. To be consistent, they should also be penalising players who cause other injuries through tackles, bumps etc. Why are we not seeing someone up before the tribunal every time an ACL snaps? That's a much more serious injury than a broken jaw.

I took a whole bunch of screen grabs of the incident.

1. 11:15 on clock. Ball is loose and bouncing, equal distance to Viney and Lynch (about 5 meters to each), but moving towards Lynch. A true 50:50 contest
2. 11:15 on clock. Ball about to bounce for the last time, now closer to Lynch. Ball accelerates towards Lynch after this bounce.
3. 11:15 on clock. Ball at Lynch (not in possession though). Viney about 2-3 meters away, turning towards the ball (on Lynchs right side/hip).
4. 11:14 on clock. Collision occurs.
5. 11:14 on clock. Players all on the ground.
6. 11:13 on clock. Viney on his feet, ball in hands about to run away from the contest.

Can anyone truly say that Viney made a decision to bump?

And if so, why did he slow down considerably, shedding nearly all his momentum and not push off into the bump?

Must get off.

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by S_T

What time do they sit tonight?

Is it just me or are there more broken jaws etc from bumps these days?

Modern players have no awareness compared to years gone by when you knew at any time you could be collected at anytime from any direction.

What time do they sit tonight?

Is it just me or are there more broken jaws etc from bumps these days?

Modern players have no awareness compared to years gone by when you knew at any time you could be collected at anytime from any direction.

I think it's got to do with the way they train them now to "put the head over the ball." Once upon a time players were taught how to come at a contest in a way that would both allow them to get the ball and protect themselves. Since they changed the rules to give free kicks to the player who dives in head-first, players have stopped taking that approach and charge in full-frontal secure in the knowledge that even if they don't win the ball they're likely to get a free kick. The rare player who does it the right way (such as Viney) finds himself being penalised and even booked for being the only player in the pack to do things correctly.

I took a whole bunch of screen grabs of the incident.

1. 11:15 on clock. Ball is loose and bouncing, equal distance to Viney and Lynch (about 5 meters to each), but moving towards Lynch. A true 50:50 contest
2. 11:15 on clock. Ball about to bounce for the last time, now closer to Lynch. Ball accelerates towards Lynch after this bounce.
3. 11:15 on clock. Ball at Lynch (not in possession though). Viney about 2-3 meters away, turning towards the ball (on Lynchs right side/hip).
4. 11:14 on clock. Collision occurs.
5. 11:14 on clock. Players all on the ground.
6. 11:13 on clock. Viney on his feet, ball in hands about to run away from the contest.

Can anyone truly say that Viney made a decision to bump?

And if so, why did he slow down considerably, shedding nearly all his momentum and not push off into the bump?

Must get off.

The interesting part in all of this as opposed to most other bumps is clearly highlighted by this post. Most other bumps we have seen has the player receiving the bump clearly in possession or in a near possession of the ball as opposed to the bumpee. The Viney incident is almost a 50/50 contest and he turns his body on the last three steps to avoid being hospitalised - he would have been split down the middle by a 192cm near 90kg key position footballer.

...

Can anyone truly say that Viney made a decision to bump?

And if so, why did he slow down considerably, shedding nearly all his momentum and not push off into the bump?

Must get off.

The only reason for him slowing down was that his primary objective was not to hit Lynch as hard as possible, but to gain possession of the ball. To do that, he had to "ride" the contact, so that when the ball came free, he could recover first and get the ball and take off. Which is exactly what happened.

If his objective was to crunch Lynch, he wouldn't have been able to recover quickly enough to get the ball. Which is why he slowed down. And why he was knocked slightly backwards.

What time do they sit tonight?

Is it just me or are there more broken jaws etc from bumps these days?

Modern players have no awareness compared to years gone by when you knew at any time you could be collected at anytime from any direction.

I don't know if there are more broken jaws or not. But if there have been, one reason is likely to be the greater force with which players collide. they're bigger, stronger and faster. When they collide it's a more powerful collision than would have occurred in years gone by.

If we have any Physics teachers perhaps they could put Newton's Second Law of motion into English (basically force equals mass times acceleration).

I don't know if there are more broken jaws or not. But if there have been, one reason is likely to be the greater force with which players collide. they're bigger, stronger and faster. When they collide it's a more powerful collision than would have occurred in years gone by.

If we have any Physics teachers perhaps they could put Newton's Second Law of motion into English (basically force equals mass times acceleration).

The physics tells us where the greater force was coming from and it was not from Viney, he got knocked backwards.

I think the normal speed replay of the incident provides further support for Viney.

Normally when watching a game it's pretty easy to see a bump. You see the player line up or 'prepare' for the bump before executing it. When watching the game I didn't for one second think that Viney bumped him - to me it was just a collision with both players going for the footy.

It's only really the last few micro-seconds when Viney turns to brace himself for contact (and only if you freeze the frame or watch it in slow motion) that you notice something resembling a bump (but which is really him bracing himself for contact).

The rule states that the player must make an election to bump. This requires there to be a 'bump' and, secondly, an 'election' to bump. An election means the player must have made a decision to bump.

My first argument would be that it was not a 'bump' but is rather two players hunting the ball and one bracing himself for contact. This is supported by the vision in the lead up to the incident and the fact that Viney hits him with his arm down and not locked in as you would normally execute a bump.

My second argument would be that Viney did not make an 'election' to bump. As I said above it's normally easy to pick up a bump when watching a game because the player prepares for it, tucks the arm in, and then hits the player with their eyes off the ball. That shows an election. Viney however was watching the footy, hunting the footy and at the last second noticed the oncoming 6"4 Lynch and turned to protect himself from getting flattened. To me it is impossible to say that he made an election to bump Lynch - the build up to the incident clearly supports it.

Gerard Whately on AFL360 gave a good analysis of why he should be cleared. He looked at the vision, analysed it and gave his view. Compare this to our mate Damo Barrett who just said Viney should be rubbed out without any reasoning or analysis for his view. That's why one of these guys is a respected footy journo and the other relies on scraps of garbage and sensationalism.

Interesting also that KB, a renowned advocate for protection of the head, believes Viney should be cleared.