AFL Tribunal ‏@AFLTribunal 9m

Gleeson says #Viney could have avoided contact by pushing off his left foot and getting out of the road.

Seriously then he would have been accused of shirking a contest. anyone tell gleeson that isnt in jacks nature.

Why didnt they just Beam him up Scotty ?

Yes, Gleeson, he should've spun around! Maybe in that half second he could've also backflipped, cartwheeled and somersaulted into the goal square!

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Lamashtu

Could a Gleeson become a new slang word for what I used to call a Prendergast and what Eddie McEverywhere would call a certain veteran Port player?

Sounds like they have a preconceived idea to rub him out no matter what

There's no point getting angry at Gleeson. His job is to make the case for guilt at the tribunal.

He needs to prove that Viney bumped him, and that he had an alternative to bumping him (because that's what the rule is). Gleeson needed to make the case that Viney could have done something else, other than what he did.

Just because it isn't a strong case, doesn't mean that Gleeson is doing the wrong thing.

I didn't realise the tribunal was run on the adversarial system. Totally inappropriate in my view.

I didn't realise the tribunal was run on the adversarial system. Totally inappropriate in my view.

Strongly agree Sue. They should be establishing the facts, not running witch hunts.

"If he chose to bump, the consequence of Mr Lynch's broken jaw is that he must be suspended"

That's the case. If the jury believes Viney had a choice, he's gone. If he didn't (and it was a footy collision) then he's fine.

Is it this Gleeson ??

There's no point getting angry at Gleeson. His job is to make the case for guilt at the tribunal.

He needs to prove that Viney bumped him, and that he had an alternative to bumping him (because that's what the rule is). Gleeson needed to make the case that Viney could have done something else, other than what he did.

Just because it isn't a strong case, doesn't mean that Gleeson is doing the wrong thing.

A of Bob...thats fine providing he remains within the parameters of reality...this guys a total bozo if he even for a sec thinks what he's uttering makes any sense

There's no point getting angry at Gleeson. His job is to make the case for guilt at the tribunal.

He needs to prove that Viney bumped him, and that he had an alternative to bumping him (because that's what the rule is). Gleeson needed to make the case that Viney could have done something else, other than what he did.

Just because it isn't a strong case, doesn't mean that Gleeson is doing the wrong thing.

If the case is not strong and you have to resort to players pulling out of a winnable contest or doing ballet moves to avoid contact then the AFL should say " on further examination no charge to be answered". If the case is not clear and unambiguous then withdraw charges. telling players to pull out of winnable contests goes against everything that players are taught since little league.

I didn't realise the tribunal was run on the adversarial system. Totally inappropriate in my view.

Absolutely, these scenarios he is throwing up is hardly the proper way for a competition to interpret its rules.

How the feck does protecting yourself ( reactionary ) constitute a bump...actionary ?

Its kinda been forgotten that Viney was bracing for impact from TWO players or about 185kgs travelling at speed. This says two things:

1. WTF was he supposed to do but brace

2. He is one tough mudder.......

We get to present a defence before a verdict is given. If the MRP had ruled against him, we'd be appealing and risking a higher penalty. All good so far. The umpires passed it - are they witnesses? - and I'm starting to feel optimistic. I think he'll get the benefit of the "doubt".

"If he chose to bump, the consequence of Mr Lynch's broken jaw is that he must be suspended"

That's the case. If the jury believes Viney had a choice, he's gone. If he didn't (and it was a footy collision) then he's fine.

He didn't bump he braced himself for impact.

I say he was bracing for an impact that was inevitable...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXeqmBVRlIw

17:48

Nathan Schmook:

AFL case is that he turned into Lynch's path at the last second

Why the F do the AFL need a case?

Gleeson ~The Devil's Advocate! As in the Spanish Inquisition?

Although it is an adversarial system, it's not clear that he gets the benefit of the doubt, is it?

I am staggered at the process. if it was a fair dinkum adversarial system he'd be judged by a jury of his peers.

Melb are arguing it was the actions of Georgiou that caused Lynch's injury. This is interesting because if you go back to the sling tackle of Trengove then Georgiou has failed in his duty of care when tackling a player and the player was injured.

This is the problem with the slippery slope of this tribunal system. Its so stuffed and throws up unintended consequences.

A of Bob...thats fine providing he remains within the parameters of reality...this guys a total bozo if he even for a sec thinks what he's uttering makes any sense

His job is to provide a case where the player is guilty. He doesn't get to chose his cases, like a barrister would.

If the case is not strong and you have to resort to players pulling out of a winnable contest or doing ballet moves to avoid contact then the AFL should say " on further examination no charge to be answered". If the case is not clear and unambiguous then withdraw charges. telling players to pull out of winnable contests goes against everything that players are taught since little league.

That's what the jury is for. The MRP effectively said "we don't know", and now it's up to the jury.

Nathan Schmook:

Central point is whether the act was a bump or bracing for inevitable contact.

Again, the force of the impact pushed him backwards, yet he "rode" it well enough to be the one who took possession of the ball.

If he was intending to "bump", neither of those things would have happened.