Nathan Schmook:

Gleeson says they could impose a penalty between 1-3 weeks taking in all of the factors of this case.

LOL. It's almost as if Gleeson knows that it was a complete accident and they shouldn't give him 3-4 weeks.

Appeal.

This is an utter disgrace, but is anyone really surprised? We know the system is broken and drastically slanted against the player.

From some clubs

Wayne Henwood, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch

Someone get me the contact details for these muppets please

Excuse my ignorance - to whom does one appeal?

I think there is an Appeals Board that hears appeals from players dissatisfied with tribunal hearings.

We must appeal.

He may as well retire.

This game is not for him.

OMG

Nathan Schmook:

Gleeson now asking Viney if he was ever suspended as a junior.

Appears to be attempting to bring forward evidence that will minimise ban

Good for us or not. How does this have any issue here?

Generally to appeal this sort of decision you need to come up with new evidence that wasn't considered.

According to 2012 information, which AFAIK hasn't changed, the grounds for appeal are:

• Error in law.
• That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
• Classification of offence manifestly excessive.
• Sanction imposed manifestly excessive.

The second one is important here; the third may also be relevant (i.e. to call this 'rough conduct' is 'manifestly excessive'). Not sure how to argue the first one in the circumstances of a jury making a decision (juries are fact finders).

Any chance those cap cheating [censored] in Adelaide would provide some position support to the appeal? Doubtful. Bunch of pricks.

If he gets one week will he be in line for a reprimand?

Make a stand MFC

I think we throw 15 thousand pink marshmallows on the field Saturday night in case the players fall over.

If he gets one week will he be in line for a reprimand?

As far as I know, the Tribunal can impose any penalty, not just the one the MRP may have imposed. So he could get a reprimand even if they think it's negligent/high impact/all that crap.

Paul Roos, Josh Mahoney, Todd Viney and Peter Jackson

They wont stand for this [censored]

Any chance those cap cheating [censored] in Adelaide would provide some position support to the appeal? Doubtful. Bunch of pricks.

No chance. Dangerfields '6-goals' sore head says hello unfortunately.

I think we throw 15 thousand pink marshmallows on the field Saturday night in case the players fall over.

Pink and white, the white for gutlessness.

According to 2012 information, which AFAIK hasn't changed, the grounds for appeal are:

• Error in law.
• That the decision was so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.
• Classification of offence manifestly excessive.
• Sanction imposed manifestly excessive.

The second one is important here; the third may also be relevant (i.e. to call this 'rough conduct' is 'manifestly excessive'). Not sure how to argue the first one in the circumstances of a jury making a decision (juries are fact finders).

Agree, the second part is the big issue. No reasonable person, on being presented with the evidence, could make that ruling. Clearly there has been a miscarriage of justice and an appeal must be lodged.

OMG

Nathan Schmook:

Gleeson now asking Viney if he was ever suspended as a junior.

Appears to be attempting to bring forward evidence that will minimise ban

Good for us or not. How does this have any issue here?

Wait till he tells them he had to play up an age due too being to rough...

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Fat Tony

Utter disgrace - what appeal options do we have?

On the basis of the decision, they can't just reprimand. That would make it clear the whole thing was a show trial.

Dean Kent might be suspended tonight too, and hed be the logical replacement for Viney

we really are cursed

Roos has been doing everything different to his predecessors

His predecessors were fond of sitting on your hands and not standing up for what's right in situations like this.

This Gleeseon needs to be smashed into by Viney, break his freakin jaw!

Why are we surprised? The AFL have a (shameful) history of singling-out our Club for rough justice when it suits them to change rule interpretations (Trengove, tanking, priority picks, etc). Can anyone imagine this outcome if it was a 'filth' player involved? It stinks like s*#t!

if he is pinged, bit odd.

He was almost stationary when it happened, the Adelaide player and georgiou were moving faster at the point of contact, he didn't jump, he didn't raise an elbow, he was making a contest for the ball, he had no other path to take.

If players can't do that, the game is becoming more ands more a non contact sport. Basketball is rougher.

I understand lynchs jaw is broken as a result of the collision, but it looks like a coincidental collision.

Doubt viney would've purposely lined him up if he knew georgiou was so close behind.