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

You mean that it isn't????

Gerard Healy and Dwayne Russell both agree that it was the right decision made. They read out a bunch of messages from journos i.e gerard wheatley, mark robinson etc. who were infuriated by the decision and Wheatley and Russel followed by saying "how much AFL footy have they played" etc.
Absolute wankers.

Time for the Wigs to come to the fore

Sickem Dees

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

Don't worry. Gleeson would just pirrouette delicately out of the way.

The Club has changed....lets see how much

what a farce

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.

It virtually means that the Tribunal accepted Gleeson's argument that he could have pirouetted out of the way.

How Schimmelbusch, Henwood and Dunne could do that is beyond belief.

You would expect that these sorts of laws would be brought in for snipers not for players playing the game the wary it's always been played.

It would seem that the AFL are worried about soccer and want to turn the game in to a non contact sport. Players flying over the pack for a mark could be suspended I'd they come in to contact with another player and injure him.

About to announce penalty.

Gerard Healy and Dwayne Russell both agree that it was the right decision made. They read out a bunch of messages from journos i.e gerard wheatley, mark robinson etc. who were infuriated by the decision and Wheatley and Russel followed by saying "how much AFL footy have they played" etc.

Absolute wankers.

Gerard Healy and Dwayne Russell

Two losers that have never been taken seriously in their lives and never will be

Time for the Wigs to come to the fore

Sickem Dees

now one thing we do have is connections to Lawyers!

Again according to 2012 information (can't see any recent information from the AFL, which is typical), the charge of 'rough conduct' (which is what Viney was found guilty of) is:

Rough conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

Without limiting the above, the Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless:

a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or

b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.

In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the rule.

From the above, there is a possible error in law (incorrect application/explanation of this rule; it cannot be rough conduct if the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball (REALISTIC FFS)) as well as the much clearer decision was so obviously wrong.

REALISTIC. ALTERNATIVE.

Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun 8m

If the prosecutor said he should have jumped out of the way of that & was serious he is kidding himself. Viney didn't bump, he braced

First crisis of Mark Evans reign as footy boss. If we can't trust judicial process & players have to jump out of the way we have nothing. I agree with Ralphy's point there. You cant have players suddenly now jumping out of the way. My god imagine the uproar if watts jumped out of the way to avoid impact.

Its funny the comments on twitter. All in support of jack and cant believe it.

Now everyone is confused about the bump.

Impact medium.

Penalty 200 points.

Don't worry. Gleeson would just pirrouette delicately out of the way.

it is after all an entirely plausible option...what.,..in the time it took you to read the first three words its all over... think about that

19:07

Nathan Schmook:

Impact medium.

Penalty 200 points.

19:07

Nathan Schmook:

two-game ban. No carryover points.

two-game ban. No carryover points.

2 weeks

so he wont play for 5 weeks, misses the next 2 then we have a bye

[censored] off AFL, [censored] off Gleeson and the 3 losers on the jury

2 weeks

This is the same tribunal that suspended Jack Trengove for a body slam is it not? Georgiou got bodyslammed on Saturday night and not a bloody whisper. In fact the whole commentary team lead by that one eyed adelaide [censored] Ricciuto, Firestarter Dwayne and the great silverbacked one Dunstall all thought it was a hell of a joke to see.

Inconsistant decisions by old boys posing as pseudo judiciary types is stuffing this game up to a level that it is not a shadow of what it once was.

2 week ban no carry over points.

See ya AFL.. My love for NRL just grew even stronger!

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

we really are cursed

If Riley is fit he can play.

[censored] the AFL. Appeal. Appeal this hard. This is a disgusting joke.

2 game ban.

Medium impact for a bump he was "guilty" of putting a guy out for 6 weeks.

Right.