Does anyone know who at the club has ultimate responsibility for the decision to appeal or not?

I think PJ has been doing a great job but he could have a conflict of interest as an AFL appointee.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:22, Deez said:

vineys two weeks is rubbish, and the body slam on georgiou was rubbish as well, should've been given a week for it.

On the positive side of all this, Pig dog should get a run. He's hard at the ball and plays a role similar to viney.

Im looking forward to seeing him.

I can't see any positive to a fundamental change to the way our game now has to be played. As many commentators have pointed out, this is not just about Jack Viney.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:07, The Song Formerly Known As said:

Call in this guy to represent us:

If he didn't hit, you must acquit!

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:23, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Does anyone know who at the club has ultimate responsibility for the decision to appeal or not?

I think PJ has been doing a great job but he could have a conflict of interest as an AFL appointee.

I don't feel PJ would be conflicted at all. He works for us.

They should reenact the incident, prove Gleeson is full of *it, no way for anyone to pirouette out of it.

we must have plenty of QC'S that are melbourne fans who want to offer there services in the appeal

New @AFL approved book released featuring @Jackviney7 #freeviney

  On 06/05/2014 at 09:31, Young Dee said:

"Not at any stage was I trying to bump - I was purely trying to brace myself for impact," he told the Tribunal.

"It happened in a very short space of time. There was about half a second where the ball could have bounced either way."

AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson proposed Viney could have "spun out" of the impending collision, rather than bracing for contact.

Viney said there "was not a lot of time to think about complex manoeuvres like spinning".

Is this guy serious? Viney would probably have a broken neck if he had 'spun out' or we would be accused of tanking

I am guessing this guy has never played football.

Not only that, he would've been seen to squib the contest.

Try to imagine that. I can't.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:28, McQueen said:

Not only that, he would've been seen to squib the contest.

Try to imagine that. I can't.

This is the crux of it....the AFL are telling players they must avoid contests, its fundamentally wrong.

  On 06/05/2014 at 10:54, deepete said:

This has probably been brought up, but I wonder what the charge would be if it was a Hodge or a Sellwood instead of a Viney?

Yes I asked earlier if anyone knows whether the rule has changed since 18 June 2013 when Hodge contested an MRP rough conduct charge and got off of course. He was up for a high elbow hit on Henderson and a collision with Murphy where Murph had to go to hospital with a fractured cheek bone and missed 4 weeks.

Googled the case and the defence and it was something about his natural attack on the ball, Roughy got in my way so I had no choice but to protect myself etc. Gleeson was involved again but he seemed less than agressive in his questioning. DSI Dunne and the Moose were again in charge and took less than 5 minutes to throw it all out.

So I say if the rule has NOT changed since last year, then the tribunal is under instructions and something stinks big time!

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:20, Sylvia Saint said:

I thought that too - but he was pretty accurate with Jesse Hogan scoops on 2 seperate occassions this season, makes me think he has a source within the club and that maybe the appeal is ready to be lodged. Can only hope!

If he has a source within the club I hope Jackson stops the leaks.

So this is what Jack should have done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDq0OADZj1c

FMD, and Deledio's appeal is successful! What is coming of our game?

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:32, Viscount Hood said:

Yes I asked earlier if anyone knows whether the rule has changed since 18 June 2013 when Hodge contested an MRP rough conduct charge and got off of course. He was up for a high elbow hit on Henderson and a collision with Murphy where Murph had to go to hospital with a fractured cheek bone and missed 4 weeks.

Googled the case and the defence and it was something about his natural attack on the ball, Roughy got in my way so I had no choice but to protect myself etc. Gleeson was involved again but he seemed less than agressive in his questioning. DSI Dunne and the Moose were again in charge and took less than 5 minutes to throw it all out.

So I say if the rule has NOT changed since last year, then the tribunal is under instructions and something stinks big time!

Here it is for those interested: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-18/hodge-tribunal-result

Based on tonight's news

In: Riley, Gawn and Garland

Out: Frawley, Georgiou (injured), Viney (HUNG OUT TO DRY)

  On 06/05/2014 at 10:08, TGR said:

The urgency now is to come up with more grounds for an appeal. I didn't watch the hearing so I am not sure what we brought up, other than common-sense.

We need legal people and biomechanists on steroids to come up with something. The AFL want this to go away; they don't want an appeal…which will keep it in the media.

In terms of new grounds, the club only has 2 possible avenues.

1. The puffer-fish exhale.

Clearly, the footage shows Viney blowing out his cheeks ala Louis Armstrong as he "braces" for impact. If we can find footage of Viney executing bumps without this "bracing mechanism", this can be clearly used as new evidence IMO

2. The sudden drop in Lynch's head height evidenced by a few observations (eg. pelvic drop). Club could time it to nanoseconds.

In honour of the AFL embracing the "May the Fourth" Star Wars gimmicks over the weekend I suggest we run the Chewbacca defense.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:24, nutbean said:

I can't see any positive to a fundamental change to the way our game now has to be played. As many commentators have pointed out, this is not just about Jack Viney.

lol the positive is you get to see riley get a run.

and yes the fundamental change - loss of the bump is not good.

should be listening to Finey. Reckon he would be going off his head

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:25, chook fowler said:

I don't feel PJ would be conflicted at all. He works for us.

Well I suppose it depends who you mean by "us".

I'm glad PJ is at the helm but it would be naive to think that there is no conflict.

For what it is worth, I think it is technically Mahoney's call but would obviously involve consultation with the CEO.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:36, Dr. Gonzo said:

In honour of the AFL embracing the "May the Fourth" Star Wars gimmicks over the weekend I suggest we run the Chewbacca defense.

Someone's started a petition. Get on it folks.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/let-jack-viney-play

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:34, Oneday said:

FMD, and Deledio's appeal is successful! What is coming of our game?

If Dunn can hear the case against Delidio then Neitz should have heard the case against Viney. So much for Gillan's new open, honest, integrity drive.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:37, Hazyshadeofgrinter said:

Well I suppose it depends who you mean by "us".

I'm glad PJ is at the helm but it would be naive to think that there is no conflict.

For what it is worth, I think it is technically Mahoney's call but would obviously involve consultation with the CEO.

this isn't about Jack Viney's case now ! It's about the contact game of Aussie Rules footy, & how its being butchered.

anyway, there's a rerun of dirty Harry on 'Gem'... I'm going back in time to watch it.

Campbell Brown on Twitter rallying players to get behind the MFC.

I love, as a Crows player, that Tex Walker also came to our defense. Would be great to hear from Lynch in all this, but I'm guessing he's in hospital.