On 06/05/2014 at 12:10, The Song Formerly Known As said:

he actually supported Viney since he got called to tribunal and continues too by retweeting and re-stating all the big comments from respectable names in the AFL.

Lol. I think I confused him with Mr Purple.

He's still a worthless journo and should take up my suggestion.

MUST APPEAL , MUST !!!!!!!!

Can't really attack a guy without detailed knowledge but is Iain Findlay the right guy for these defenses?

Former cop with a long standing history of player advocating but he isn't a QC or a sports lawyer. Represents country footballers as well as AFL ones.

From reading the break down of what was said we should've won the case. Maybe the issue is how it was said that counts.

We also could've brought some extra biomechanical evidence couldn't we? Or some other point.

The new President who has been awfully quiet for a while should step up and make a statement now. And he should consider his own doctrine of being ruthless and think of whether we are maximizing our chances at the tribunal

This photo is floating around some @AFL players Instagram sites. #Viney http://instagram.com/p/np15ixTUsa/

Support flowing thick and fast....

Ollie Wines ‏@wines16 23m

Don't think @jackviney7 would've even been thrown off the echuca primary school oval for that bump. #contestedball #winthefooty

Based on tonights tribunal decisions it is now allowable in the game to elbow an opponent in the head when the ball is not in play however it is not allowable to attack the ball in play and protect yourself.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:29, dees189227 said:

This photo is floating around some @AFL players Instagram sites. #Viney http://instagram.com/p/np15ixTUsa/

Link doesnt work

Post the pic

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:32, hogans_heroes said:

Link doesnt work

Post the pic

Yes it does, pirouette into it.

MelbourneFC Article

I am rather concerned about one line in particular:

"It is unlikely Melbourne will appeal the penalty."

Seriously, if they don't appeal this I don't know if I can continue giving them my money. Part of what I expect from the club in return for my ongoing and often sadly misplaced faith and financial contribution is that they will stand up both on and off the field. To fold on this issue and allow themselves to be steamrolled again by the corrupt AFL system goes against everything I want this team to represent.

It's ok to hit someone as hard as you can with an elbow to the head first and knock em out! But whatever you do, don't brace yourself in any pending collisions and bump!....

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-04-27/gibson-on-report

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:36, RalphiusMaximus said:

MelbourneFC Article

I am rather concerned about one line in particular:

"It is unlikely Melbourne will appeal the penalty."

Seriously, if they don't appeal this I don't know if I can continue giving them my money. Part of what I expect from the club in return for my ongoing and often sadly misplaced faith and financial contribution is that they will stand up both on and off the field. To fold on this issue and allow themselves to be steamrolled again by the corrupt AFL system goes against everything I want this team to represent.

they have to appeal

Undoes all the good work the clubs done lately to win back the faith of the supporters if they dont appeal this decision

Surely there is enough external uproar that the AFL should review this decision also, common sense would say he should get off

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:44, hogans_heroes said:

they have to appeal

Undoes all the good work the clubs done lately to win back the faith of the supporters if they dont appeal this decision

Perhaps in 4 to 6 weeks they will tell us that they are a month away from appealing.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:36, Deez said:

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

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

It wasn't even a bump, he just braced himself. Looks like the Adelaide player actually hit his jaw on Georgiou's

leg.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:36, RalphiusMaximus said:

MelbourneFC Article

I am rather concerned about one line in particular:

"It is unlikely Melbourne will appeal the penalty."

Seriously, if they don't appeal this I don't know if I can continue giving them my money. Part of what I expect from the club in return for my ongoing and often sadly misplaced faith and financial contribution is that they will stand up both on and off the field. To fold on this issue and allow themselves to be steamrolled again by the corrupt AFL system goes against everything I want this team to represent.

Yes, you will....we all will.

Tonight is our line in the sand.

We're on the up and up....a coach who can coach, the erosion of a sick culture and the start of REAL leadership across the playing group.

A chance this week for Pig Dog to debut and in a month's time, the hardest midfielders in the comp will play together.....Cross, Tyson, PG and a harder, smarter JV.

There is much optimism indeed.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:44, hogans_heroes said:

they have to appeal

Undoes all the good work the clubs done lately to win back the faith of the supporters if they dont appeal this decision

From what was said on 360, there doesn't seem like there are grounds for an appeal. They'd have to prove that it was a brace and not a bump, and I believe it would be the same people.

I guess they can only appeal if they have new evidence. they have to find something.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:44, Rusty Nails said:

It's ok to hit someone as hard as you can with an elbow to the head first and knock em out! But whatever you do, don't brace yourself in any pending collisions and bump!....

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-04-27/gibson-on-report

Gee the more you look at that one, the more you shake your head. Premeditated, Intentional, high contact but because by pure luck he didn't concuss or break something, there is no case?

Again I say the AFL is just acting if there is damage. All the forensic evidence in the world is useless. If someone is concussed or has a broken jaw, someone will be punished. Oh umm unless you play for the Hawks that is.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:53, dees189227 said:

I guess they can only appeal if they have new evidence. they have to find something.

Nope. New evidence isn't normally allowed in an appeal. They have to show that the verdict was unreasonable. That I think they can do quite easily.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:55, Viscount Hood said:

Gee the more you look at that one, the more you shake your head. Premeditated, Intentional, high contact but because by pure luck he didn't concuss or break something, there is no case?

Again I say the AFL is just acting if there is damage. All the forensic evidence in the world is useless. If someone is concussed or has a broken jaw, someone will be punished. Oh umm unless you play for the Hawks that is.

It's exactly what Bomber was saying yesterday, if a player is injured and it was cause by an opposition player, accident or not he is suspended. Total bull.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:59, RalphiusMaximus said:

Nope. New evidence isn't normally allowed in an appeal. They have to show that the verdict was unreasonable. That I think they can do quite easily.

Really, it was my understanding that it's the opposite (at least for the AFL system).

  On 06/05/2014 at 10:35, Toorak said:

It's got nothing to do with the Viney's actions it's the result of his action (broken jaw) even though it was fair.

This is clearly wrong but that's their interpretation.

That's not correct, they've made out this charge on the basis that he elected to bump (questionable) and that he had no realistic alternative (ridiculous finding), but even if it was, that is exactly what is wrong with the MRP and the Tribunal.

  On 06/05/2014 at 10:45, S_T said:

The rule is that if the player elects to bump, then they are responsible for any injury. The verdict shows that they believed that Viney did bump and had other options. Clearly they felt he should have either taken evasive action or stayed front on and being wiped out (not "bumped").

No, that's not correct. The rule is:

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 finding Viney guilty the jury has held that he had a realistic alternative. That finding, on the evidence, is incredulous.

  On 06/05/2014 at 12:36, RalphiusMaximus said:

MelbourneFC Article

I am rather concerned about one line in particular:

"It is unlikely Melbourne will appeal the penalty."

Seriously, if they don't appeal this I don't know if I can continue giving them my money. Part of what I expect from the club in return for my ongoing and often sadly misplaced faith and financial contribution is that they will stand up both on and off the field. To fold on this issue and allow themselves to be steamrolled again by the corrupt AFL system goes against everything I want this team to represent.

1. That was Nathan Schmook, who told everyone on the AFL website that it was unlikely Viney would get found guilty.

2. He might be referring there to the size of the penalty, as opposed to the finding of guilt (that statements comes after the sentence about 200 points and two weeks).

3. At any rate, if it's indeed the case that an appeal runs the risk of the penalty being increased, it's not a fait accompli that we are going to appeal this. Even though IMO we most definitely should.

  On 06/05/2014 at 13:04, Pates said:

Really, it was my understanding that it's the opposite (at least for the AFL system).

Read back a few pages, someone quoted the AFL rules on it. No new evidence unless it was not available at the time of the first hearing or something like that.

  On 06/05/2014 at 11:00, Viscount Hood said:

Basketball style zoning, corralling that is the future for the AFL.

Shudder!

I remember 3 weeks for a different Jack, for something as ordinary / as 'play on' as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7ZH-NKuIs

Appeal for F sake... 2 weeks for this is so wrong.