I think there is something to be said to require the Tribunal jury to provide reasons for its decisions.

The MRP is required to provide written reasons, but the Tribunal, despite being higher in the hierarchy and with far stronger powers, does not. In the court system, it is the lower courts and tribunals that do not need to provide written reasons, but the higher you go, especially to the appeal levels, written reasons become essential to the justice system. That way, we could understand exactly how the jury reasoned that Viney had a realistic alternative.

More importantly, one of the possible appeal grounds is error at law. If the jury misapplied the test the Chairman set out (the 5 elements to the offence), we'd have a strong argument. But we don't know what reasoning/process the Tribunal went through.

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

Nope. As is almost always the case with legal appeals, you don't try to bring in new evidence, you raise an issue as to the legality/correctness of the Tribunal decision.

This is a bigger deal than our win last Sat... It will make the playing group, cohesively stronger. We will win this Saturday night and the boys will do it for Jack.

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.

I can't like this post cause I've exceeded my daily limit but I agree 100%. To not appeal would be an act if cowardice from the club. What do we have to lose? Could they increase the penalty?

The more I see the incident the more disgraceful the decision is. He completely slows down and the contact is more a result of Georgiou forcing Lynch into Viney than Viney running into Lynch. He almost tried not to make contact by slowing down and bracing himself...if he really wanted to bump he could easily have charged into him and taken him out.

This is an absolute travesty of justice. It is akin to a crucial kick going straight through the goals and it being awarded a point. Plainly, clearly incorrect.

How he can get the same penalty as Douglas who intentionally picked off a player with a bump and got him in the head is an out and out joke. Completely different incidents yet the same penalty.

For me it reeks of the AFL giving directions to the tribunal that any player who causes a serious facial injury must get suspended, because otherwise they fear that mums will think the game is too rough and will not let their kids play footy and instead get them to play soccer.

Stand up to this blatant injustice and appeal. I am absolutely disgusted.

By the way I would have liked to have seen Josh Mahoney a bit more aggressive in his interview. Very philosophical for mine - it is what it is type of stuff.

Will be very interesting to see if he picked up Brownlow votes for this.

Obviously, the umpires would have submitted votes before the referral and it will be interesting to see whether this impacted their view on 'fairest and best' at all...

Its a sad day in football.

Channel 10 about to have a report on their late news about the outrage and fallout over the Viney decision.

vote here

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/if-you-go-to-the-tribunal-brace-yourself--20140506-37uw7.html#poll

I get people are upset but having a shot at Gleeson is rubbish. Read the above article to understand why.

And by the by it is really stupid (and sadly typical in recent times where knee jerk is the standard reaction) of people to bag him out for his question to Viney asking if he could have spun out of the way. One it is his job to prosecute the case. Two Bond (who was at the hearing) said in response to dimwit Healy and Russell's incredulity about Gleeson's comments (he's got no idea, has he ever played etc) that in fact it was clear he was only half heartily suggesting it as an option, said it with a slight grin and was actually giving Viney the opportunity to clarify he had no other option (a dorothy dixer that Viney accepted). Context not apparent in tweets from Schmook. Bond was actually quite forceful in his comments and made it clear Gleeson was doing a good job.

It's one thing upset demon fans not understanding context and being sucked in by social media quite another for so called journalists and media people to not get it.

Des Gleeson is the perfect man for that job and it really annoys me to hear stupid unwarranted criticism. He is a bloke that deserves a bit more respect as reflected in this quote:

'It is no fluke Des Gleeson was known for his integrity when he carried out his duties in one of the highest offices in the horse racing industry. For 35 years Des was a race steward and he did his job so well that he spent the last 12 years of his career as Victoria's chief steward.'

http://www.moynegazette.com.au/story/1238365/profile-des-gleeson/

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by binman

Dwayne Russell is an absolute [censored] of the highest order. Stopped listening to 3AW nightly sports show when Hooksey passed on and that cretin Russell partnered Healy. He is full of crap and is an absolute ****head.

Same. I wrote to 3aw and told them my reasons. No answer

Have never listened to them again.

I get people are upset but having a shot at Gleeson is rubbish. Read the above article to understand why.

And by the by it is really stupid (and sadly typical in recent times where knee jerk is the standard reaction) of people to bag him out for his question to Viney asking if he could have spun out of the way. One it is his job to prosecute the case. Two Bond (who was at the hearing) said in response to dimwit Healy and Russell's incredulity about Gleeson's comments (he's got no idea, has he ever played etc) that in fact it was clear he was only half heartily suggesting it as an option, said it with a slight grin and was actually giving Viney the opportunity to clarify he had no other option (a dorothy dixer that Viney accepted). Context not apparent in tweets from Schmook. Bond was actually quite forceful in his comments and made it clear Gleeson was doing a good job.

It's one thing upset demon fans not understanding context and being sucked in by social media quite another for so called journalists and media people to not get it.

Des Gleeson is the perfect man for that job and it really annoys me to hear stupid unwarranted criticism. He is a bloke that deserves a bit more respect as reflected in this quote:

'It is no fluke Des Gleeson was known for his integrity when he carried out his duties in one of the highest offices in the horse racing industry. For 35 years Des was a race steward and he did his job so well that he spent the last 12 years of his career as Victoria's chief steward.'

http://www.moynegazette.com.au/story/1238365/profile-des-gleeson/

Fair enough for defending Gleeson, what I would like to know is how they arrived that their decision. How did they characterise this as a bump and not him bracing to protect himself? What were his options? What specifically did he do wrong?

In such a landmark case for the game I think transparency is important here, otherwise the theory that he got a serious facial injury therefor Viney had to go will last forever. To me it felt like they had gone into this case with their minds already made up.

Yeah OK.

I know there's little point in indulging in "what ifs", but I'm going to anyway.

What if Viney had done nothing different, but Lynch's legs hadn't buckled, so when he & Viney collided he was at full height?

May well have been Viney with the injury, but he wouldn't have got suspended.

It was Lynch's legs buckling that caused the injury to him rather than to Viney, not anything that Viney did.

You really have to wonder that this was a predetermined (insurance-company-ordered?) outcome.

Is it true that Colin Sylvia was hit off the ball and there was no case to answer for Josh Kennedy of the Eagles... maybe 2 years ago?

Jack V was on the ball. He didn't even get airborne.

Please tell me I'm wrong? (I'm looking at you Mr. Gleeson supporter.)

I get people are upset but having a shot at Gleeson is rubbish. Read the above article to understand why.

And by the by it is really stupid (and sadly typical in recent times where knee jerk is the standard reaction) of people to bag him out for his question to Viney asking if he could have spun out of the way. One it is his job to prosecute the case. Two Bond (who was at the hearing) said in response to dimwit Healy and Russell's incredulity about Gleeson's comments (he's got no idea, has he ever played etc) that in fact it was clear he was only half heartily suggesting it as an option, said it with a slight grin and was actually giving Viney the opportunity to clarify he had no other option (a dorothy dixer that Viney accepted). Context not apparent in tweets from Schmook. Bond was actually quite forceful in his comments and made it clear Gleeson was doing a good job.

It's one thing upset demon fans not understanding context and being sucked in by social media quite another for so called journalists and media people to not get it.

Des Gleeson is the perfect man for that job and it really annoys me to hear stupid unwarranted criticism. He is a bloke that deserves a bit more respect as reflected in this quote:

'It is no fluke Des Gleeson was known for his integrity when he carried out his duties in one of the highest offices in the horse racing industry. For 35 years Des was a race steward and he did his job so well that he spent the last 12 years of his career as Victoria's chief steward.'

http://www.moynegazette.com.au/story/1238365/profile-des-gleeson/

facepalm

The prosecutor or whatever his title is at the tribunal is Jeff Gleeson SC a barrister not a horse racing steward!

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by the master

Is it true that Colin Sylvia was hit off the ball and there was no case to answer for Josh Kennedy of the Eagles... maybe 2 years ago?

Jack V was on the ball. He didn't even get airborne.

Please tell me I'm wrong? (I'm looking at you Mr. Gleeson supporter.)

Four years ago, but yes. In that case the MRP used their discretionary powers to determine that there was no case to answer and it never went to the tribunal. Why they didn't do the same this time is beyond me, and the basis for my repeated claims of cowardice and moral bankruptcy on their part. THey lacked the courage to make that call and instead passed it on to the tribunal, who have gifted us this travesty.

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.

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.

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.

Very well summed up 'titan', and I also think we should appeal.

Is it true that Colin Sylvia was hit off the ball and there was no case to answer for Josh Kennedy of the Eagles... maybe 2 years ago?

Jack V was on the ball. He didn't even get airborne.

Please tell me I'm wrong? (I'm looking at you Mr. Gleeson supporter.)

TBH it's unfair to look that far back in MRP/tribunal cases, hell it's probably too far to look back as early as last year. The AFL have said from the start of the year, bump the head and you're gone. Accident/incidental or not.

BUT that is if you elect to bump. Which most people agree is not the case here. Brace not bump.

And yes Col Sylvia was given a broken jaw vs WC pre-season a few years ago and the WC player was given a free pass despite clear video evidence showing the deliberate illegal action causing Sylvia's injury. It is a case that every single person in the footy world agrees was a total farce and a baffling decision.

BTW how the hell did they deem Delidio's elbow reckless instead of intentional? HE WALKED UP TO THE BLOKE AND ELBOWED HIM IN THE CHIN!!!!

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Pates

Absolute joke of a decision. What makes it worse is that Deledio got off and he was so smug about it. I think that they should appeal Viney's case. If it costs us the Bulldogs game I will be spewing.

I get people are upset but having a shot at Gleeson is rubbish. Read the above article to understand why.

And by the by it is really stupid (and sadly typical in recent times where knee jerk is the standard reaction) of people to bag him out for his question to Viney asking if he could have spun out of the way. One it is his job to prosecute the case. Two Bond (who was at the hearing) said in response to dimwit Healy and Russell's incredulity about Gleeson's comments (he's got no idea, has he ever played etc) that in fact it was clear he was only half heartily suggesting it as an option, said it with a slight grin and was actually giving Viney the opportunity to clarify he had no other option (a dorothy dixer that Viney accepted). Context not apparent in tweets from Schmook. Bond was actually quite forceful in his comments and made it clear Gleeson was doing a good job.

It's one thing upset demon fans not understanding context and being sucked in by social media quite another for so called journalists and media people to not get it.

Des Gleeson is the perfect man for that job and it really annoys me to hear stupid unwarranted criticism. He is a bloke that deserves a bit more respect as reflected in this quote:

'It is no fluke Des Gleeson was known for his integrity when he carried out his duties in one of the highest offices in the horse racing industry. For 35 years Des was a race steward and he did his job so well that he spent the last 12 years of his career as Victoria's chief steward.'

http://www.moynegazette.com.au/story/1238365/profile-des-gleeson/

Pity then that it wasn't him prosecuting the case.

Fair enough for defending Gleeson, what I would like to know is how they arrived that their decision. How did they characterise this as a bump and not him bracing to protect himself? What were his options? What specifically did he do wrong?

In such a landmark case for the game I think transparency is important here, otherwise the theory that he got a serious facial injury therefor Viney had to go will last forever. To me it felt like they had gone into this case with their minds already made up.

I'm happy to defend Gleeson (the right one). He is just doing his job. He can come up with any reason he wants to say that it's a bump.

The people in question are

1. The AFL or MRP who directed Mr Gleeson to argue this so called 'bump' was illegal

2. The 3 members of the tribunal who have decided this was a bump and not an accident despite evidence presented being largely against that. I agree they need to explain there verdict.

The MRP sent this case to tribunal to work out a clear reasoning for suspension. Instead we didn't get one.

Absolute joke of a decision. What makes it worse is that Deledio got off and he was so smug about it. I think that they should appeal Viney's case. If it costs us the Bulldogs game I will be spewing.

Conflict of interest that Dunne heard the appeal?? Where was Neitz for the Viney case.

No, the AFL stand for integrity.

I'm happy to defend Gleeson (the right one). He is just doing his job. He can come up with any reason he wants to say that it's a bump.

The people in question are

1. The AFL or MRP who directed Mr Gleeson to argue this so called 'bump' was illegal

2. The 3 members of the tribunal who have decided this was a bump and not an accident despite evidence presented being largely against that. I agree they need to explain there verdict.

The MRP sent this case to tribunal to work out a clear reasoning for suspension. Instead we didn't get one.

Agree 'master', Joel Bowden slipped out of that one. Very average and a distinct lack of courage to make a decision. This didn't need to go to the tribunal in the first place, there was no bump, there was no case.

facepalm

The prosecutor or whatever his title is at the tribunal is Jeff Gleeson SC a barrister not a horse racing steward!

The same one 'prosecuted' Jack Trengove's appeal for the AFL, if IIRC. He was a ..... then too!

only thing ill say (has probably been said in the pages i cannot fathom reading) is that I saw a glimpse of some show with Darcy and Hall being very openly disrespectful of the decision and what it means for the greater good of the game. Of course Hall had a big decision overuled that allowed him to play in an ultimately successful grand final, so it is a pertinent discussion for him.

Except that to wasn't a bump - it was a self defensive brace!!