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.

Well they had bloody well better do it for him and for "the integrity of the game"..

I love how the players are getting on twitter to voice there disgust. Although I like this one from Arch. Arch says he can't boycott the hall of fame dinner as he hasn't got an invite yet Glen Archer would be laughing and thanking god he isnt playing these days.

My god thank god Byron Pickett isnt playing. He;d never get a game.

R.I.P. the bump; & hard types like:- Tony Lockett, John Nicholls, Ted Whitten, Ron Barassi, Leigh Matthews, Ray Biffen, Laurie Fowler, Francis Bourke, Don Scott, Rod Grinter, Dermott Brereton, Jack Dyer, Neil Kerley, Big Carl Ditterich, Neil Balme, Glen Archer, Barry Stoneham, Terry Daniher, John Worsfold, Mark Risciutto, Jonathon Brown, the Scott twins,

Something else - the Tribunal took 19 minutes.

The only thing they had to decide was whether it was a bump, or he braced for contact. Bump = guilty; braced = not guilty.

It doesn't take 19 minutes to decide whether it's a bump or not. It's not exactly a matter to be debated. You either think it is or it isn't. It's not exactly a "Twelve Angry Men" scenario.

If one of the three had serious reservations about it being a bump, then that should be enough to declare him not guilty. To declare him guilty, all three must have been certain (on balance of probabilities?) that it wasn't bracing for contact on Viney's part.

It would have taken 30 seconds to determine that, even if the cards weren't marked before they got into the room. It then took them 18.5 minutes to find the fig-leaf. Which was the bull about "medium impact" and 2 matches - a see-through fig-leaf.

These may well be the only three men in Melbourne that could get together in a room and believe it wasn't bracing for contact. If Schimmelbusch, Henwood and Dunne have any integrity, they will willingly give the reasons for their decision and be held to account for them. Not holding my breath.

The more you analyse this, the more it stinks to high heaven. The AFL will simply say nothing, give no accountability, until it becomes yesterday's news and everything dies down. But it has a corrosive effect in that it reinforces the view that the AFL aren't running the game for the benefit of the fans, or even the players, but for some other favoured interest. And that's the problem. The outcry might die down, but the stench won't go away.

Jeffery J Gleeson QC.

Telephone: +61 3 9225 6411.

. Email: gleeson@vicbar.com.au

heres Gleesons contact. details

Although Id much rather the contact details of Schimelbusch, Henwood and Dunne if anyone has them

Well done, very clever. What are you going to do, storm his chambers?

Well done, very clever. What are you going to do, storm his chambers?

You might wanna BRACE yourself Undee. This could get a little BUMPy

Interesting post on BF forums:

The appeal should be very very simple to make in fact.

The Tribunal rules offer two circumstances under the Rough Conduct(High Bump) section, in which players will be found not guilty. One of these is:

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

Gleeson made the AFL's case that Viney had a duty of care which required him to avoid the contest. There is no such requirement in the rules. The AFL made no attempt to suggest that tackling was a realistic alternative to contest the ball, they suggested the alternative was avoiding the contest altogether. If the tribunal ruled on the basis that Viney had a duty to avoid the contest in order to fulfil his duty of care they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned.

Same crap, different year.

Happy to call the game AFL now.

Aussie Rules it ain't.

D'Land is in meltdown.

The boy is still with us. It's two weeks....not a lifetime.

There's a player with a wired up jaw tonight.

The head is sacrosanct.

Tell Colin Sylvia ( hit behind the play by Eagle Kennedy ) who got off after breaking Colin's jaw.

They should call in a bio mechanics expert during the appeal to testify that it would have been impossible for viney to spin out of it at that speed,without risk of a serious knee injury.

This would completely debunk the AFLs case , as Gleeson himself suggested viney should have spun out of it.

Good idea.

Has anybody heard which side of Lynch's jaw was broken? I would have thought if it was the right then Viney would have to have walked on that alone as he contacted the left side of Lynch.

I actually know Moose Henwood and he is a good bloke, a knockabout bloke and with commonsense and I am sure he would have voted Not Guilty. If he didn't I smell a rat.

Good idea.

Has anybody heard which side of Lynch's jaw was broken? I would have thought if it was the right then Viney would have to have walked on that alone as he contacted the left side of Lynch.

I actually know Moose Henwood and he is a good bloke, a knockabout bloke and with commonsense and I am sure he would have voted Not Guilty. If he didn't I smell a rat.

Good call, the whole case is built on this premise that Viney could have pulled out of that contest. It's as hard for Viney to prove that he couldn't as it is for them to prove that he could so isn't that an element of doubt that needs to taken into consideration.

Anyone saying that there is no doubt in half a second a player can do a pirouette out of it after attacking the ball at the speed Viney was going is full of it.

Viney had 3 options.

1. Bump - Best option to protect himself

2. Tackle - Best option to not protect himself, would've got shirt fronted by 2 guys at pace.

3. Pull out of contest - Avoid contest, should the AFL be encouraging players not to contest the ball?

Everyone can make what they will of the verdict, but I am not sure the AFL have done themselves any favors here.

Currently 89% on Age poll believe the decision to be the worst in AFL history.

Its always a shame when people charged to find the appropriate outcomes put themselves above such action as evidenced here in public response.

The three wise monkeys are for ever tarnished and should be informed that their services are no longer required.

In a game played at breakneck pace what I don't like is that no benefit of doubt was given in this case. There is so much doubt as to what was and wasn't possible in that split half second yet the tribunal determined exactly what he could have done..they determined there was alternatives.

The more I think about the decision the more concerned I am about the future of the game. I realise this might sound over the top to some. How many players will now pull out of a contest and decide not to bump or even brace for impact? Just a terrible verdict.

Totally conflicted and unable to give an unbiased view, I concede that I shouldn't be on the jury. If DL people were to pass the hat for donations to pay for the appeal I would contribute $100.

However despite my deep love of the club, I will not pay the next years subs for the four memberships I normally get unless they A, challenge the decision, or B, provide a very sound explanation as to why they think Viney is guilty and it is worthless to appeal. To let this go deeply harms the game IMHO. Both from a MFC POV and from an Aussie Rules is the best game in the world POV.

I am happy to lose the appeal and have Viney out for four games, and we fought it as hard as we could because we believe in our player, or cop it sweet and say yes he is guilty.

I think this verdict will taint Viney's whole career, especially as the media chew over it, and it is worth the investment to protect Viney's reputation. I do not want him cast as some sort of Campbell Brown thug, which i fear he will be after this. This is hardly the last collision Jack is going to have, and not appealing is to my mind consigning the player to a nefarious (and undeserved reputation).

Appealing says that we believe our player to be fair, and even if lost, is worth it to protect Jacks name.

I normally loathe when people talk about memberships as some sort of negotiable item, when dealing with their clubs, and i can say without doubt, that I will buy memberships the following year (2016).

I would be interested to hear if people think it's too much, chances are that i will calm down, it's not that I'm angry at the club, in many ways they are between a rock and a hard place with the AFL. I just hope that if enough supporters make themselves heard, it becomes easier for the club to say to the AFL, "our members gave us no choice", and the club decides to take on the hard place, it's worth it for a future captain i reckon.

Edit: got Browns name wrong

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Ingeniokinetikey

BTW congrats for the site coping with all the traffic, how much bandwidth did we eat up on this topic?

Totally conflicted and unable to give an unbiased view, I concede that I shouldn't be on the jury. If DL people were to pass the hat for donations to pay for the appeal I would contribute $100.

However despite my deep love of the club, I will not pay the next years subs for the four memberships I normally get unless they A, challenge the decision, or B, provide a very sound explanation as to why they think Viney is guilty and it is worthless to appeal. To let this go deeply harms the game IMHO. Both from a MFC POV and from an Aussie Rules is the best game in the world POV.

I am happy to lose the appeal and have Viney out for four games, and we fought it as hard as we could because we believe in our player, or cop it sweet and say yes he is guilty.

I think this verdict will taint Viney's whole career, especially as the media chew over it, and it is worth the investment to protect Viney's reputation. I do not want him cast as some sort of Cameron Brown thug, which i fear he will be after this. This is hardly the last collision Jack is going to have, and not appealing is to my mind consigning the player to a nefarious (and undeserved reputation).

Appealing says that we believe our player to be fair, and even if lost, is worth it to protect Jacks name.

I normally loathe when people talk about memberships as some sort of negotiable item, when dealing with their clubs, and i can say without doubt, that I will buy memberships the following year (2016).

I would be interested to hear if people think it's too much, chances are that i will calm down, it's not that I'm angry at the club, in many ways they are between a rock and a hard place with the AFL, i just hope that if enough make themselves heard, it becomes easier for the club to say to the AFL our members gave us no choice, and the club decides to take on the hard place, it's worth it for a future captain i reckon.

I couldn't agree more, my situation slightly differs. I have lived interstate/overseas for a number of years and in that time have let my MCC/MFC memberships lapse. If the club appeals the decision I will purchase a membership for my partner and I ( she's a carlton supporter however I WILL convert her) for this year and 2015. An appeal will show something the MFC has not shown in a long time.

Must let the club know that we as members expect them to appeal.

Does anyone know how often tribunal appeals are successful? I can't think of many cases. I think we should appeal out of principle, however I don't like our chances, even though I think the suspension is complete [censored].

This is the Jack Trengove situation from 2011 all over again.

Watching the replay from the long distance shot, I swear that if Viney was the one that received a concussion/broken jaw, then Lynch would have been the one suspended based on the logic of the MRP. You can see all the players running to the contest from both sides at around the same pace, all focused on the ball and all well aware that a collision was a likely possibility.

The impact is a consequence of a contest, not a malicious or intentional bump from a player. It is known as a 'racing incident' in motor sport

Watching the replay from the long distance shot, I swear that if Viney was the one that received a concussion/broken jaw, then Lynch would have been the one suspended based on the logic of the MRP. You can see all the players running to the contest from both sides at around the same pace, all focused on the ball and all well aware that a collision was a likely possibility.

The impact is a consequence of a contest, not a malicious or intentional bump from a player. It is known as a 'racing incident' in motor sport

Unfortunately you've applied common sense, none of which is used in the law.

Must let the club know that we as members expect them to appeal.

Email the club in such numbers that they will!

The point about reputation is a good one. If Viney goes hard again in the next few years and smashes someone else, he will get months... Completely undeservedly.

Good idea.

Has anybody heard which side of Lynch's jaw was broken? I would have thought if it was the right then Viney would have to have walked on that alone as he contacted the left side of Lynch.

I actually know Moose Henwood and he is a good bloke, a knockabout bloke and with commonsense and I am sure he would have voted Not Guilty. If he didn't I smell a rat.

The Ox on SEN said the jaw break was on the left and caused by Viney. I smell a rat too. Gleeson obviously briefed by AFL Footy Operations to go hard and I assume the tribunal were briefed as well. Maybe the Moose held out for 19'minutes, he did play one game for the Dees. Was it a unanimous decision, do we see a full report of their decision?

And I wouldn't be surprised if PJ has had a phone call from HQ already about any thoughts of an appeal. "Of course it is your right but just to let you know that we are looking at your equalisation payments for this year, need to find savings somewhere, if you get my drift!"

The club needs to appeal to show the players that they fully support them going in hard for the ball. If we do not appeal then we will be sending mixed messages to the players, go in hard but not too hard.

The video is quite clear Jack is tracking the ball, it bounces and he sees a potential collision and in the .5 of a second before impact his body's natural self defense kicks as Jack tries to stop and brace himself for the impact. immediately after the impact Jack swoops on the ball and clears it. a joke decision to say he intended to bump.