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,

Greetings from Rugby Leagues heartland.

The Viney decision confirms the accusations of many followers from other codes that AFL is aerial ballet! The AFL is now free to develop this concept in a number of important areas. Firstly a whole new nomenclature is needed in order to "brand" the game and in future commentators will be mandated to use the following terms . Pirouetting, replaces the baulk, pas de deux is to be the modern terminology for the tackle now forbidden, and training will solely be en barre, backing out of packs, en derierre, speckies now become en l'air etc

But ballet isn't the only form of dance the AFL embraces, goal post will now be bedecked with streamers and goal umpires will signal each goal with a dance round the Maypole.

Of course funding will be under the auspices of the Ministry of the Arts although the AFL commissioners and their lackies will still need to retain their current sinecures.

What a farce!

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 could not agree more. So much for bawdens promise of transparency and clarity about the rule. Also how on earth did they determine impact was medium?

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.

Apparently Gleeson asked for Jack's junior record re suspensions...apparently he asked them to go back to his under 9 playing days!!!!

Under 9!? HA?

Jack V, The AFL's Sacrificial Lamb!!!

Forgive me if this has already been raised but there seems to be some very muddy thinking gone on in relation to this "issue" which has resulted in a confusing and perplexing finding. I have one question to put to the tribunal and that is "is it the intention of the AFL through the Tribunal and MRP to penalize friendly fire incidents also? eg if Jack had of been wearing a Crows jumper would the MRP have referred the incident? The circumstances would have been the same ie negligent etc

If you want to sanitize the game then it has to work both ways or we could just go back to accidental contact.

In my opinion they have said it's a bump because of the wider AFL view about protecting the head, but your never going to see head clashes eliminated from the game coz some of them are friendly fire or

ACCIDENTAL

Has it been decided to appeal this yet?

I remember when Barry Hall got off that blatant striking charge to play in GF...

And we cop this result. pretty [censored] off atm

I remember when Barry Hall got off that blatant striking charge to play in GF...

And we cop this result. pretty [censored] off atm

Give them a break, the AFL is just trying to make NSW politicians look relatively good.

I've slept on it but am still ropable!

Marley Williams, found guilty of GBH by a real court, and the AFL stands idley by.

Jack has a collision and gets 2 weeks from a Kanagroo Court.

Justice = Joke!!

The AFL is now a Bruise Free organization and Gleeson has nfi how the game is played or what a human is physically capable of doing.

With regard to an appeal, unless the club has compelling new evidence, do we need a further day or two's distraction with one of the most important games for years coming up?

I don't normally advocate 'polls' on this site.

But, in this instance, can someone put up a poll to the effect that 'should the MFC appeal the tribunal decision'?

I expect/hope most users here will answer 'yes'. And then someone can email the statistics to the club. It will save us having to email the club directly, which I expect, for many, simply won't happen.

Tribunal has just confirmed their inability to be independent and fair thinkers in the process of justice. Puppets of the AFL agenda.

Not to mention woefully incompetent.

Apparently Gleeson asked for Jack's junior record re suspensions...apparently he asked them to go back to his under 9 playing days!!!!

Under 9!? HA?

Jack V, The AFL's Sacrificial Lamb!!!

oh please. By one account he did so to highlight his clean record so they could give the lowest possible penalty

HOW HASN'T THIS BEEN APPEALED YET?!?!

We are forgetting one thing. As a sage tribunal member observed, Jack could have pirouetted to avoid the contact. An absolutely amazing study in physics and physiology.

oh please. By one account he did so to highlight his clean record so they could give the lowest possible penalty

Surely his VFL/AFL history should be enough to show clean record!! Under 9? Farcical!

Lowest penalty would be to classify collision as 'incidental' rough conduct not 'negligent'...one week at best! And a clean record = reprimand.

Personally, I wouldn't appeal. It's not that such a disgusting decision doesn't warrant appealing, it's that the AFL makes their own rules here and the avenues for appealing are a front and a joke. It's on us to provide new evidence, and seriously, if grown adults couldn't have the common sense and intellect to throw out such a farce of a charge immediately, we're not going to be able to convince the same group of ninnies that they were horribly wrong with a new camera angle or scientific evidence. We'll just end up losing him for more than 2 weeks, and even potentially Queen's Birthday.

Not appealing doesn't mean that the club isn't furious.

the AFL is copping so much negative publicity right now it's almost unheard of, I'd appeal just to drag it out and make it hard on them, harsher penalties will only make it worse.

Having slept on it, I'm leaning towards the club appealing this.

We don't have to just meekly accept this direction the AFL wants to take our game. It is to defend Viney, but there are greater things at stake.

As Ron rightly pointed out, this is bizarrely the best publicity the club has had in a while. It now needs to be followed through.

Interesting article in The Age indicating that Gleeson seemed to be on our side and was more playing devils advocate. He openly said he would understand if it was decided it wasn't a bump, and once it came back guilty then openly suggested it one week would probably be enough. It seems the panel is the real bunch of either just straight out idiots or puppets of someone else's agenda.

Still mad as hell. I hate injustice and I hate when logic goes on holiday.

Damn I'm angry.

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.

Why does the AFL need an SC to argue their case?? Why do the players defending not get an SC?

The comments by Gleeson show he doesn't understand the game.

"why didn't you spin out of the way?" Are you kidding? Viney would have been dragged. Watch the thing in real time and its awesomely fast. Viney would have done a knee trying to avoid that

"were you suspended as a junior" WTF has that got to do with anything other than trying to paint Viney as a serial thug,.

How do you define a bump? What is the difference to bracing yourself when Lynch was pushed into Viney? Arguably Viney was stationary with 200kg of players barreling down on him. Open your arms and try to tackle Lynch?

If you take it to the extreme Georgiou is as culpable as trengove was in the sling tackle for failing in his duty of care when tackling a player. Its insane, against the spirit of the game and wrong.

The rules are to stop thugs and snipers not ball players.

This is out of control and wrong on so many levels.

I don't normally advocate 'polls' on this site.

But, in this instance, can someone put up a poll to the effect that 'should the MFC appeal the tribunal decision'?

I expect/hope most users here will answer 'yes'. And then someone can email the statistics to the club. It will save us having to email the club directly, which I expect, for many, simply won't happen.

Theres already one on The AGE website that was 90/10 against the AFL when I last looked.

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/afl/vote-jacks-injustice-20140506-37utr.html

Vote away its now 87/13

On a side note, I also can't stand that they ranked this as medium impact. A 4-6 week injury just has to be ranked as severe. The punishment was determined before the event , and then they have made themselves look like even bigger fools by calling it medium impact to reach the 2 weeks. Pathetic and spineless.

Apparently Gleeson asked for Jack's junior record re suspensions...apparently he asked them to go back to his under 9 playing days!!!!

Under 9!? HA?

Jack V, The AFL's Sacrificial Lamb!!!

In my mind, previous history - whether you are a clean skin like Robbie Flower or David Rhys Jones should only be taken into account for the penalty phase not on deciding guilt or innocence. Each incident needs to be adjudicated on its merit.