Joel Bowden on sending the non bump straight to the tribunal

" hopefully by the end of this there will be a result that's fair, transperant, the public can understand and gives clear guidelines to the bump and what's acceptable"

you sure did that joel, we now know the bump is dead, the AFL is about as corrupt as politics and the entire football world is [censored] off about this decision..

The AFL must have a good hard look at themselves here. They run the risk of being the laughing stock of the sporting world. Not only is the decision laughable, it's dangerous. They speak about duty of care but fail to consider the ramifications for Viney had he not protected himself. The only way he could have avoided the contact was to have made a decision not to go after the hard ball. Do they want that stat to disappear from the game? Does contested possession become the next casualty. What will happen if Jeremy Howe collects somebody's head during his next big mark? Goodbye to the specky?

My oh my. FMD.

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.

Why bother.

The nearly 90% of The Age respondents who think he should've got off will also agree the club should appeal.

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.

Agreed. I was referring to the penalty process not the decision, which is also appalling. The Tribunal could have found that a collision/bump occurred but had the flexibility to give a reprimand rather than suspension.

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

They seem to have replced thta pol with one asking if the bump shul dbe banned completely.

Although I voted (early & often) I thought the original question was pretty stupid. Why ask if it is the worst decision ever? It might not be yet still be horrendously wrong. Ask if it was a good decision.

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.

They wanted to leave no stone unturned to ensure the decision was as irrational as possible.

Why is it that Melbourne players are represented by Iain Finlay (players advocate) at the Tribunal?

Collingwood always roll out a (QC) and have spectacular results.

Having been involved in a Tribunal with Mr. Finlay before and having seen a bit of senior barristers at work, I am astonished that Melbourne would not involve themselves with the best possible representation.

That, with respect, is not Mr. Finlay.

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.

they wanted to take away the ability to appeal on the grounds that the sanction was unreasonably severe. Which it would have been if they'd followed their own policies.

It's a classic stitch-up.

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.

Whatever else Schimmelbusch, Henwood & Dunne are, they're not idiots.

You can almost see the strings.

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.

Please send this to club before 11 am its a good appeal point.

Whatever else Schimmelbusch, Henwood & Dunne are, they're not idiots.

You can almost see the strings.

There must be a high ranking, senior type pulling the strings out of those three.

Would be completely consistent.

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

they wanted to take away the ability to appeal on the grounds that the sanction was unreasonably severe. Which it would have been if they'd followed their own policies.

It's a classic stitch-up.

That doesn't make sense. Of course the impact was high and once found guilty he should have copped 4 down to 3, which is what the rules proscribe and therefore not unreasonably severe. If you are looking for a possible disincentive for not appealing it would be a concern that they determine he got off too lightly.

Whatever else Schimmelbusch, Henwood & Dunne are, they're not idiots.

You can almost see the strings.

Yes and I certainly know about strings when I see them!

There must be a high ranking, senior type pulling the strings out of those three.

Would be completely consistent.

I have long been in the "Anti conspiracy" theory camp and there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get aired on Demonland.

I am scratching my head on this one and can only reach one of two conclusions - this is just a matter of incompetence of the highest order or something is going on behind the scenes.

I have it on good authority we will be appealing the case and a QC lawyer will be taking it on and representing Viney. Stay tuned.

if the result stands and i think it might,its actually a small win for our club.

if it went to the MRP=4 weeks for sure.

now we have PR and the whole club snorting and raging about treatment of one of our players and big brother picking on us..

it was richmonds favourite trick to start the "them against us" attitude.

now our coach is pouring petrol on the fire and just at the right time,after a win and a chance to get another 1/2 wins in quick succession.

the verdict stinks,but we can whinge about it until the cows come home it wont change.

accept it,use it,build on it.

P:R just loves these situations.

I have long been in the "Anti conspiracy" theory camp and there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get aired on Demonland.

I am scratching my head on this one and can only reach one of two conclusions - this is just a matter of incompetence of the highest order or something is going on behind the scenes.

Once I found out who the panel members are I came to my own ideas. Look carefully at them.

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by jabberwocky

We are appealing it thank god

A dental professional on SEN questioned whether Lynch was wearing a mouthguard, saying that it would have been very unlikely tfor the injury to have been as severe if he was wearing one.

I would love to have a look at the three panelists phone records prior to the hearing.

Demons set to appeal Viney ban

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.

Was going to say this exact thing. I think Gleeson tried everything he could to get Viney off it's the 3 morons (all who used to play footy and should know better). Incidentally if my memory is correct it was Schimma, Henwood & Dunne who sat on the Trengove sling-tackle jury as well.

Was going to say this exact thing. I think Gleeson tried everything he could to get Viney off it's the 3 morons (all who used to play footy and should know better). Incidentally if my memory is correct it was Schimma, Henwood & Dunne who sat on the Trengove sling-tackle jury as well.

Gleeson is a huge football fan. I think he barracks for the blues or tigers but i heard him interviewed not long before he retired as chief steward and he said one of the things he most looked forward to was being able to go to the footy

I have it on good authority we will be appealing the case and a QC lawyer will be taking it on and representing Viney. Stay tuned.

It's the vibe!

Demons set to appeal Viney ban

The article says "it's likely to appeal" but doesn't say they are definitely appealing.