I feel that the club must take a strong stand against the stupidity of last night's decision, regardless of the whether there is little or no chance of having the decision changed.

It is an outrage, and meekly accepting it would go against the grain of everything we have gained since the appointment of Paul Roos.

We need to stand up and be counted.

With the wide support of the football public the AFL would have to be seriously embarrassed by the whole thing.

Could you imagine Eddie accepting such an outcome if it was a Collingwood player?

When you compare this with the elbows to the head dished out by Gibson and several others last week that 'got off', it shows how farcical the whole judicial process is.

Will the appeal be heard by a different source?

AFL has indicated Peter O'Callaghan QC will chair the Appeals Board (which he has done previously). Don't think they've announced the other members.

Here's more info.

And go ahead and vote.

interesting that delideo got off a deliberate elbow to the head and can play in Richmonds next game which is against the MFC, Viney gets 2 which means he does not get to play against footscray or Richmond. I think ex players who have played for a club should not be able to judge players of that club just in case there is a potential conflict of interest.

The AFL have a vested interest in Richmond winning games. An up and about Tiges = crowds. Lids gets off Viney is suspended. Well done AFL you have compromised OUR game for a few $.

Although I hope I'm wrong, I can't see any chance of Jack being cleared.

They must emphasise and prove just how little time elapsed between the ball being truly 50:50, with the ball yet to bounce and both players intent on taking possession and the actual collision. Prove that there was not enough time to firstly react to that final bounce, sum up the likely outcome that Lynch takes possession, decide on an action to take that isn't a "bump" and execute that action. That period of time is so short that all that any player could be reasonably expected to do is self preservation.

Also must argue that a bump is an action that involves acceleration towards the target and pushing into the target just before impact while a brace is a reaction that involves deceleration and all attempts to minimise the force of impact. The vision clearly shows Viney slowing down, getting low and trying to soften the impact.

Any frame-by-frame footage must be shown with clear time elapse shown to highlight just how much occurred in such a short period of time and the expectations of decisions and executions of evasive manoeuvres are just ludicrous.

What I like about the footage is how fast he was to gather the ball and bounce back on his feet. The kid is a terrier.

Good on MFC to show some balls and back Jack.

Any frame-by-frame footage must be shown with clear time elapse shown to highlight just how much occurred in such a short period of time and the expectations of decisions and executions of evasive manoeuvres are just ludicrous.

I was actually thinking that frame-by-frame footage should only be shown to determine the point of the impact... when it comes to the amount of time a player has to react and take evasive action, the tribunal should only be allowed to pass judgement based on watching the replay at normal speed.

Appeal is what we all want, but don't forget, any error made in relation to bump versus brace, could be equally matched by the mistake of "low impact (given) versus the medium/high impact" it should have got.

I don't think Viney hit him hard, but how does a jaw break with low impact?

Those that go for appeal should brace themselves for the possibility of a 4-6 week ban.

The AFL/tribunal is like an elite private school in Melbourne. They don't like being held to account for minimum standards. They defend like Rod Marsh swinging like a dunny door hoping you'd shut up and go away.

Appeal is what we all want, but don't forget, any error made in relation to bump versus brace, could be equally matched by the mistake of "low impact (given) versus the medium/high impact" it should have got.

I don't think Viney hit him hard, but how does a jaw break with low impact?

Those that go for appeal should brace themselves for the possibility of a 4-6 week ban.

The AFL/tribunal is like an elite private school in Melbourne. They don't like being held to account for minimum standards. They defend like Rod Marsh swinging like a dunny door hoping you'd shut up and go away.

Are you suggesting Viney should have worn the blazer instead of the suit last night?

actually, If we ban tackling from front on, only allowing pressure from behind (cough now please) & maybe restrict tackles to 'no more than 5 in a row', before handling the ball to the opposition?

that could stop head clashes? No

then again we could just join the NRL ?

Why not just ban all contact and we can nancy about like some other sports

Lynch looks like he's wearing an upper mouthguard, but not lower, which is probably what most players would do. Would a lower mouthguard of some kind reduce the severity of jaw injuries?

And the thing that Viney couldn't have foreseen was Lynch's legs buckling just before the impact, which to me is the one and only reason for Viney's shoulder coming into contact with Lynch's jaw.

And they must emphasize - what's either negligent or accidental is the contact between Viney's shoulder and Lynch's jaw, not the collision itself. They need to be careful not to argue that the collision was accidental - the collision was unavoidable, but it's the contact between shoulder and jaw that was accidental not negligent.

The collision was unavoidable, but what caused the actual injury was Lynch's legs buckling at the last moment, causing what would have been a safe collision to become unsafe. This could not have been foreseen by Viney.

Edited May 7, 201411 yr by Akum

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say:

Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

Appeal is what we all want, but don't forget, any error made in relation to bump versus brace, could be equally matched by the mistake of "low impact (given) versus the medium/high impact" it should have got.

I don't think Viney hit him hard, but how does a jaw break with low impact?

Those that go for appeal should brace themselves for the possibility of a 4-6 week ban.

The AFL/tribunal is like an elite private school in Melbourne. They don't like being held to account for minimum standards. They defend like Rod Marsh swinging like a dunny door hoping you'd shut up and go away.

Brace should mean no case to answer and end of story

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome.

I'm pretty certain it was a pre-determined outcome.

At 5pm on Saturday I was planning for the next 2-4 weeks without Viney. People are living in fairyland / the1980's if they thought Viney would get off.

We are appealing on the grounds “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it", and I’m extremely proud of my Club for standing up for its players and members. Unfortunately, I fear it will be extremely difficult to overturn an outcome predetermined by AFL Head Office.

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say:

Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

Misses the point completely

I won't click on anything that ol purple writes, what's the jist of sir floggyness's argument?

Are you suggesting Viney should have worn the blazer instead of the suit last night?

I like it.

But I will say, this appeal adds to the culture change at Melbourne.

In my lifetime, MFC have whimpered....AFL or others have barked... MFC have walked away with tail between legs. Groundhog day? Groundhog year.

Even if Viney gets another week, it shows the club will back the player (who is in the right), no matter what. Additionally it shows a bit more that it stands for something. This hasn't happened for several reasons, and culture has to be implicit in that.

The AFL don't want this appeal. It keeps Viney in the headlines; twitter going nuts, invites more comment.

This appeal strikes at the common-sense and integrity of Moose Henwood, Goose Shimma, and Emmett Dummett.

I won't click on anything that ol purple writes, what's the jist of sir floggyness's argument?

Purple = Squeezing too hard

If you want to read a terrible article on this matter try the one from The Australian which includes a lot of comments from Chad Wingard. Which is fine except Chad hasn't actually seen the incident.... Hmmmmm

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.

As it has been stated ad nauseum, it happened in half a second, not frame by frame as the tribunal dissected it..

It also looks like the other two cannoned into Viney

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say:

Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

just another WOOSY 'Yes' maan.

apron strings barret

Damien "Purple Headed [censored]" Barrett has his say: Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

I can't read it, google doesn't translate 'irrelevant dhead' language.

Not sure whether this has been covered but Brad Scott in an Age article today points to the source of the problem and he is saying all the clubs have caused this over-reaction due an incident last year with Lindsay Thomas

Scott argued that Viney was now in danger of suspension because of one of his players, Lindsay Thomas, escaped suspension at the start of 2013.

In last year's opening round Thomas delivered a hefty off-the-ball bump to Collingwood's Ben Reid that forced the taller key defender from the ground with a bloodied face - not from the bump itself but from the resulting clash of heads. It was for that reason that Thomas was spared suspension, triggering angst not only from Magpies coach Nathan Buckley but also the AFL.

In December the AFL's football operations chief Mark Evans announced, following a consultation period with clubs, its rules had been amended to allow players to be charged with rough conduct for bumps where the impact is caused by a head clash.

"The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen," the AFL announced.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/brad-scott-chides-rivals-over-charging-of-viney-20140506-zr5ho.html#ixzz30zkiBOe8

So now we have the usual over-compensation from the AFL when they try to target certain behaviour. It seems obvious to me that the tribunal members are under instructions from Football Operations. I am not confident about the appeal, it could lead to a review of the level of impact to high and more points. But agree we should push this travesty as far as we can