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

.

That is where this is all falling apart.

Does anyone know what the burden of proof is ?

I know this is not a court but simply in a criminal court a charge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and for civil matters it is on the balance of probabilities.

How any tribunal could suggest that his intention was to bump not to brace beyond reasonable doubt is mind blowing. Even on balance of probabilities is hard to argue what his intention was.

Forget about Demonland - the community at large - coaches, players, ex players, media commentators - an overwhelming majority have viewed the footage and said the decision is wrong. Doesn't that tell the decision makers something ? A complete cross-section of the footballing has made it loud and clear that they have got it wrong.

In relation to "burden of proof", I'd have thought that the burden would be on the prosecution to prove him guilty, rather than on the defence to prove him innocent. It seemed that even Gleeson wasn't impressed by the strength of his case, and gave the Tribunal a huge hint that he had no objections if they found Viney not guilty.

It seemed that the Tribunal judged him guilty not on the basis of whether Gleeson had proved his guilt, but on the basis that the defence hadn't proved his innocence. Which can't possibly be right. Can it?

If Lynch was roughly upright his shoulder would have gone into Viney's head as he is much taller than Viney. It was Georgiou's tackle dragging Lynch down which caused Viney to connect with Lynch.

If the proscecutor, Gleeson, can mount the side-step argument surely our legal team can demonstrate it was the tackle, which Viney could not have seen nor aniticpated as his eyes were on the ball.

Bit surprised our legal people didn't highlight this to the Tribunal. Hate to say it but feel a bit let down by our legal reps last night.

ps

Regardless of the appeal outcome this is my last word on this sad and sorry episode.

Agree. Good post.

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

Viney's suspension simple by Damian Barrett

The young lib should join his brother working for Tony Abbott because he knows nothing about footy.

Sorry for the paranoia but it is Melbourne, that lowly performing AFL club. I cannot imagine Selwood, Swan or Hodge going for the same thing. No not one of the big clubs. Their fans would have burnt down AFL house and their Presidents would have had the entire AFL administration sacked. I can just see Eddie now if it was one of his. He would be comparing it to the World Cup scandal in giving the next one to Qatar in the middle of their summer.

In fairness, I haven't seen reaction to or coverage of a tribunal decision anywhere near this scale before. But I share your scepticism about whether a Hawthorn or Collingwood player would get done for this. Hodge didn't, in fact, when he broke Murphy's jaw not that long ago.

I'm still stunned that Deledio got off scot free after deliberately elbowing someone in the head, whilst Viney gets for 2 weeks for this.

It surely can't be that difficult to find three people with an ability to apply precedent, logic, and good old common sense.

Funny article from Barrett. By his logic Hodge should have been suspended last year when he accidentally broke Murphy s jaw. He wasn't. Surely that case is precedent for this one as in that case it was determined it was accidental as it is in this scenario. Realistically he only had one other option which was to run into Lynch front on.

If he did go front on he may well have caused even more damage to lynch(and almost certainly would have hurt himself in such a hit) as he may have hit his head flush with his chest. He might have broken his neck in such an incident. Which would be ironic given he likley would have escaped being charged.

In any case his decision to turn and brace is consistent with OH&S legislation where one of the most important principals is your first duty of care is to yourself. If he didn't turn his body to protect himself he may well have ended up with one player with a broken neck or smashed face and one with a chest full of broken ribs or internal organ damage

In fairness, I haven't seen reaction to or coverage of a tribunal decision anywhere near this scale before. But I share your scepticism about whether a Hawthorn or Collingwood player would get done for this. Hodge didn't, in fact, when he broke Murphy's jaw not that long ago.

I'm still stunned that Deledio got off scot free after deliberately elbowing someone in the head, whilst Viney gets for 2 weeks for this.

It surely can't be that difficult to find three people with an ability to apply precedent, logic, and good old common sense.

i don't think he get off scot free. i think he got 125pts discounted to a reprimand with carry over points

So what would have happened if viney was the one who ended up with the broken jaw instead of lynch, would lynch be up for suspension?

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 AFL rules, voiding the ruling made by the tribunal from all legal perspectives. 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 a duty of care which does not exist in any existing AFL rule, it is black and white; they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned, as Viney has contested the ball with no realistic alternative. Pivoting his foot and avoiding the contest is contrary to the aforementioned code. The tribunal did not state any scientifically proven alternatives for Jack to CONTEST the ball, nullifying their decision.

Avoiding contact is not contesting the ball and thus a contradiction of the very code the tribunal is meant to rule from.

i don't think he get off scot free. i think he got 125pts discounted to a reprimand with carry over points

No I think you will find that was for another incident in the same game, he got off scott free from the Murphy incident.

Barrett " In footy in 2014, if you break someone's jaw. no matter how, you need to know you will be sanctioned". Not quite sure this is a rule in the AFL. George Burbury, Viv Michie and probably others have broken jaws this season, these incidents involved other players and no reports came from the incidents(I think). Just reinforces what a poor journalist he is. To get the message through about his ineptitude people should send a message to the AFL, so that he does not report on the status of rules as he does not understand them. Also a message to Channel 9 Footy Show. A mass turning off during his segment on Thursday night would send a suitable message.

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 AFL rules, voiding the ruling made by the tribunal from all legal perspectives. 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 a duty of care which does not exist in any existing AFL rule, it is black and white; they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned, as Viney has contested the ball with no realistic alternative. Pivoting his foot and avoiding the contest is contrary to the aforementioned code. The tribunal did not state any scientifically proven alternatives for Jack to CONTEST the ball, nullifying their decision.

Avoiding contact is not contesting the ball and thus a contradiction of the very code the tribunal is meant to rule from.

Send this to the Club!

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 AFL rules, voiding the ruling made by the tribunal from all legal perspectives. 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 a duty of care which does not exist in any existing AFL rule, it is black and white; they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned, as Viney has contested the ball with no realistic alternative. Pivoting his foot and avoiding the contest is contrary to the aforementioned code. The tribunal did not state any scientifically proven alternatives for Jack to CONTEST the ball, nullifying their decision.

Avoiding contact is not contesting the ball and thus a contradiction of the very code the tribunal is meant to rule from.

and what if a player does actually perform a blind spin away from the coming contest, & does his Knee? what then.

.... 'they' are trying too hard to be perfect in every sense, in a World where perfection is 'the randomness of life itself'. & learning to deal with it as it comes.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-luke-hodge-wins-tribunal-challenge-against-rough-conduct-charge/story-fni5f8ge-1226664950294

Just last year Luke Hodge uses pretty much the same defense Viney did.

Jeff Gleeson SC asks Hodge if he'd do the same thing if a Hawthorn player was in his way. He said he would. It's similar line of questioning to the Viney spin out of the way questions.

2 of the tribunal members sat on both cases (Henwood and Dunne)

Yet the result was different.

Makes you wonder if they got specific instructions

Regarding the Barrett article where he states "if you break someone's jaw, no matter how, you need to know you know you will be sanctioned", well why wasn't Nick Maxwell suspended for breaking George Burbury's jaw this year?

Would love the live Footy Show audience to boo and heckle Barrett throughout his segment. What could they possibly do about it?

He is simply grandstanding and acting as though he is one of the enlightened few who really understand the rule but making himself look so disengaged from the general public. Arrogance and attention seeking at it's worst.

An appeal on the grounds that the Tribunal is F--Ked in the head. Love it.

Would be great if they could do a close up camera to give the feel of what it would be like being viney, just how little time one has in that situation would be an eye opener for alot of people, especially with a 100kg bloke coming full pace the other way

Found myself in a similar situation a few years ago playing against barnawatha and having Dawson Simpson coming the other way, only difference was I was knocked out cold and we lost by 145 points haha

Edited May 7, 201411 yr by Sassy

Regarding the Barrett article where he states "if you break someone's jaw, no matter how, you need to know you know you will be sanctioned", well why wasn't Nick Maxwell suspended for breaking George Burbury's jaw this year?

I re-read the Barrett and he is right. The opinion he puts forward is right - if you break a jaw you will get sanctioned. The problem for me is that he didn't write a conclusion to his article and the conclusion should be that the tribunal and MRP needs to be driven by actions not outcomes.

I have written an article and trying to get it onto AFL.com. I had success being published on AFL.com during the Scully debacle but AFL.com has since "Changed hands".

I am incensed that a Journalist like Damien Barrett can write an article ( Viney’s suspension simple) which points out a very simple principle being the Tribunal is concerned with outcomes not actions and not put a conclusion to the article being that principle is simply wrong.

“Cause damage to an opponent's head at an AFL venue in 2014 and there is a penalty coming your way”.

“Those who argue that had Lynch not suffered a broken jaw we wouldn't have heard one more thing about the Viney incident are correct.”

“In footy in 2014, if you break someone's jaw, no matter how, you need to know you will be sanctioned.”

“From now on, forget the words like intent, impact, intentional and negligent which the Match Review Panel uses, and be aware that a broken jaw means a suspension.”

“It's just the way it is.”

As a football lover , there is much more at stake here than a two week suspension to Viney. We are fundamentally changing the game and the way it will be played. Players will now second guess going to a contest that is 50/50 for fear of injury they may cause and the consequences that will follow.

Damien should have put a conclusion for football lovers like myself.

“No-one wants to see injuries and players hurt but football is a contact and collision sport. Players who make clear choices to bump an opponent and the opponent is hurt should face penalties from the MRP/Tribunal. When a player approaches a 50/50 contest and a collision occurs then common sense should prevail. Collisions are part and parcel of our game and tribunal/MRP decisions need to be based on actions not outcomes.”

Or if Schimmelbush ( cant be bothered to check spelling ) was the problem?

As a matter of interest who sat the Trengove case?

That is a blatant call to those below to reverse the decision.

Actually my concern is that it is more of a call to amend the law.

My understanding from what he says is that the panel had no choice but to find Viney guilty and that the law was at fault.

When were you born? We appealed the Trengove one, wasn't that long ago.

An isolated incident for our captain at the time, when we were debt-free at the time.

I could raise you 10 examples for every one of your poor attempts...that I would give you one at a time to digest/debate. You can start with the tanking that wasn't tanking but we had to be punished saga. You can also go to the penalty we paid when enticing J. White from Freo when we were paying over the odds.

If you don't think the MFC has been a white ass to a big AFL stick in the last 40 years, you have rocks in your head.

Hope we have QC representing at appeal.

With hindsight, when Dangerfield was named to play the next game, Trengoves suspension should have been reversed, Dangerfield wasn't concussed.

With hindsight, when Dangerfield was named to play the next game, Trengoves suspension should have been reversed, Dangerfield wasn't concussed.

thats got some good bits to it, IMO.