The AFL/Tribunal will not back down on this one lest it create a precedent of players appealing decisions.

I think the whole system needs to be overhauled.

Why not be judged by a jury of their peers? Perhaps 12 current day players. Not one would have convicted in this case. Then again there would probably never be a conviction.

Didn't Hodge get off on appeal?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-luke-hodge-wins-tribunal-challenge-against-rough-conduct-charge/story-fndv8os9-1226664950294

Just sayin.....

Roos got Barry Hall off( so to speak) .

It seems about 99% of the football world want Viney to get off. However like many things in life, it seems several diverse factors influence the outcome.

Mainly the AFL may fear parents choosing soccer over footy for their kids if it's publicized that, in Aussie rules, a player can break anothers jaw without even giving away a free kick or being suspended.

Secondly, viewing at normal speed, viney obviously just braced for impact and had no option; the more it's slowed down, the more it erroneously gives the illusion he deliberately nailed him because, slowed down, there appears to be time to make choices and maneuver when there really isn't.

Interesting comment tweeted by Dr Larkins. Adds an additional issue to the question of "realistic alternative"

Dr Peter Larkins ‏@doclarkins 1h

Memo to AFL legal teams - expecting a player to change direction & pivot on one foot at speed is a recipe to invite an ACL knee rupture

Then Lynch will have to get two weeks for causing injury (being in the way)

Probably has already been posted somewhere in here but:

Any chance he comes out with a 1 week suspension?

Tribunal Rhapsody by PowerForGood on BF Bay13.

Is this real football?

Or is this just fantasy

Caught on a replay

No escape from the MRP

Open your eyes

Look at the slow-mo and see

<Viney statement>

I'm just a young boy, I need no sympathy

Because I sometimes bump, sometimes no

A little high, little low

Anywhere the ball goes, doesn't really matter to me, to me

MRP, I just bumped a man

Tucked my elbow in for sure

Hip and shoulder, broke his jaw

Mama, my season has just begun

But now you want to throw it all away

<MRP>

Viney, ooo

Didn't know what else to do

You’ll need to come back again this time tomorrow

Come along, come along, on tribunal matters

<Lynch testimony>

Too late, my jaw is broke

Sends shivers down my spine

Body's aching all the time

Goodbye everybody - I've got to go

Gotta leave you all behind to debate the truth

<Viney>

Mama, ooo - (anyway the ball goes)

I don't want a ban

I sometimes wish I'd never bumped Lynch at all

<AFL prosecutor>

I see a little silhouetto of a man

Scaramouch**, scaramouch why’d you do the big-bumpo

Thunderbolt and lightning - very very frightening indeed

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

Won’t somebody think of the children – You Have To Go-o-o—o-o

<Viney>

But I'm just a Viney and everybody loves me

<Defence lawyer>

He's just a young boy from a footy family

Spare him his season from this monstrosity

Easy bump, easy no - will you let me go

Tribunal! No - we will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Will not let you go

- <Viney> let me go (never)

Never let you go

- <Viney> let me go

Never let me go – ooo

No, no, no, no, no, no, no

<Viney>

Oh Roosy dear, Roosy dear, why won’t they let me go

What appeal process have the Demons put aside for me

for me

for me

<turns towards tribunal>

So you think you can suspend me, look me in the eye

So you think you can judge me, it’s all just a lie

Oh Gillon - can't do this to me Gillon

Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta here

<Viney storms out>

<Gerard Whateley ending>

Ooh yeah, ooh yeah

Nothing really matters

Anyone can see

Nothing really matters – The game of Aussie Rules is lost…… to me

Anyway the ball goes...

The case rides on bump or brace.

If the tribunal uphold the determination that Viney chose to bump we are in trouble.

The tribunal need to change that one word to brace and Viney is off.

The tricky bit is to change the interpretation of the incident from bump to brace without the media calling the AFL back flippers. It is a subtle difference but a world of difference.

An expert is needed to argue that Viney braced himself for imminent impact not chose to bump. The AFL can use the expert as their way out, a clarification of terms that the previous tribunal did not have.

The definition of brace must be carefully worded to avoid miss use in the future. Perhaps "to determine when a player has braced himself in an impact the arms are to be by the players side at point of impact, and the player is thrown backwards from the force of the impact." This would establish no intent to hurt and that the player is not putting more force into the impact than the opponent. It would also prove Viney innocent.

Edit: This is a copy of my post in the Mark Evans must appeal thread.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)

The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough

conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or

unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of

his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless

a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic

alternative way to contest the ball; or

b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by

circumstances outside the control of the player which could not

reasonably be foreseen.

This is from the rule book.

He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it.

Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame.

If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks.

Don't blame the law.

*put the above in the training thread for some stupid reason...

Then Lynch will have to get two weeks for causing injury (being in the way)

can we get him to testify sorry not lynch but the docs tweet. By the way how come we havent heard what lynch had to say?

Tribunal Rhapsody by PowerForGood on BF Bay13.

Is this real football?

Or is this just fantasy

Caught on a replay

No escape from the MRP

Open your eyes

Look at the slow-mo and see

<Viney statement>

I'm just a young boy, I need no sympathy

Because I sometimes bump, sometimes no

A little high, little low

Anywhere the ball goes, doesn't really matter to me, to me

MRP, I just bumped a man

Tucked my elbow in for sure

Hip and shoulder, broke his jaw

Mama, my season has just begun

But now you want to throw it all away

<MRP>

Viney, ooo

Didn't know what else to do

You’ll need to come back again this time tomorrow

Come along, come along, on tribunal matters

<Lynch testimony>

Too late, my jaw is broke

Sends shivers down my spine

Body's aching all the time

Goodbye everybody - I've got to go

Gotta leave you all behind to debate the truth

<Viney>

Mama, ooo - (anyway the ball goes)

I don't want a ban

I sometimes wish I'd never bumped Lynch at all

<AFL prosecutor>

I see a little silhouetto of a man

Scaramouch**, scaramouch why’d you do the big-bumpo

Thunderbolt and lightning - very very frightening indeed

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

Won’t somebody think of the children – You Have To Go-o-o—o-o

<Viney>

But I'm just a Viney and everybody loves me

<Defence lawyer>

He's just a young boy from a footy family

Spare him his season from this monstrosity

Easy bump, easy no - will you let me go

Tribunal! No - we will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Will not let you go

- <Viney> let me go (never)

Never let you go

- <Viney> let me go

Never let me go – ooo

No, no, no, no, no, no, no

<Viney>

Oh Roosy dear, Roosy dear, why won’t they let me go

What appeal process have the Demons put aside for me

for me

for me

<turns towards tribunal>

So you think you can suspend me, look me in the eye

So you think you can judge me, it’s all just a lie

Oh Gillon - can't do this to me Gillon

Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta here

<Viney storms out>

<Gerard Whateley ending>

Ooh yeah, ooh yeah

Nothing really matters

Anyone can see

Nothing really matters – The game of Aussie Rules is lost…… to me

Anyway the ball goes...

Great work. Obviously too much time on your hands but appreciated nonetheless.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)

The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough

conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or

unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of

his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless

a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic

alternative way to contest the ball; or

b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by

circumstances outside the control of the player which could not

reasonably be foreseen.

This is from the rule book.

He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it.

Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame.

If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks.

*put the above in the training thread for some stupid reason...

Don't blame the law.

Very well argued in context of the rules 'rpfc'.

On another note, whilst it possibly could be regarded as semantics I do think the idea of a 'bump' in which these rules were written was that of the typical conscious movement ala Fyfe and Douglas. To a degree the rules account for the difference but not so adequately that common sense easily comes into play.

Even though JV should get off for the reasons you mentioned I still think the rules need a tinker.

Didn't Hodge get off on appeal?

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-luke-hodge-wins-tribunal-challenge-against-rough-conduct-charge/story-fndv8os9-1226664950294

Just sayin.....

Nope, he challenged the MRP decision at the trubunal (and won). He didn't appeal a tribunal decision

A very simplictic, non-expert opinion that I have, and how I have played footy before;

- When I chose to bump, I would do so in an upward manner.

- When I chose to brace for impact, I would generally do so in a rolling manner where my shoulder would roll forward and downward, where the tricep/back of shoulder would take most of the impact.

Rarely would you see someone with the intention to bump do so in that forward/downward style. They were generally thugs, as it mean the area that they were aiming at (ie head) would be lower - generally when I player was on the ground.

There is nothing tha tI can see that would suggest Vieny's intentions were to bump.

Basically, I agree with lots of people in saying that if Viney were intending to bump, we'd still be collecting Lynch's brain matter from the stands at Adelaide Oval.

I'm surprised that no one has talked about how Lynch failed to stand up in the tackle, choosing instead to fold and fall into the path of the smaller Viney. Not to blame Lynch, just curious if players are trained to go to ground like that i.e. draw rear tackler into a push in the back decision...

On the Bump / brace debate we are talking semantics. Jack "braced" sufficiently to be in the best position (balanced in the ball drop zone) to find the ball after the collision, as he should. His intent was on winning the ball from a contested ball situation as he is employed and paid to do.

Love it - Viney to be named in team

Go Jack.

Does anyone know what the actual relevant rule is? An article on AFL.com.au last December talked about changes with regards to "electing to bump" and contact to the head being a foreseeable outcome but I can't find it in the 2014 rule book on the AFL website anywhere.

This is a post I wrote on BF;

Actually having a look at the rule book, the only relevant one I can find states;

19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a reportable offence
(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable

There is nothing else in the reportable offences section I can find which refers to rough conduct (which Viney was charged under) and the only reference to bumping is:

19.2.2(g)(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has their head down over the football

which is not relevant in this instance as Lynch did not have his head down over the football. To explain what they mean by "head down over the football" there is a diagram under 15.4.5(n) which is the section which discusses free kicks.

If there is another section of the Rule Book which applies I'd like to see it but from what I can gather the issue in this case is whether the circumstances were "unreasonable". There is nothing else I can find however I assumed the AFL had included something about "accidental head contact when electing to bump" which they have referred to as changing last year due to the Thomas/Reid incident however I can't see that anywhere and it's not on their website (that I can see) where they explain the rule changes for 2014.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2212 LawsAusFootball_Web.pdf

http://www.afl.com.au/laws

The case rides on bump or brace.

If the tribunal uphold the determination that Viney chose to bump we are in trouble.

The tribunal need to change that one word to brace and Viney is off.

The tricky bit is to change the interpretation of the incident from bump to brace without the media calling the AFL back flippers. It is a subtle difference but a world of difference.

An expert is needed to argue that Viney braced himself for imminent impact not chose to bump. The AFL can use the expert as their way out, a clarification of terms that the previous tribunal did not have.

The definition of brace must be carefully worded to avoid miss use in the future. Perhaps "to determine when a player has braced himself in an impact the arms are to be by the players side at point of impact, and the player is thrown backwards from the force of the impact." This would establish no intent to hurt and that the player is not putting more force into the impact than the opponent. It would also prove Viney innocent.

Edit: This is a copy of my post in the Mark Evans must appeal thread.

If the AFL can explain the rationale for fining us $500k for not tanking I'm sure they will have no problems explaining that new evidence (medical/bio mechanics expert testimony) has detirmined that JV had no reasonable alternative and there contact was accidental.

Tribunal Rhapsody by PowerForGood on BF Bay13.

Is this real football?

Or is this just fantasy

Caught on a replay

No escape from the MRP

Open your eyes

Look at the slow-mo and see

<Viney statement>

I'm just a young boy, I need no sympathy

Because I sometimes bump, sometimes no

A little high, little low

Anywhere the ball goes, doesn't really matter to me, to me

MRP, I just bumped a man

Tucked my elbow in for sure

Hip and shoulder, broke his jaw

Mama, my season has just begun

But now you want to throw it all away

<MRP>

Viney, ooo

Didn't know what else to do

You’ll need to come back again this time tomorrow

Come along, come along, on tribunal matters

<Lynch testimony>

Too late, my jaw is broke

Sends shivers down my spine

Body's aching all the time

Goodbye everybody - I've got to go

Gotta leave you all behind to debate the truth

<Viney>

Mama, ooo - (anyway the ball goes)

I don't want a ban

I sometimes wish I'd never bumped Lynch at all

<AFL prosecutor>

I see a little silhouetto of a man

Scaramouch**, scaramouch why’d you do the big-bumpo

Thunderbolt and lightning - very very frightening indeed

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

<high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children,

Won’t somebody think of the children – You Have To Go-o-o—o-o

<Viney>

But I'm just a Viney and everybody loves me

<Defence lawyer>

He's just a young boy from a footy family

Spare him his season from this monstrosity

Easy bump, easy no - will you let me go

Tribunal! No - we will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Tribunal! We will not let you go

- <Bay 13> Let Him Go!

Will not let you go

- <Viney> let me go (never)

Never let you go

- <Viney> let me go

Never let me go – ooo

No, no, no, no, no, no, no

<Viney>

Oh Roosy dear, Roosy dear, why won’t they let me go

What appeal process have the Demons put aside for me

for me

for me

<turns towards tribunal>

So you think you can suspend me, look me in the eye

So you think you can judge me, it’s all just a lie

Oh Gillon - can't do this to me Gillon

Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta here

<Viney storms out>

<Gerard Whateley ending>

Ooh yeah, ooh yeah

Nothing really matters

Anyone can see

Nothing really matters – The game of Aussie Rules is lost…… to me

Anyway the ball goes...

Great stuff! Have you sent it to Greg Champion at the Coodabeen Champions?

Another thought on the "spin out of the way" option proposed y Gleeson, is that to spin, pivot or change direction radically, one needs to push up off the ground which would increase the likelihood of high contact as opposed to feet on ground, knees bent as Jack was...

An a pirouette!!? gotta jump for that too.

1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)

The Player Rules provide that a player will be guilty of rough

conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or

unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be made with any part of

his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless

a. he player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic

alternative way to contest the ball; or

b. the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by

circumstances outside the control of the player which could not

reasonably be foreseen.

This is from the rule book.

He is allowed to contest the ball - he hit it.

Lynch was tackled as he began his 'bump' (or 'brace' or whatever semantics we wish to use) and it brought his jaw into play and Jack could not have 'foreseen' a 192cm persons jaw to be in line with his shoulder on his 175cm frame.

If the Tribunal applied the 'laws' as they stand - Jack would be playing these next two weeks.

Don't blame the law.

*put the above in the training thread for some stupid reason...

rpfc

, great work.

Just wondering if you have the clause numbers that this relates to? Dr. Gonzo, in a post after yours seems to indicate he couldn't find that rule, but I'm not clear if that is because he missed it, or because it isn't in the "official Rules" it is somewhere else.

Cheers

Sorry if it's been answered already but do we get to follow proceedings like the other night?

I've checked here http://www.afl.com.au/news/tribunal but it doesnt look like they have the same set-up..

Sorry if it's been answered already but do we get to follow proceedings like the other night?

I've checked here http://www.afl.com.au/news/tribunal but it doesnt look like they have the same set-up..

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-08/viney-challenge-live

If the AFL can explain the rationale for fining us $500k for not tanking I'm sure they will have no problems explaining that new evidence (medical/bio mechanics expert testimony) has detirmined that JV had no reasonable alternative and there contact was accidental.

Not tanking, "bringing the game into disrepute". I think it was in reference to Chris Connolly & "the vault meeting" and that Connoly's words may have brought the game into disrepute through innuendo I presume.