It was quite touching that for a change the majority of the football community and media were behind us.

Even to my surprise venom denham was behind us and even Kb said Jack shouldnt be suspended.

I saw my son besides Jack about four times on TV tonight. He works for the club, but tries to stay out of the spotlight. Unsuccessfully tonight.

Alright. Free hugs. Free hugs all around. This has affected my mood all week and now I am walking on the clouds. Thank you footy gods.

Even more amazing than the verdict, 6 pages of Demonland without a couple of posters flaming each other, we didn't even have that after last weeks win!

Anyway I woke up to this brilliant news in NY, just reading with great joy all the comments, and I must say some real gems, onya @Loges - re the Mr Bean gif, and yes @Nasher feels like winning the game all over again.

Brilliant week for the club, huge positive exposure across the media (sponsors happy), unified front, we are now the redemption story of the AFL not the basket case story, god I wish I could go to the footy on the weekend.

BUT BEST OF ALL, BY A COUNTRY MILE, is that every other midfielder now knows that Jack will be coming at them in straight line, I reckon this will cause more than a few to 'Hawthorn' (love this phrase) themselves.

This has gotta be one of the best weeks of the MFC for a long time. We made a stand on and off the field.

Fabulous - now we MUST follow it up especially the next two rounds (and beyond).

I can't believe that people are now saying the bump is "alive" or "back". It's as dead as it ever has been, this incident had nothing to do with the bump.

Exactly - he was only saved by the fact that it was never a bump.

Still, the headline writers have never been troubled by facts.

Even to my surprise venom denham was behind us and even Kb said Jack shouldnt be suspended.

Aside from the Viney incident we did earn a lot of respect from our gutsy win in Adelaide. If we played like we had for the past few years it would have been the same old same. Viney's effort was a dramatic snapshot to how we played. He was misunderstood by pedantic lawmakers but not by football aficionados.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by america de cali

now theres a uniform & look for our CheerSquad.

can we get Red & Blue tartans? and Ginger/Red Wigs

It was quite touching that for a change the majority of the football community and media were behind us.

We EARNED it, that's why.

They have been so right to be against us for so many years.

We earned being splashed all over the papers with a great win against the odd's in Adelaide.

We earned everyone getting behind us with the Viney case by being in the damn right position, and the right.

This new MFC is all about earning respect, earning your spot and earning a place in POSITIVE AFL history.

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by The Song Formerly Known As

I think we owe a debt of thanks to my colleague David Grace QC who played a bit for my old amateur footy club and competed for my old athletics club (where he's a life member). He's been involved in a number of interesting cases involving the AFL and in particular, has now been involved in two interesting cases where, against the odds IMO, he had two major decisions overturned. We know about Vineygate but he also had the Sirengate result of a Dockers/Saints game overturned in 2006.

Gracey is President and Chairman of Athletics Australia and interestingly, made it as a QC through the unusual channel starting as a solicitor rather than as a barrister.

I know there are bad lawyers and there's bad law but I hope posters around here stop bagging the legal profession. This bloke has performed a great service for our player, club and the game in general.

I think we owe a debt of thanks to my colleague David Grace QC who played a bit for my old amateur footy club and competed for my old athletics club (where he's a life member). He's been involved in a number of interesting cases involving the AFL and in particular, has now been involved in two interesting cases where, against the odds IMO, he had two major decisions overturned. We know about Vineygate but he also had the Sirengate result of a Dockers/Saints game overturned in 2006.

Gracey is President and Chairman of Athletics Australia and interestingly, made it as a QC through the unusual channel starting as a solicitor rather than as a barrister.

I know there are bad lawyers and there's bad law but I hope posters around here stop bagging the legal profession. This bloke has performed a great service for our player, club and the game in general.

wj I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

wj I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

Could we have?

And I am glad that the appeal touched on what Jack's allowed to do near the ball as opposed to what he could have done near a player.

The bounce of the ball is the reason a young man has a broken jaw.

So, What does Melbourne Demons stand for?

It stands for the "Game of AFL"!

The game originated with us,

and was saved by us.

Perhaps we can put that on our banner for Saturday and keep the free publicity kick we recieved this week, going.

I think we've all been a bit disrespectful of Emmet Dunne, Schimma and Henwood. They were given a hospital handpass by the MRP and asked to interpret a rule that has confused everyone for the last 5 years. In my view, they made a decision which invited the Appeals Board to find they were unreasonable by handing down a penalty that clearly didn't match with their initial finding. David Grace ran with that in a risky strategy which effectively invited the Appeals Board to double the penalty or scrap it altogether.

Nevertheless, I think the AFL would be wise to change the membership of the Tribunal so it includes at least one former player who is only recently out of the game.

So, What does Melbourne Demons stand for?

It stands for the "Game of AFL"!

The game originated with us,

and was saved by us.

Perhaps we can put that on our banner for Saturday and keep the free publicity kick we recieved this week, going.

We MADE it,

We SAVED it,

Now it's time we OWN it

Could we have?

And I am glad that the appeal touched on what Jack's allowed to do near the ball as opposed to what he could have done near a player.

The bounce of the ball is the reason a young man has a broken jaw.

Is it?

I'd have thought he'd have suffered the same result if the ball had bounced Viney's way, except there'd be no tribunal as Viney would've had possession.

wj I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

Perhaps, but we don't know his availability or costs or whether the club assessed the situation correctly in the first place.

I agree that Gracey ran a risky strategy but I doubt the Appeals Board would have increased the penalty in these circumstances. On the question of respect or disrespect for the Tribunal, their decision was a shocker. Having been on a tribunal myself I know what it's like to make difficult decisions sometimes but they dropped the ball on this and didn't show 1% of the courage of the players involved in the collision.

Perhaps, but we don't know his availability or costs or whether the club assessed the situation correctly in the first place.

I agree that Gracey ran a risky strategy but I doubt the Appeals Board would have increased the penalty in these circumstances. On the question of respect or disrespect for the Tribunal, their decision was a shocker. Having been on a tribunal myself I know what it's like to make difficult decisions sometimes but they dropped the ball on this and didn't show 1% of the courage of the players involved in the collision.

Agree with this. Which is why I said they made the odd decision to effectively sit on the fence by suspending Viney for 2 weeks thereby inviting everyone to conclude that their decision was unreasonable. Those that considered Viney had bumped and should be suspended would find it unreasonable that he only received a two week penalty; the majority who felt it was a brace and not a bump, found the finding of guilt unreasonable.

wj PJ I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

Thanks for asking,

Keep in mind it shouldn't have gone to the first hearing anyway.

Commentators were saying there was nothing in it, the umpires at the time didn't report it so you'd be forgiven to think this would be an easy issue where the club could rely on less expensive resources...

I think the complexity only came after the first hearing.

It was quite touching that for a change the majority of the football community and media were behind us.

Yep and no knifes around either!!

Is it?

I'd have thought he'd have suffered the same result if the ball had bounced Viney's way, except there'd be no tribunal as Viney would've had possession.

How would have Lynch's jaw been in line with the shoulder of Viney if Lynch wasn't being tackled by Georgiou and Jack had the ball?

The ball landing in his lap and then him being brought down by Georgiou allowed Viney's brace (or bump) to break his jaw.

No that it's over most importantly we need to WIN on sat night.

Need 2 in a row boys for the first time in a long time.

It's funny I just had a look over the comments on The Age's reporting of Viney getting off and I cannot for the life of me believe there are people that actually believe he elected to bump. One bloke even went so far as to call Jack a liar and a coward (would love to see him say that to his face!), and argued he accelerated at the last moment.

There really are some idiots in the world.

Anyway I think he can keep the momentum rolling into Saturday night, I reckon the crowd will be pumped for this one and hopefully there'll be some neutral there to support BCNA.

Edited May 9, 201411 yr by Pates

It's funny I just had a look over the comments on The Age's reporting of Viney getting off and I cannot for the life of me believe there are people that actually believe he elected to bump. One bloke even went so far as to call Jack a liar and a coward (would love to see him say that to his face!), and argued he accelerated at the last moment.

There really are some idiots in the world.

Anyway I think he can keep the momentum rolling into Saturday night, I reckon the crowd will be pumped for this one and hopefully there'll be some neutral there to support

Basically people who hold that view, well you really have to question their knowledge of the game

Can someone post the Morton Facebook image about the incident?

I think we owe a debt of thanks to my colleague David Grace QC who played a bit for my old amateur footy club and competed for my old athletics club (where he's a life member). He's been involved in a number of interesting cases involving the AFL and in particular, has now been involved in two interesting cases where, against the odds IMO, he had two major decisions overturned. We know about Vineygate but he also had the Sirengate result of a Dockers/Saints game overturned in 2006.

Gracey is President and Chairman of Athletics Australia and interestingly, made it as a QC through the unusual channel starting as a solicitor rather than as a barrister.

I know there are bad lawyers and there's bad law but I hope posters around here stop bagging the legal profession. This bloke has performed a great service for our player, club and the game in general.

We certainly owe David Grace a huge thank you, no doubt about that. Interesting that he has a solid sporting background including footy which would have helped him prepare for the hearing. By the way Jack, which athletics club did you belong? I competed for Frankston many moons ago.