It was unlucky Georgiou was behind Lynch....Viney couldnt have foreseen that.

I know however that if someone is injured head high in a bump they dont like it.

If the outcome is worse than the act i.e. a possible broken jaw verses a side on bump, how did Maxwell not even get sighted for breaking a Geelong players jaw in the pre season comp?

Oh that's right he is one of Eddies boys. Didn't he knee him or kick him in the jaw? Also by the way, spoke to Wattsy over the fence after the game and he was really stocked. I asked him was the feeling worth the effort, he just grinned ear to ear. I think something might be starting to get into his head. Hope so ,we need an active Jack Watts.

Viney's shoulder broke the left side of his jaw.

He will be rubbed out for 3-4 weeks and might get a reduction for a clean record.

You can't choose to bump, break a guys jaw and not be expected to be rubbed out

not sure he chose to bump..

however it appears that the end result will dictate the outcome - irrespective of circumstances.

So Viney wasn't reported by umpires and, based on media commentary, may well get votes for the Brownlow, an award for the fairest and best player. On the other hand, he's referred directly to the Tribunal. There's a bit of inconsistency in the system here.

Viney's shoulder broke the left side of his jaw.

He will be rubbed out for 3-4 weeks and might get a reduction for a clean record.

You can't choose to bump, break a guys jaw and not be expected to be rubbed out

Did he choose to bump though?

Looks more to me like he braced himself for impact right before 2 much bigger blokes were about to collide with him at speed.

Lynch should've done same thing, especially when it's Jack Viney heading your way.

No doubt Viney will cop a holiday, probably 3 weeks. But it should not be his fault that Lynch is dumb.

If Viney goes for that, it just shows how overly protective the game is trying to become. It is a shadow of its former self, and not for the better.

when does the tribunal meet?

not sure he chose to bump..

however it appears that the end result will dictate the outcome - irrespective of circumstances.

If that's the way of it now, why didn't the Doggies player get cited for giving Judd the extra push, causing him to do his hamstring? AFL has become a joke.

Surely that should be seen as rough conduct (jokes)

Edited May 5, 201411 yr by Demon Disciple

not sure he chose to bump..

however it appears that the end result will dictate the outcome - irrespective of circumstances.

I think he did choose to bump.

But the better point worth arguing is whether the end result should dictate the outcome. I'd argue that it should not. Not just for this matter, but any matter. The reporting and punishment regime should be about risk. The purpose is to stop dangerous acts. An act that causes an injury should be penalised no more than the same act which might cause an injury.

Hopefully David Neitz is sittin in on the tribunal.. Last time i worked the tribunal, Steven May was up for choosing to bump not tackle.. Neitz was on the panel, and given how hard he played the game through the bump, it may work in Viney's favour.. However Steven Mays bump effected the kick for goal, and didn't injure anyone..

Rubbish for mine, but you don't want Adelaide whinging again I suppose.

Two things for me :-

The club must get right in behind him hard on this, from Jackson to Roos to team mates.

Unlike Brad Miller the boy must never change his approach.

For a 175cm bloke to go about it like he does is extraordinary.

He and our club get a chance to defend themselves.

I hope they go for it.

I said 3-4 weeks as soon as I saw it live.

People thinking he would get off are living in fairy land.

The AFL have constantly warned the clubs and players about head high bumps for the last 2-4 years.

I think he did choose to bump.

But the better point worth arguing is whether the end result should dictate the outcome. I'd argue that it should not. Not just for this matter, but any matter. The reporting and punishment regime should be about risk. The purpose is to stop dangerous acts. An act that causes an injury should be penalised no more than the same act which might cause an injury.

What's next? We start blaming the grass if someone pulls hamstring? Surely the turf must be sent straight to the tribunal.

But the better point worth arguing is whether the end result should dictate the outcome. I'd argue that it should not.

You can argue all you like but they ask the opposition team for a medical report and the tribunal gives penalties based exclusively on outcome - think Trengove and the sling tackle.

Been lots of slings since but if you dont end up injured then nothing happens.

How many weeks did David Wojcinski get when he broke Jack's jaw in two places in a VFL game in 2012?

Two weeks (served concurrently with a one week suspension for a separate incident) so effectively, one week for what looked to me as a deliberate act and one in which there was no intervention from another player that could have played a role in the injury to the other player.

Let's be realistic. It doesn't matter how the injury happened, it wouldn't have happened without the bump. He's stuffed - the AFL have been super clear about this.

A real shame, because I think he is perhaps the one who gave us the most drive on Saturday - he just bullocked the ball forward constantly.

i'd like to know if jack hit his head (assuming he did) in the initial bump or later as a result of ricocheting back off georgiou

mind you the tribunal might not care either way

You can argue all you like but they ask the opposition team for a medical report and the tribunal gives penalties based exclusively on outcome - think Trengove and the sling tackle.

Been lots of slings since but if you dont end up injured then nothing happens.

I'm fine with severity of the damage being one of the criteria of a suspension. That's the same as it is in the law and makes sense to me.

But what I'm not fine with is that incidents without injury get skipped over and incidents with injury get picked up almost without fail.

First you decide if someone is guilty or innocent of the charge and then you can modify the penalty to some degree based on the damage done.

i was expecting a 1 week down to none with a plea.

definitely looking at 3-4 now with it going straight to the tribunal.

You can argue all you like but they ask the opposition team for a medical report and the tribunal gives penalties based exclusively on outcome - think Trengove and the sling tackle.

Been lots of slings since but if you dont end up injured then nothing happens.

That's my point. Trengove's penalty should have been exactly the same as every other sling tackler's. Either he should have got no weeks or every other sling tackler should have received the same penalty Trengove received.

like i said,his chances at the tribunal are far better than the MRP.

dont panic.

If he gets weeks for that I'm giving up on football might start watching netball instead

Sadly I don't see that he was going for the ball. He was going to bump and then pulled up which may help him a little, but he still bumped. Some seem sure as to what broke the jaw - not sure myself. But the tribunal may not care - they'll say he wouldn't have broken his jaw if there was no bump.

As to the outcome depending on the injury, it's the same with the law. If I push you and you break an arm, I get done for assault or GBH. If instead you hit your head and die I'm in more trouble. Don't like this myself, but that seems the way of the world.

Let's hope the MFC can tell a better story than any I've read here.

It was an unfortunate injury but I always saw suspensions as being a way to punish an act deemed to be unacceptable in the game.

Suspending Viney for that sends a very bizarre message. The AFL has allowed PR to take control of the MRP and the fact someone was injured suggests suspension, no matter what Viney's intent (or lack thereof) was.

Our great game is dead.

I'm fine with severity of the damage being one of the criteria of a suspension. That's the same as it is in the law and makes sense to me.

But what I'm not fine with is that incidents without injury get skipped over and incidents with injury get picked up almost without fail.

First you decide if someone is guilty or innocent of the charge and then you can modify the penalty to some degree based on the damage done.

Couldn't agree more - just don't think that happens...