Mark Evans must appeal the Viney Case

[Sir Why You Little 36,989]

Even with a succesful outcome for Jack this will take a lot out of him, I know he is a strong lad and one out of the box but should the verdict be overturned and he play a blinder on the weekend then for his age he is even stronger mentally then I thought.

Funny...I think the opposite...If Jack V plays this saturday at the 'G he will go hell for leather in front of the Demon Faithfull

[daisycutter 29,605]

Funny...I think the opposite...If Jack V plays this saturday at the 'G he will go hell for leather in front of the Demon Faithfull

hope you are right wyl, he's one determined mofo

but as psd said it's not the ideal preparation for match day

[Undeeterred 3,123]

Don't be ridiculous. There is no way on God's green Earth the AFL is going to appeal a decision.

They clearly wanted to make a statement about head clashes, without giving Viney an (in their eyes) excessive penalty.

They sure as hell are not going to hang their Tribunal members out to dry.

As for Demetriou, he said Viney was unlucky and that the rule should be looked at. That is very different to saying Viney was not guilty and that this specific case should be overturned.

Outcome: Verdict stands, Viney gets screwed, they rewrite the rules (again) for next time.

[Dockett 32 1,239]

If AFL don't listen to the people who feed them, they do so at their own peril. Club supporters across the board, players assn, coaches, players, former players, blind Freddy just know in their heart of hearts this is manifestly unjust. If the AFL are so arrogant to not listen to their own people, they justput another nail in the games coffin. They made fools of themselves last night, if they do it again, what does that say about they treat their own people, the future of the game and what should be done about them?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Did Mark Evans make any sort of comment?

[What 18,810]

Did Mark Evans make any sort of comment?

Had all day to overturn the decision

Did nothing

Another moron at AFL house

[Earl Hood 6,082]

Did Mark Evans make any sort of comment?

I think it is really his decision.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

Had all day to overturn the decision

Did nothing

Another moron at AFL house

You really have very little idea about how the world works, don't you?

[dees189227 12,373]

The silence from Gill and Evans is deafening. You'd think a CEO in his first week of the job would want to make a stamp on the game he just inherited. One that won't tarnish the rest of his tenure as the man who ruined AFL.

Gill doesnt start as CEO until June. But I thought Mark Evans may have said something today being the footy ops manager.

[Earl Hood 6,082]

Gill doesnt start as CEO until June. But I thought Mark Evans may have said something today being the footy ops manager.

Dees, see my earlier post for a possible explanation for your query! Edited May 7, 2014 by Viscount Hood

[What 18,810]

You really have very little idea about how the world works, don't you?

Evans can overturn the decision

He did nothing

Its not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you

[Undeeterred 3,123]

Evans can overturn the decision

He did nothing

Its not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you

Oh, you spud. Do you really, really think that one of the most senior people in the AFL is going to take a Tribunal decision and overturn it off his own bat, therefore confirming everybody's suspicion that his own organisation is a pack of fools and in the process hanging his own Tribunal members out to dry?

Now that's not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Oh, you spud. Do you really, really think that one of the most senior people in the AFL is going to take a Tribunal decision and overturn it off his own bat, therefore confirming everybody's suspicion that his own organisation is a pack of fools and in the process hanging his own Tribunal members out to dry?

Now that's not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you.

despite your stance...and its yours and up to you, theres no actual stopping Evans doing such

please separate argument of opportunity from bias

Evans CAN do as he wants,,,,or doesnt

[rjay 24,889]

Oh, you spud. Do you really, really think that one of the most senior people in the AFL is going to take a Tribunal decision and overturn it off his own bat, therefore confirming everybody's suspicion that his own organisation is a pack of fools and in the process hanging his own Tribunal members out to dry?

Now that's not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you.

It's been done before.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

despite your stance...and its yours and up to you, theres no actual stopping Evans doing such

please separate argument of opportunity from bias

Evans CAN do as he wants,,,,or doesnt

I never said he couldn't, just that there was no way he was going to in such a high profile case.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

It's been done before.

High profile cases? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd say the original decisions weren't in the same league as this one.

Of course, happy to be proven wrong!

[rjay 24,889]

High profile cases? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd say the original decisions weren't in the same league as this one.

Of course, happy to be proven wrong!

Ian Collins cost Chris Grant a Brownlow for one, there have been others where the AFL have stepped in when not happy about a decision.

[Undeeterred 3,123]

Ian Collins cost Chris Grant a Brownlow for one, there have been others where the AFL have stepped in when not happy about a decision.

I'm confused - was that a case of them stepping in, or not stepping in? I'm not being smart, genuinely interested and remember that suspension but not the circumstances!

[Dockett 32 1,239]

It still might and should happen from Evans but probably some protocols to be dealt with first.

[Akum 2,660]

The AFL's insurance company, whichever they are, will be delighted at the stance that the AFL are taking here.

Delighted at the lengths they're prepared to go, just to demonstrate that they "take action" on behalf of players with head injuries.

The AFL is prepared to hold the game up to ridicule, and even to prostitute its Tribunal system, because the integrity of the game is a lower priority than defending future insurance claims.

And I hate to say it, but Barrett has this one right. The adjudication of incidents such as the Viney one has completely changed, whether we like it or not. Though he only has it "right" because he would have got the info straight from the AFL leadership, who now use him as a mouthpiece when they need to get information across to the public that they can't state directly. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship, with Barrett, of course, as the perfect parasite.

Evans is not going to appeal. And sadly, Viney, even if his case is the most watertight in legal history going back to the ancient Greeks, is not going to get off. And the AFL is prepared to wear any amount of criticism and ridicule, because the greater the ridicule, the happier that CGU or QBE or whoever will be with them.

The Viney case strips away any illusion that footy is still "our" game. It's "their" game - insurance companies, media, stadium owners, and so forth. It's all about "sending the right signals to the market".

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

Akum, you're essentially right. I think Viney's only hope is that the AFL recognise the PR black eye this decision has been and correct it. The overall message to teams and coaches will remain the same.

[daisycutter 29,605]

The AFL's insurance company, whichever they are, will be delighted at the stance that the AFL are taking here.

Delighted at the lengths they're prepared to go, just to demonstrate that they "take action" on behalf of players with head injuries.

The AFL is prepared to hold the game up to ridicule, and even to prostitute its Tribunal system, because the integrity of the game is a lower priority than defending future insurance claims.

And I hate to say it, but Barrett has this one right. The adjudication of incidents such as the Viney one has completely changed, whether we like it or not. Though he only has it "right" because he would have got the info straight from the AFL leadership, who now use him as a mouthpiece when they need to get information across to the public that they can't state directly. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship, with Barrett, of course, as the perfect parasite.

Evans is not going to appeal. And sadly, Viney, even if his case is the most watertight in legal history going back to the ancient Greeks, is not going to get off. And the AFL is prepared to wear any amount of criticism and ridicule, because the greater the ridicule, the happier that CGU or QBE or whoever will be with them.

The Viney case strips away any illusion that footy is still "our" game. It's "their" game - insurance companies, media, stadium owners, and so forth. It's all about "sending the right signals to the market".

so if these "laws" decrease injuries, hence insurance payouts then insurance premiums should drop

insurance companies would be very happy to see their revenues drop, right

insurance is a bit like credit cards, you want the debt but you don't want it, you want injuries but you don't want injuries

if there were no sport injuries we wouldn't need injury insurance

it's a circular argument

in summary i think you overplay the direct role of the insurance companies

of course i'm not saying the afl wouldn't benefit from lower premiums......but not the insurance companies

[Ouch! 2,258]

Whilst there is some truth to your words Akum, then the AFL still has an issue though because they are still not absolutely clear in their message to clubs out there on this.

Accidental contact to the head is not permitted because we could potentially have lawsuits...if Georgiou had received a broken nose or was concussed and out of the game, why isn't Viney... or Lynch responsible for that. Also... if the bounce of the ball went to Viney and he had possession and this occurred, nothing would have come of it.

You can tackle someone in this game and do spinal damage by driving them into the ground, but not make any contact with the head at all... or the person who comes in 2nd or 3rd can also do damage this way.

I think that the AFL has got such an unclear message that it is trying to peddle and this makes people angry.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Ouch!

[Elusive Tunbridge 795]

daisy cutter, I think insurance companies naturally seek to maximise profits. Holding premiums steady or even slightly reducing them in return for changes which reduce the likelihood of big claims - and insurance is all about probability - would work well for them.

[return of the dees 47]

Evans played footy in the Ballarat Football League when it was a strong league(not sure what it is like these days), surely he understands from a footballers point of view, that this was not a bump but rather bracing for the unavoidable contact that occurs when players are attacking the ball. If players are outlawed from doing what Viney did then you change the spirit of the game.