To be honest, if I were Mark Evans I wouldn't get involved in an individual case. I might think the decision made by the Tribunal is foolish and that the game would be better if the Appeals Board overturned it, but the bigger picture for him is that AFL Head Office shouldn't get involved in this quasi-judicial, independent process. His best work would be to fix any problems with the laws of the game and the MRP/Tribunal/Appeals process. That doesn't help Jack Viney tonight, but I don't want AFL Head Office intervening in this or any other case.

Think of AFL Head Office like the politicians who make the laws. We don't want them also deciding guilt or innocence, or penalties, for those who subsequently might be charged with breaking those laws. But we do want them to fix the laws which don't work.

To be honest, if I were Mark Evans I wouldn't get involved in an individual case. I might think the decision made by the Tribunal is foolish and that the game would be better if the Appeals Board overturned it, but the bigger picture for him is that AFL Head Office shouldn't get involved in this quasi-judicial, independent process. His best work would be to fix any problems with the laws of the game and the MRP/Tribunal/Appeals process. That doesn't help Jack Viney tonight, but I don't want AFL Head Office intervening in this or any other case.

Think of AFL Head Office like the politicians who make the laws. We don't want them also deciding guilt or innocence, or penalties, for those who subsequently might be charged with breaking those laws. But we do want them to fix the laws which don't work.

I think most people consider this case to be a problem with the application & not the law itself.

This is the 'howler' he is empowered to appeal against.

I think most people consider this case to be a problem with the application & not the law itself.

This is the 'howler' he is empowered to appeal against.

While I agree with your first line, I don't want my politicians interfering when a Judge makes a silly decision in a court case. That's why we have appeal processes in the Court system and similarly in the AFL's tribunal system. As much as I want Viney's matter to be overturned on appeal, the bigger picture for mine is that the AFL HQ shouldn't be involved in individual matters like this one. It already has enough (too much?) power and I don't want it to be mis-used.

The silence from the head of AFL football operations has been deafening.

Individual Insurance company risk is capped the amount above this is sold down to other underwriters.

If the players and supporters are no longer major stakeholders in the game what will be their future level of commitment?

If you don't put on a show the supporters want how long does the show last?

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.

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.

I doubt the media would argue that the AFL could be called "back flippers" should its independent Tribunal uphold the appeal.

But even if they did so, any criticism of the AFL for "back flipping" will be milder and meeker than the coverage the AFL will get if the appeal is rejected.

I doubt the media would argue that the AFL could be called "back flippers" should its independent Tribunal uphold the appeal.

But even if they did so, any criticism of the AFL for "back flipping" will be milder and meeker than the coverage the AFL will get if the appeal is rejected.

My point is that an expert is required. That expert can make everyone happy.

Or they just might be seen as listening to the masses and being a reasonable outfit for a change.

Who would argue with that?

Or they just might be seen as listening to the masses and being a reasonable outfit for a change.

Who would argue with that?

Common sense tells AFL fans that Viney should not be out for 2 weeks. The problem is fitting common sense into a matrix. The way to fix that is the entry point of the matrix or not fit the matrix. Changing bump to brace keeps Viney out of the matrix. No penalty possible.