Jump to content

  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    The Demonland Terms of Service, which you have all recently agreed to, strictly prohibit discussions of ongoing legal matters, whether criminal or civil. Please ensure that all discussions on this forum remain focused solely on on-field & football related topics.


Recommended Posts

Posted

Just out of curiosity was Lynch wearing a mouth guard?

Posted

ive got a gut feeling he will ,,, get off

If he does, I might too...

Better move quick - Aiden Riley has already snatched one up.

Bloody hell, how can a white collar type bloke that I am, compete with an AFL player with the nickname "Pig Dog"? No chance!

Posted

Deanox, I think those days are gone, they just want to win

glad to hear that. Getting up and winning for XXXX is unsustainable and has proved so in the past. Wanting to win should be the prime driver in a footballers make-up

  • Like 1
Posted

glad to hear that. Getting up and winning for XXXX is unsustainable and has proved so in the past. Wanting to win should be the prime driver in a footballers make-up

I agree, they should be winning for a good Victorian beer, not any of that Queensland rubbish.

  • Like 7
Posted

Watts: what the hell happened with his back? How is it now?

Didn't hear the what, but he said it felt like someone had stuck a taser into his back so sounds like a nerve issue (with zero medical knowledge!). But he said he'd be "good as gold" for the weekend.
Posted

Didn't hear the what, but he said it felt like someone had stuck a taser into his back so sounds like a nerve issue (with zero medical knowledge!). But he said he'd be "good as gold" for the weekend.

May have been something as simple as a pinched nerve.

Posted (edited)

He may not.

Maintaining your subversive seed planting.

Good win wasn't it?

You dunce. Does my subversive seed planting include going over to Adelaide to support the team?

My view is that Viney was found guilty because if you follow the letter of the law of the game he was guilty. It's a badly drafted law and Viney is clearly caught by an unintended consequence.

Now it seems to me that it's contradictory to find him guilty and then downgrade the penalty based on "moderate" contact. It clearly wasn't but in applying correct formula the tribunal saw that the "prescribed" penalty was excessive in the circumstances. There seems a good chance to me that the same guilty outcome will happen in the appeals tribunal because it's conducted by those with a legal background who will apply the "law". That's why I think he'll fail. If they also apply the proper penalty he may well get a greater sentence.

Hence my question. I wouldn't have appealed because of this likelihood. I well remember Jack Trengove's situation. I don't want Viney's sentence extended and there is a significant risk of that. I'd have had no hesitation appealing if the appeals tribunal was run by sensible people able to use common sense but it's run by those with legal backgrounds and I've no confidence in their ability to think at all independently. Equity is not being applied here, the law is.

So how about you put away your silly digs and use what limited brain power you possess. You might learn something.

Edit: and yes it was a great win. It's the first I've seen in Adelaide since the 90's when David Neitz ripped them another one.

Edited by Baghdad Bob
  • Like 2
Posted

You dunce. Does my subversive seed planting include going over to Adelaide to support the team?

My view is that Viney was found guilty because if you follow the letter of the law of the game he was guilty. It's a badly drafted law and Viney is clearly caught by an unintended consequence.

Now it seems to me that it's contradictory to find him guilty and then downgrade the penalty based on "moderate" contact. It clearly wasn't but in applying correct formula the tribunal saw that the "prescribed" penalty was excessive in the circumstances. There seems a good chance to me that the same guilty outcome will happen in the appeals tribunal because it's conducted by those with a legal background who will apply the "law". That's why I think he'll fail. If they also apply the proper penalty he may well get a greater sentence.

Hence my question. I wouldn't have appealed because of this likelihood. I well remember Jack Trengove's situation. I don't want Viney's sentence extended and there is a significant risk of that. I'd have had no hesitation appealing if the appeals tribunal was run by sensible people able to use common sense but it's run by those with legal backgrounds and I've no confidence in their ability to think at all independently. Equity is not being applied here, the law is.

So how about you put away your silly digs and use what limited brain power you possess. You might learn something.

bb is that necessary?

Posted

Only if you believe Viney bumped and had a realistic alterative to avoid a collision.

I don't believe either of those things. IMO its not the rule at fault its the interpretation.

My view is that Viney was found guilty because if you follow the letter of the law of the game he was guilty. It's a badly drafted law and Viney is clearly caught by an unintended consequence.

  • Like 1
Posted

Just out of curiosity was Lynch wearing a mouth guard?

I heard on SEN I think, some one saying that a dental specialist commented that he doubted that Lynch he could have been wearing one because the damamge was so severe.

Posted

Only if you believe Viney bumped and had a realistic alterative to avoid a collision.

I don't believe either of those things. IMO its not the rule at fault its the interpretation.

I agree to an extent. Sadly those who ran the initial case saw it differently. If they did with their football background I have little confidence the next group will have a different view.

Just for the record, I find it an astoundingly stupid decision.

Posted

You dunce. Does my subversive seed planting include going over to Adelaide to support the team?

My view is that Viney was found guilty because if you follow the letter of the law of the game he was guilty. It's a badly drafted law and Viney is clearly caught by an unintended consequence.

Now it seems to me that it's contradictory to find him guilty and then downgrade the penalty based on "moderate" contact. It clearly wasn't but in applying correct formula the tribunal saw that the "prescribed" penalty was excessive in the circumstances. There seems a good chance to me that the same guilty outcome will happen in the appeals tribunal because it's conducted by those with a legal background who will apply the "law". That's why I think he'll fail. If they also apply the proper penalty he may well get a greater sentence.

Hence my question. I wouldn't have appealed because of this likelihood. I well remember Jack Trengove's situation. I don't want Viney's sentence extended and there is a significant risk of that. I'd have had no hesitation appealing if the appeals tribunal was run by sensible people able to use common sense but it's run by those with legal backgrounds and I've no confidence in their ability to think at all independently. Equity is not being applied here, the law is.

So how about you put away your silly digs and use what limited brain power you possess. You might learn something.

Edit: and yes it was a great win. It's the first I've seen in Adelaide since the 90's when David Neitz ripped them another one.

You're premise is only true if a collision is a bump.

  • Like 1
Posted

I heard on SEN I think, some one saying that a dental specialist commented that he doubted that Lynch he could have been wearing one because the damamge was so severe.

I heard that too. He was dismissed pretty quickly, and I can see why they wouldn't want to start "victim-shaming" Lynch for not wearing a mouthguard.

I thought I saw one in his mouth, but I can't recall seeing it taken out.

The bloke calling in said he was a dental professional and that with a mouthguard in place there'd be no blood, and no broken jaw.

I know they provide some protection, but surely there's a limit.

Posted

The letter of the law is "elect to bump". It is clearly those factors that are in question, not the impact. Did he have another reasonable alternative? You can't "elect" to do something if there are no alternatives or no time to execute those alternatives. Was it an actual bump or someone slowing down and bracing for unavoidable contact?

The uproar is because so many people don't believe he had and a choice (did not "elect") and because it wasn't how most describe a bump. In most peoples view, even to the letter of the law he wasn't guilty. He was neither reckless, negligent or intentional in his actions. There is no "accidental" box which is how most people see the incident.

Posted

I agree to an extent. Sadly those who ran the initial case saw it differently. If they did with their football background I have little confidence the next group will have a different view.

Just for the record, I find it an astoundingly stupid decision.

BB, can they upgrade a charge during an appeal case?

I'm of the view that the penalty can't be more, so apart from the finanical loss, there is nothing to lose by taking it further.

Posted

Good on the club for appealing the decision. Don't agree with BB. The rule is cloudy and then there is the issue of the non bump and the outrageous decision of the tribunal panel.

Posted

Worst training thread ever?

  • Like 4
Posted

It's Watts' fault, OD.

Not possible he would have pirouetted out of the way. In fact he wouldn't have gone that hard at the ball, he would have waited till Lynch took possession, Georgiou tackled then the ball comes free then Watts would pick it up and dance away.

Posted

Not much training news, chip and spencer weren't out there again

I'd expect Garland to come back in, trained strongly

Everyone (players and supporters) from what I witnessed and heard ignored the Viney situation

Saw Roosy talking to Fitzy telling him last week his performance was a lot better, unsure whether he'll come back in though

Pretty impressed with Riley, expect him to get his chance sooner rather than later

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    TRAINING: Wednesday 19th February 2025

    Demonlander The Analyser was the sole Trackwatcher out at Casey Fields today to bring you the following observations from this mornings preseason training session. Training  was at Casey today. It consisted of a match simulation for one half  and then a free choice activity time. Activities included kicking for goal,  aerial , contest work etc. I noticed the following players not in match simulation Jack Viney  running laps and looks fine for round one . I think Kolt looks like he’s im

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 1

    TRAINING: Monday 17th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers were on hand at Monday morning's preseason training at Gosch's Paddock to bring you their brief observations of the session. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Gentle flush session at Gosch's this morning. Absent: May, Pickett (All Stars) McVee, McAdam. Rehabbing: Great to see Kentfield back (much slimmer), walking with Tholstrup, TMac (suspect just a management thing), Viney (still being cautious with that rib cartilage?), Melksham (

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    MATCH SIM: Friday 14th February 2025

    A couple of Demonland Trackwatchers made their way out to Casey Field's for the Melbourne Football Club's Family Series day to bring you their observations on the Match Simulation. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S MATCH SIMULATION OBSERVATIONS Absent: May, Pickett (All Stars), McVee, Windor, Kentfield, Mentha Present but not playing: Petracca, Viney, Spargo, Tholstrup, Melksham Starting Blue 18 (+ just 2 interchange): B: Petty, TMac, Lever, Howes, Bowey Salem M: Gawn, Oliver, La

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 12th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers braved the scorching morning heat to bring you the following observations of Wednesday's preseason training session from Gosch's Paddock. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Absent: Salem, Windsor (word is a foot rash going around), Viney, Bowey and Kentfield Train ons: Roy George, no Culley today. Firstly the bad news - McVee went down late, which does look like a bad hammy - towards the end of match sim, as he kicked the ball. Had to

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    MATCH SIM: Friday 7th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatcher Gator ventured down the freeway to bring you his observations from Friday morning's Match Simulation out at Casey Fields. Rehab: Jake Lever and Charlie Spargo running laps.  Lever was running short distances at a fast click as well as having kick to kick with a trainer. He seems unimpeded. Christian Petracca, Kade Chandler, Shane McAdam and Tom Fullarton doing non-contact kicking and handball drills on the adjacent oval.  All moving freely at pace.  I didn’

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 2

    TRAINING: Wednesday 5th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers were out in force as the Demons returned to Gosch's Paddock for preseason training on Wednesday morning. GHOSTWRITER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Kozzie a no show. Tommy Sparrow was here last week in civvies and wearing sunnies. He didn’t train. Today he’s training but he’s wearing goggles so he’s likely got an eye injury. There’s a drill where Selwyn literally lies on top of Tracc, a trainer dribbles the ball towards them and Tracc has to g

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WAS: 2024

    Whichever way you look at it, the Melbourne Football Club’s 2024 season can only be characterized as the year of its fall from grace. Whispering Jack looks back at the season from hell that was. After its 2021 benchmark premiership triumph, the men’s team still managed top four finishes in the next two seasons but straight sets finals losses consigned them to sixth place in both years. The big fall came in 2024 with a collapse into the bottom six and a 14th placing. At Casey, the 2022 VFL p

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    MATCH SIM: Friday 31st January 2025

    Veteran Demonland Trackwatcher Picket Fence ventured down to Casey Fields to bring you his observations from Friday's Match Simulation. Greetings Demonlanders, beautiful Day at training and the boys were hard at it, here is my report. NO SHOWS: Luker Kentfield (recovering from pneumonia in WA), also not sure I noticed Melky (Hamstring) or Will Verrall?? MODIFIED DUTIES (No Contact): Sparrow, McVee (foot), Tracc (ribs), Chandler, (AC Joint), Fullarton Noticeable events (I’ll s

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 2

    TRAINING: Wednesday 29th January 2025

    A number of Demonland Trackwatchers swooped on Gosch's Paddock to bring you their observations from this morning's Preseason Training Session. DEMON JACK'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Beautiful morning at Gosch's Paddock. Very healthy crowd so far.  REHAB: Fullerton, Spargo, Tholstrup, McVee Viney running laps. EDIT: JV looks to be back with the main group. Trac, Sparrow, Chandler and Verrell also training away from the main group. Currently kicking to each other ins

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 1
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...