Just out of curiosity was Lynch wearing a mouth guard?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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 May 8, 201411 yr by Baghdad Bob

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Excuse me guys but is this not the 'Training " thread?

There are about four threads on the Viney bump

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.

Excuse me guys but is this not the 'Training " thread?

There are about four threads on the Viney bump

It's Watts' fault, OD.

Any Training news?

Edited May 8, 201411 yr by old dee

It's Watts' fault, OD.

Oh hell I forgot billy

Not much training going on, by the sounds of it...

Still, getting sick of the Viney topic until we get a result.

#freeviney

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.

Worst training thread ever?

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.

Worst training thread ever?

What training?

Yes

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