Viney verdict a bad break for football

Barrett back talking about the bump and the 'unfair' decisions following it.

I have no doubt that he relishes using the Viney incident as at any opportunity he will negatively associate issues with Melbourne.

I cannot stand this man.

poor little lone-voice diddums

someone please tell him we don't gaf about his opinion

?He posts so much more Melbourne related content than any other club, seriously who killed his puppy

?He posts so much more Melbourne related content than any other club, seriously who killed his puppy

I dont understand his vendetta against us

Please for the love of all that is good don't click this link. Starve the bastards and they'll all die out one by one.

This is the only Barrett I have any interest in:

Wise words often bear repeating.

I thought the same thing when I first saw it.

Why does he insist on dragging Viney's name through this drama?

Can't he give it another name?

All this "pre-Viney" and "post-Viney," you'd think Viney had done something wrong himself.

I know this is exactly the reaction that parasite is looking for, but I really take exception to the way he writes this crap.

1. The Viney incident wasn't a bump but a collision

2. The Hannebery, Cooney and Hocking incidents were all also collisions. Bumps in these cases would clearly see the player out for 3 or so weeks. Just as Steele Sidebottom and others have been. They are staggeringly different type of a collision though because instead of side to side collisions where by worse case is usually a broken jaw and concussion - both of which people usually recover full from (despite Barrett's over dramatisation of Lynch's injuries), compared to front on collisions that can cause broken necks.

The AFL do need to decide if head over the ball front on collisions should be penalised. I'm split 50/50, they are so dangerous that they probably should be but then again you have to let guys play and these collisions are less dangerous than front on bumps.

The problem with Barrett is he's just not very bright and therefore can't see the difference between a bump and a collision.

I thought the same thing when I first saw it.

Why does he insist on dragging Viney's name through this drama?

Can't he give it another name?

All this "pre-Viney" and "post-Viney," you'd think Viney had done something wrong himself.

I know this is exactly the reaction that parasite is looking for, but I really take exception to the way he writes this crap.

The Viney verdict did set a precedent for accidental collisions being paid as such. But this weeks Goodes decisions set a precedent for minor bumps to not force suspensions. There are precedents galore.

Many people - smart and not so smart footy people - Robbo, Gerard Whateley, Derm came down on one side of the Viney decision and another on the Hannebery decision. But they are completely separate.

The Viney incident wouldnt even be my preferable example.

The Hannenbery incident is the perfect example to be using, yet he has to use Viney.

I'm sorely tempted to close this thread and all other Barrett threads so we don't have to repeat ourselves every time he farts.

We'll keep one thread open and if you really need to vent you can use the search and risk the ire of the rest of the board for digging him up from the bowels of Demonland.

Who actually reads what this clown writes really ?

guess he really knows all this stuff

cos he was such a great player himself

I'm sorely tempted to close this thread and all other Barrett threads so we don't have to repeat ourselves every time he farts.

We'll keep one thread open and if you really need to vent you can use the search and risk the ire of the rest of the board for digging him up from the bowels of Demonland.

Just merge it with the main Barrett thread

theres one with dozens of pages

The guy looks like the only sport he's ever played is Connect 4, his opinion is worth less than zero.

I'm sorely tempted to close this thread and all other Barrett threads so we don't have to repeat ourselves every time he farts.

We'll keep one thread open and if you really need to vent you can use the search and risk the ire of the rest of the board for digging him up from the bowels of Demonland.

That is a good idea, but i just saw his article and wanted to vent my distaste

I really wish you could leave comments under his articles, the entire football industry cannot stand this germ. The comments would be hilarious. Jog on purple headed warrior..... Jog on

Shows how much he knows about football.

These last 3 incidents are nothing like the Viney one (as others have mentioned) and just coincedentally came after his appeal.

The guy is an idiot, thinks he got something right for once when really he's not even close.

Stick to hiding in bins [censored].

He quotes the law which states that you can't be suspended for head high contact of you had no other way to contest the ball.

Then argues against that. His whole article is built on his own misunderstanding.

Read his discription If lynchs jaw, makes it sound like he was hit by a bus

Read his discription If lynchs jaw, makes it sound like he was hit by a bus

He was.

So it's Viney's fault that all this occured?

So it's Viney's fault that all this occured?

Barrett seems to think so.

Someone associated with Melbourne is to blame for every bad thing that befalls the game of AFL, didn't you know?

Loved the pre-Viney time signature.

The problem with it is that years in the future will be regarded as Post-Viney (PV), making this year 0 PV. Years before Viney will need to be defined, in Barrett terms, as Pre-Viney, also PV!

I don't understand why Barrett is so confused. To me it is actually black and white.

If your sole purpose is to get the ball and you have incidental high contact that is fine. But if you choose the other route and bump someone then you're in trouble.

How does this guy have a job seriously???

Barret is trying to compare apples to oranges here: the last 3 incidents have all been questioned because a player had his head over the ball and was hit by another player. In Viney's case, Lynch's head was not over the ball - Lynch actually fell forward because of Georgiou pressuring him. Lynch was never in danger of suffering a neck injury as there was no front on collision with the player bent over the ball. The last 3 weeks have provided instances where the player could have suffered a serious neck injury.

It's pretty simple really, and makes me think Barret is being deliberately provocative. (and calling himself "this column" just shows what a presumptuous moron he is)