3 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It's a prurient American spell checker which won't let through words for a bird or a cat but will let through bugger and bastard.

… and bloody. 

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending what Viney did, but if Franklin could avoid suspension by referring to precedent, I'd be rolling out the Franklin footage along with the three other elbows to the head that did not result in suspensions, as well as Selwood gouging Dale's face at GMHBA which was also not a suspension..

 

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

But Joel Selwood has body of evidence to support that it’s okay. 

The AFL tribunal doesn't believe in precedent, except on those rare occasions where it does just to keep everyone guessing. But MFC should run the "Buddy got off this" and "Selwood got off that" defence just to embarrass AFL house. Maybe, like Darth Vader, there is a shred of good still lurking deep within.

Collins evidence will be crucial whether Viney gets the thumbs down or not. He didn’t look too affected by it. He bounced up quickly and ready to continue the fight. If he said he felt little pressure and not much else then maybe a fine. If he felt pain, struggled to breathe or faintness then a suspension for sure. The optics don’t look good but hard to tell if full force of Viney’s elbow was on the neck or lower jaw or a bit of both. Many are making comparisons with the George Floyd incident but that went on for about 8 minutes and not a few seconds. Pre Floyd days I doubt this incident would have received as much scrutiny though I agree the action is potentially dangerous but so are the numerous  unpunished “make him pay” incidents that commentators  love so much. 

The problem with using precedents and the Buddy elbow etc is the other incidents where in play. Buddy had the ball. Whilst I agree he should have gotten a week along with Astbury etc Viney is not helped by it being off the ball

3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

The problem with using precedents and the Buddy elbow etc is the other incidents where in play. Buddy had the ball. Whilst I agree he should have gotten a week along with Astbury etc Viney is not helped by it being off the ball

Also a valid point. When a player does something dangerous while the ball is in play you can argue the split second decision a player was making trying to get or keep possession of the ball (think Fritsch earlier in the year or Hawkins on May).
This was not in play. Ball wasn’t even near these two guys. That doesn’t help the argument that it was deliberate and off the ball. 

I think some of the critics here are confused by the slow-mo replay. The rubbing of the elbow on the neck is quite a bit shorter in real time. The whacker who suggests Viney is an easy replacement (by just about anyone else on the list) just doesn't know much about the game!

Joel Selwood anyone.....

54 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Also a valid point. When a player does something dangerous while the ball is in play you can argue the split second decision a player was making trying to get or keep possession of the ball (think Fritsch earlier in the year or Hawkins on May).
This was not in play. Ball wasn’t even near these two guys. That doesn’t help the argument that it was deliberate and off the ball. 

Think the whistle had gone for Buddy being over the boundary before he threw his arm back, that's a mystifying tribunal decision. Or would've been if it wasn't Sydney.

It's hard to defend Viney but as much as anything because it's the worst of the lot it just looks worse than it is and that goes a long way with tribunal decisions sadly. There's always an incident or two each year were the 'looks bad' factor multiplies because it's the worst of the lot.

I'd say a minimum of 30 players a week dig an elbow, forearm or shoulder in after a tackle. 1 or 2 get picked up on tv. 1 or 2 every month get some tribunal time. Viney just made sure his was right at the pointy end. Silly.

4 hours ago, Jaded said:

Whatever I won’t keep going around in circles with you. If you don’t think what Viney did was stupid and dangerous then you’re letting your bias show. 
 

Also some reading for you if you’re interested https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/25/head-neck-injuries-phil-hughes-doctor

The comparison to Phil Hughes is completely incongruous in this case. A hard cricket ball travelling at 145km per hour hitting a specific part of one's head is completely different to a flat part of a forearm pressing over what looks likes the guys ear, cheek and neck. Phil Hughes wasn't strictly hit on the neck either, hence why batsmen now have stem guards on their helmets that cover that lobe below the brain. The fleshy part of the lower neck is still exposed with stem guards. 

Was it dumb, yes. Unnecessary, absolutely. Lacking leadership, sure. I'll stand with anyone in defending the safety and well being of footballers, however;

Collins got up and played the rest of the game. That was the last delivery Phil Hughes ever faced. Try to avoid the hyperbolic comparisons. 

At the end of the day, he’s supposed to be a leader. Shouldn’t have got himself in that position to start with..

8 hours ago, WA Demon Boy said:

 

You think this act is acceptable?

Maybe before calling me 'average' you should go and watch the footage and ask yourself if this is something you should do on a footy field. 

I think it was a silly thing to do and doesn’t look great but the vitriol is way over the top here by some . 

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

Whately just said that offence is from a fine to a week and AFL will ask for a week. He will get a week. 

That seems fair, now everybody get off his back, the dislike for Viney in this forum is so disappointing & shows why we are the most fickle & soft supporters in the AFL

 

36 minutes ago, Billy said:

That seems fair, now everybody get off his back, the dislike for Viney in this forum is so disappointing & shows why we are the most fickle & soft supporters in the AFL

 

Agree. It seems he will get a suspension, anything more than a week would be unfair. What I would like to know is what set him off?

And to the posters bagging him, well you will get your opportunity on Monday night to satisfy your misguided views. Either Jordan or Vandenburg come in, let's see what they bring with regards to clearances, contested possessions, tackles and inside 50's. You can get Viney's stats on afl site to compare come 11pm Monday night.

46 minutes ago, Billy said:

That seems fair, now everybody get off his back, the dislike for Viney in this forum is so disappointing & shows why we are the most fickle & soft supporters in the AFL

 

? 

Jon Ralph is a complete disgrace, who referenced George Floyd when discussing this incident.   This bloke does not deserve to have his voice heard. 

360 also showed a different angle of the incident and it seems he was not pushing down with any great force, which is probably why Collins was just able to jog off 

52 minutes ago, Billy said:

That seems fair, now everybody get off his back, the dislike for Viney in this forum is so disappointing & shows why we are the most fickle & soft supporters in the AFL

 

I’d argue your view that Viney should somehow avoid (well deserved) scrutiny is what has made Melbourne a soft and fickle bunch. We’re coming into our first window in decades, there is no room for sentiment any longer. Only results. 

Defence runs like this:

collins initiated off the ball incident after tackle/collision.  This stopped jv moving out of the area.  Taken to ground and continuously pulled two hands by jumper.  Viney bracing himself/trying to leverage himself free.  Elbow position was not intentional but as a result of the wrestling action of Collins.  No case to answer.

if he did a Selwood and simply attacked an opponent with an elbow to the neck then it is a bad look.  Need to see not just a single frame but the whole incident to make sense of it.  And context- we are 98 fricken points up!

12 hours ago, Megatron said:

Viney doesn’t engage in the wrestle until Collins pulls him down after the tackle. As soon as Viney lays the tackle, he’s ready for the next contest until Collins pulls And holds him down. Then Viney tries to get back up and he gets pulled back down again. 
If he gets rubbed out, he’ll have a case to appeal.

I’m shocked at how everyone is casually overlooking this - it is clear as day. 
 

I get that he didn’t have to put his elbow there but he wanted to be let go so he could move onto the next contest. 
 

he is getting crucified by everyone which is disappointing. If Collins at any point was under duress he would have let go and Viney would have moved on.

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

360 also showed a different angle of the incident and it seems he was not pushing down with any great force, which is probably why Collins was just able to jog off 

Logic is not welcome here. ?

This happens multiple times in every game. Hopefully the tribunal do not buy into the hysteria and he gets a fine.

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

Jon Ralph is a complete disgrace, who referenced George Floyd when discussing this incident.   This bloke does not deserve to have his voice heard. 

a cheap shot by Ralph.

2 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Logic is not welcome here. ?

This happens multiple times in every game. Hopefully the tribunal do not buy into the hysteria and he gets a fine.

Agree completely Clint

Hysteria and sensationalism rule the AFL these days

Not much chance of a fair hearing unfortunately Feel sorry for JV as he is a hard but very fair player

If the jumpers were reversed, most on here would be saying dog act and 3 weeks. For what it's worth, I think it deserves 3 weeks. Whether he was provoked or not, it's clearly intentional and head high. I don't know whether it caused any injury (I doubt it).

It also suggests to me that Viney's head is not in a good space at the moment. Either his body isn't doing what he wants it to do, or he's frustrated at continually getting caught. In my view, a suspension saves the club from having to make the emotionally difficult decision of dropping him which will give himthe chance to get his mind and his body ready for finals.

And to use one of Matthew Richardson's favourite and most overused cliches, "It's not a good look".

33 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

a cheap shot by Ralph.

Journo's like Ralph need to make stupid comments that create backlash to keep them relevant.  If they don't they lose their job.

He cops a fine or 1 week

38 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

a cheap shot by Ralph.

Absolutely disgraceful.