3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Ease up Lucifer, you don't know what you're talking about.

Serious Misconduct is not defined in the AFL's Tribunal Guidelines.

There is nothing within that phrase which requires a player to make contact to any particular part of the body.

The charge against Viney is that he committed serious misconduct. He pleaded guilty to that. Without the benefit of a "charge sheet" (if such a thing is given to a player) or otherwise the transcript of precisely what he was asked to plead to, I reckon you and anyone else criticising Anderson should ease off.

I believe, the specific charge was outlined at the beginning of the hearing.

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by Lucifer's Hero

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Hard to do when Gleeson told the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as 'nonsense'.

Again, not correct.

Gleeson for the AFL is asking, not telling, the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as "nonsense".

That's a submission on behalf of the AFL, which the Tribunal is at liberty to accept, or reject.

Gleeson doesn't "tell" the Tribunal anything.

Viney has given evidence the contact was to Collins' jaw. The Tribunal will consider that evidence as well as the footage and will decide what it thinks about where the contact was. It is relevant, but not necessarily critical, that Collins has not been heard from. It will also be relevant as to what was in any medical report (e.g. does the medical report say anything about throat contact?).

1 minute ago, BDA said:

video evidence inconclusive and no evidence presented to confirm contact was with the throat. On what basis can the jury convict?

Umpire’s call I reckon. Play on.

1 minute ago, BDA said:

video evidence inconclusive and no evidence presented to confirm contact was with the throat. On what basis can the jury convict?

Collins has a pin head?

Well this is a hot mess. 

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

The specific charge was outlined at the beginning of the hearing.

What was said other than "Serious Misconduct"?

As we know the AFL Are clueless when it comes to players outside their protected guys. The change of plea bothers me I  have NO IDEA how this will play out

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by picket fence

15 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Agree.  Are they allowed to call the other player in to give evidence? 

Idk about nowadays, but back in the day there was an unspoken pact, if you will, among players to not “rat out” another player, regardless of what actually happened on the field. 
Before anyone jumps on me saying that’s never how it was, I’m just going by what my Year 12 Geography teacher told me. His name was Geoff Southby and I guess he’d know, right?

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by WalkingCivilWar

Just now, picket fence said:

As we know the AFL Are clueless when it comes to players outside their protected guys. The change of plea bothers me I reckon 1 as token gesture

And then we should appeal! ?

Legal 101

With a guilty plea you discuss with the prosecution whatwill be alleged.

Hell they even give you the summary

Goes way more than the technical charge

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Hard to do when Gleeson told the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as 'nonsense'.

Based on the AFL website, Gleeson is almost saying Viney is lying:  On Viney's evidence that contact was to the jaw, he says: "You'll have no difficulty rejecting that submission when you look at the evidence ... he's given evidence that is flatly inconsistent with what he knew he did."

Bit of a stretch by a leagle eagle.

I'm always staggered when humans see completely different things on video footage, and are adamant that their view is the correct one, but it happens a lot. Based on that alone though, the jury can't realistically deliberate with certainty that it either was the neck or jaw. I have a feeling though that the question will be mostly redundant in the end. 

Found guilty 

The jury has decided Viney is guilty as charged by the AFL.

 

They find Viney made forceful, prolonged contact with his elbow to the neck/throat region of Collins

Just now, Demons11 said:

Found guilty 

Reckon he gets 3, even though the AFL asked for 2+.

 

What a joke.

That's crap. You can see Jacks elbow is over Collins hairline over his ear!

 

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by McQueen

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Again, not correct.

Gleeson for the AFL is asking, not telling, the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as "nonsense".

That's a submission on behalf of the AFL, which the Tribunal is at liberty to accept, or reject.

Gleeson doesn't "tell" the Tribunal anything.

Ok, suggested.  Even suggesting Viney's evidence is 'nonsense' makes it difficult for the Tribunal to take Viney's word as was proposed in the post I was responding to

9 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

What was said other than "Serious Misconduct"?

From AFL report:

2 hours ago

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

 

AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson describes Viney's offence as the pinning of the opponent to the ground and pressing and holding his elbow into the neck/throat region for a prolonged period of about five seconds with force.

 

Whichever way people spin it, Anderson should have checked if his interpretation re the jaw was correct before Viney put in a plea not at the time the penalty was to be decided.

Edited August 3, 20213 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 week, surely

guilty as charged. on no evidence. what a joke

gotta appeal this BS

1 minute ago, BDA said:

guilty as charged. on no evidence. what a joke

gotta appeal this BS

videos rarely lie

1 minute ago, BDA said:

guilty as charged. on no evidence. what a joke

gotta appeal this BS

Surely the only way they can appeal is if Collins testifies 

10 minutes of deliberation and came to the conclusion it was the neck/throat without asking Collins. Or their mind was made up already. 

What a stitch up, was guilty before he walked in the door, appeal and actually get Collins to testify 

What a Circus. I would be appealing this one.