Jack Viney Suspended for 2 Weeks

[In Harmes Way 7,796]

Viney biggest mistake is that he didn’t hit Collins. Striking is a lower consequence action than some random “Serious Misconduct” classification which is Taylor to by another name.

[leave it to deever 17,511]

Oh dear. Problem for Jack is it could be hard to het back in at this time of year.

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

Would Selwood/Lynch/Buddy have gotten away with this? Probably. Maybe.

But that doesn't make what Viney did right.

Sure, they were wrestling, but only one guy had his elbow on the other's throat/jaw, and that was our VC. We were smashing them, there was no point in this. I want our guys to be 'tough', but not dumb/reckless. This would not be ideal had it happened the week before finals. 

Whether what Viney did was right or wrong is irrelevant. Selwood/Lynch/ Greene/ Buddy etc. etc. etc. get away with the same brutality repeatedly.

[Josh 1,420]

11 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am not ok with 2 weeks, for all the reasons you have mentioned above. The AFL Tribunal is an absolute dog’s breakfast. 
Why did Franklin get off? Sydney would have lost last week without him playing. 
I hope the MFC make Enquiries about this Clown ? School 

Couldn't agree more. I meant I'm ok with it being 2 weeks, same as Franklin, Ablett (twice) Cotchin, Mitchell bla BLA BLA what does it matter they make it up as they go along. 

As someone said, he was better of punching him

[Redleg 40,971]

I remember the Bont eye gouge by Toby Greene. Bont lying pinned on the ground, Toby runs in, looks to see the umpires can’t see and then eye gouges Bont.

A disgusting and dangerous act.

Penalty a fine.

 Buddy, Shuey, Daniher and Astbury deliberately elbow players this year and are fined.

Nothing to see here.

PS. There was a suggestion JV was sore and maybe a couple of weeks freshens him.

[Skuit 10,031]

So many lawyers on Demonland, naturally. What do yee say? Do we have a procedural basis for appeal? 

[McQueen 17,865]

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

Why? How is this not a distraction? If we appeal that’s another day of not knowing if he can play or not. 
We have a very tough week in hotel quarantine in Perth and a big game coming up on a hostile ground. How is this not an unnecessary distraction? 
 

I said it was a ‘bit’ of an overreaction. 
 

And I stand by that. 

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,704]

I hope they appeal this, absolute garbage players throwing sharp elbows and escaping penalty.

You have that [censored] thug Hawkins give May one of the blackest eyes ever seen and Franklin doing whatever he wants and recieving [censored] all.

If it was a Geelong, Sydney or Western Bulldogs player it would have been classified as insufficient evidence and force and thrown out, without a shadow of a doubt.

Another great day for the AFL.

Absolutely furious.???????

[DeeZee 7,425]

2 weeks is about what he deserved.

If someone did that to one of our players you would all be screaming blue murder.

[jnrmac 20,104]

2 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Swings and roundabouts.

We got away with an absolute bank robbery with Fritsch in round 7.

 

BS

Trac pushed the player into Fritsch

Stop being a drama queen

[Pates 9,660]

Look, I think it was worth 1 week and had it been one of the usual darlings that would have been the case at most. Viney has a reputation, not as a dirty player but someone who plays on the edge. But as usual, the tail has wagged the dog with the media creating a storm that left the AFL tribunal feeling they had to come down hard on Viney. 

To be clear, I feel this is a very dirty act from Jack so I don’t think it’s undeserved. I hope he uses this time to really reflect on his recent form and look to address some big issues. The most frustrating thing would be that he’s been sent to Perth for nothing, much better for him to be with his family in Melbourne e than in Perth quarantine. 

The tribunal has made a statement though, deliberately striking someone is fine but what Jack did is worth 2 weeks. Work that one out. 

[Chook 15,013]

Players who do what Fritch did (high fend off in play) should get off. Players who did what Viney did (big-man stuff wrestling on the ground) should get weeks.

I think 1 week for this would have been enough though.

[Mel Bourne 4,515]

"It was more a show of defence. I didn't want to get rolled over and him be on top of me. that was the position I was pulled into and that was where my strength was."

He’s a bit special, our Jack. 

[DeeSince73 488]

Ok I’ll cop the 2 weeks and be as angry as everyone else about the inconsistency we’ve seen during the season. What really gets up my frock are the media frothing uncontrollably about how bad the incident was. How the self righteous parade of Wheatley, Dunstall, Cornes and that insignificant tool who’s name I can’t remember comparing this to George Floyd. Oh my god, spare me. 
The baying for blood and geeing up the AFL to act is much worse than what Viney did. 
These dills once again trying to be relevant, get a result they want and the club standing back with pants down and lube in hand. This is what has made me mad. ?

[dl4e 5,851]

3 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

You’d be happy? 

No. Wrong expression. I would be furious.

[picket fence 17,179]

3 hours ago, DeeZee said:

2 weeks is about what he deserved.

If someone did that to one of our players you would all be screaming blue murder.

Yep agree I

[Deemania since 56 6,658]

9 hours ago, dieter said:

My problem with all of this is the sheer inconsistency of the so-called 'Tribunal's' decisions. There is definitely a case of what is good for the goose, is out of bounds for the gander. The history of the decisions handed out by these buffoons  posturing as Pontius Pilate is staggering. There are too many instances of one law for certain protected species, another for the rest. 

....and so many DL contributors ridicule the citing of suspect, onfield rules applications from the umpires to affect game outcomes. We can rest assured, in fact, that these deliberated demonstrations come from higher up the food chain within the AFL.

[Salems Lot 2,535]

Poor leadership skills from the VC; we were cruising in an absolute belting.  Just no need.  I hope the club lets him know

[DubDee 25,917]

2 weeks to freshen up for Viney. And to work on his game.

he’ll come back in for the Cats and be primed for finals. I know he hasn’t been in good form but he is made for finals footy. there is no doubt he’ll come straight back in. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Meh.  

By the way, MENSA aren't all that bright.  They always get their NAMES mixed up.

Not unlike the N.A.D. (National Dyslexics Association). ?

[Brownie 5,981]

9 hours ago, DeeSince73 said:

Ok I’ll cop the 2 weeks and be as angry as everyone else about the inconsistency we’ve seen during the season. What really gets up my frock are the media frothing uncontrollably about how bad the incident was. How the self righteous parade of Wheatley, Dunstall, Cornes and that insignificant tool who’s name I can’t remember comparing this to George Floyd. Oh my god, spare me. 
The baying for blood and geeing up the AFL to act is much worse than what Viney did. 
These dills once again trying to be relevant, get a result they want and the club standing back with pants down and lube in hand. This is what has made me mad. ?

Yep, the media commentary and the end result always go hand in hand.

By Monday night you know what is going to happen at the tribunal and most times you know by the end of the game.

Nothing to see here = star player getting a fine.

Oh, this is not a good look for our game = weeks off

It's the pig's a**se wagging the ?

 

[Superunknown 4,217]

Observations.

Media storm, tail wagging dog as others have said

Comparatively this appears unfair compared to what league darlings get (citations in previous posts)

2 weeks seems fair

Bottom line: Viney should never have put himself and his club in the position where we're all discussing this. A good lesson.

Was it just me, or did Jack look a bit angry/sour during the game...

I admit I wasn't paying full attention as my son and I were playing Lego as we both routinely looked up, looked at each other and said "another goal" (which it must be said is an underappreciated delight as a long-suffering fan)

[buck_nekkid 5,879]

Person should be innocent until PROVEN guilty.  If the evidence is inconclusive, what can he actually be guilty of?  This is a joke.  If we penalised things because they look bad, then Franklin’s elbow?  Hawkins elbow on May?  Selwood raking the face?  Essendon Players haircuts?

I think an appeal is in order.  They did not prove their case.  The jury rolled to tv commentator pressure.

[Willmoy1947 4,099]

From the little I know about that sort of restraint, that is precisely what it is, restraint nothing like a blow to the area of the neck that needs to be carefully treated.

Another " hate MFC vendetta just at the business end. By the qanon embassy in Australia.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

14 hours ago, 1964_2 said:

Hard to follow your point here. 

the charge was for serious misconduct including “contact to the throat/neck”, the plea was changed from guilty to not guilty because they didn’t realise they were admitting to contact to neck/throat. 

highly unlikely that “contact to neck/throat” wasn’t included on initial documentation 

No it wasn't.

Charges laid:
Jack Viney, Melbourne, has been charged with Serious Misconduct against Sam Collins, Gold Coast SUNS, during the fourth quarter of the Round 20 match between the Gold Coast SUNS and Melbourne played at Marvel Stadium on Sunday August 1, 2021.

What happened was Gleeson got up and and said it involved contact to the neck/throat. Viney pleaded guilty to the charge, not the submission/description placed on it by Gleeson.

The description of it provided by Gleeson does not equal the charge.

14 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I have provided more than enough info to support that Anderson didn't know, didn't understand or didn't check the details of the charge which Gleeson read out at the start of the hearing.  You want to keep refuting everything I present and keep saying I'm wrong great.  Go for it.  I'm out 

As above, the charge was Serious Misconduct. Gleeson's description of it doesn't change what the charge was, and as the Tribunal hearing played out, Viney was entitled to plead guilty to committing Serious Misconduct but to challenge the nature of that misconduct (i.e. he said the misconduct was pressure to the jaw, not to the throat/neck).

We know there is no requirement for a Serious Misconduct charge to cause serious damage or even have the potential to cause serious damage - one of the players who has been charge with it in the past was Ben Stratton for pinching Fantasia. There was no suggestion pinching was going to cause the same level of damage as an elbow on a throat might.

If anyone made a mistake, it was the Tribunal chairman for rolling up Gleeson's description into the charge.

Your attack on Anderson was in my view unfair.