Wasn't too bright by Jack, deserved a week, maybe two. What irks me is that Selwood should have got 4-weeks for eye-gouging, there is no place in any sport for that sort of behaviour.

12 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.

Not if precedents have been set. Like with umpiring you want consistency and fairness. It was convenient to finally make a statement on elbows now that a smaller club was involved

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Demons1858

1 hour ago, TRIGON said:

Wasn't too bright by Jack, deserved a week, maybe two. What irks me is that Selwood should have got 4-weeks for eye-gouging, there is no place in any sport for that sort of behaviour.

Are you kidding? Selwood should have been awarded a free kick .... and potentially a 50 metre penalty!!

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

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.

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).

The Herald Sun is describing the hearing as 'farcical'. 

"Jack Viney’s tribunal case descended into farce on Tuesday night as the Melbourne ball winner pleaded guilty to serious misconduct without knowing the full wording of his charge and then asked to cancel that plea at the end of the hearing.

"Viney pleaded guilty to serious misconduct – but not guilty to the particulars of the charge.

In bizarre scenes, tribunal chairman David Jones stood down the hearing as the phone hook-up went off line in the wake of the Demons claiming they had never seen the wording of the charge as they attempted to renege the guilty plea.

I'd be interested to hear from @Redlegand other legal eagles on here whether the club might be able to challenge on procedural grounds. 

No appeal. Club has accepted the suspension. 

50 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

The Herald Sun is describing the hearing as 'farcical'. 

"Jack Viney’s tribunal case descended into farce on Tuesday night as the Melbourne ball winner pleaded guilty to serious misconduct without knowing the full wording of his charge and then asked to cancel that plea at the end of the hearing.

"Viney pleaded guilty to serious misconduct – but not guilty to the particulars of the charge.

In bizarre scenes, tribunal chairman David Jones stood down the hearing as the phone hook-up went off line in the wake of the Demons claiming they had never seen the wording of the charge as they attempted to renege the guilty plea.

I'd be interested to hear from @Redlegand other legal eagles on here whether the club might be able to challenge on procedural grounds. 

Two questions are begging:

• Did anyone on the demons side ask to see the wording before the hearing?  
• Why didn't Anderson clarify Gleeson's wording at the beginning of the hearing, when Gleason described the charge?  Or at least point out to the Chairman that the demons had a different understanding of the wording before Jack put in a guilty plea.

The wording confusion would explain some odd comments attributed to Gleeson of Jack's testimony that imv, did not work in Jack's favour.

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero

What would have been the fair result? 1 week? 

The one aspect of this I really didn't like was the downward force of the elbow in what seems to be the throat. Even if Collins was pulling him down I didn't feel it was necessary. Gobsmacked there was no account from Collins himself, don't know what kind of operation they think they're running.

Accepted the two.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/993808/viney-accepts-two-week-ban

Rubbish outcome.

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

What would have been the fair result? 1 week? 

The one aspect of this I really didn't like was the downward force of the elbow in what seems to be the throat. Even if Collins was pulling him down I didn't feel it was necessary. Gobsmacked there was no account from Collins himself, don't know what kind of operation they think they're running.

What would you use Collins' account for? Degree of injury? I understand that the MRO takes that into consideration but does the Tribunal? And is the degree of injury even relevant for a serious misconduct charge? 

(If nothing else, I'd like to see Hocking's replacement implement a completely overhauled MRO/Tribunal/Appeal system. The current model is inconsistent and overly complex.)  

2 hours ago, TRIGON said:

Wasn't too bright by Jack, deserved a week, maybe two. What irks me is that Selwood should have got 4-weeks for eye-gouging, there is no place in any sport for that sort of behaviour.

He can't get suspended, because he plays for Jeelong Remember?

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What would you use Collins' account for? Degree of injury? I understand that the MRO takes that into consideration but does the Tribunal? And is the degree of injury even relevant for a serious misconduct charge? 

(If nothing else, I'd like to see Hocking's replacement implement a completely overhauled MRO/Tribunal/Appeal system. The current model is inconsistent and overly complex.)  

Just to clear up the video footage questions really. Eliminate any doubt of inconclusiveness and if the act was indeed what it looked like.

I do agree there needs to be an overhaul mainly with when cases are taken to tribunal. Its not good enough.

Judging from afar on the evidence that was presented there is no clear footage of Jack applying pressure to the neck of Collins.

So i don't understand why he has been given 2 games instead of 1 for stupidity, the act that has not caused any harm to the Collins.

Like many have said on DL he would have been better served clocking him one.  

What was the impact level of Jack's elbow squeeze? Sam Collins wasn't even contacted for comment alot of these questions and points went unanswered. Beyond farcical.

Can't believe the club aren't challenging this but i can understand why they aren't, don't want to upset the AFL just before the finals series.

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Win4theAges

5 minutes ago, Win4theAges said:

Can't believe the club aren't challenging this but i can understand why they aren't, don't want to upset the AFL just before the finals series.

 

I think you'll find that if the Club thought there was any chance an appeal would be successful, we'd go for it.

The fact that we are not, speaks volumes to me.

I assume we'll be wearing skirts in Perth on Monday in recognition of the fact the game the game has officially turned into netball?

Although according to some here Viney almost committed homicide against Collins so I guess he's lucky to get off with anything less than a life ban.

19 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think you'll find that if the Club thought there was any chance an appeal would be successful, we'd go for it.

The fact that we are not, speaks volumes to me.

It tells me they know they got shafted last night and know they will get shafted again if they appeal.

57 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

What would you use Collins' account for? Degree of injury? I understand that the MRO takes that into consideration but does the Tribunal? And is the degree of injury even relevant for a serious misconduct charge? 

(If nothing else, I'd like to see Hocking's replacement implement a completely overhauled MRO/Tribunal/Appeal system. The current model is inconsistent and overly complex.)  

I suspect the reason the 'victim' is not called is because they can't be relied upon to give honest testimony for fear of being a rat. So they are likely to help get the offender off which would embarrass the AFL.

46 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think you'll find that if the Club thought there was any chance an appeal would be successful, we'd go for it.

The fact that we are not, speaks volumes to me.

It's also possible the suspension did the Match Committee and Viney a favour. By suspending him, he doesn't get dropped even though I believe his form warrants it.

As I've said previously, I wonder whether Viney's actions were due to frustration perhaps caused by his body not allowing him to do what he wants it to do (as shown by him continually getting caught with the ball). A two match break might do him some good.  

Viney got suspended for the optics, not the outcome, nor the intent. That’s whats important for the AFL. 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

31 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Viney got suspended for the optics, not the outcome, nor the intent. That’s whats important for the AFL. 

There you have it. A concise summary.

As I said in an earlier post, the AFL has adopted a result/injury based penalty system, except where there is no injury, medical treatment, or even leaving the ground, if it looks bad. Then make it up on the fly.

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Redleg

The club in real terms did not have an appeal option .It can work around a two week suspension and have Jack ready for the finals campaign. But if it appealed and the AFL cross appealed he may (and anythings possible in this type of case ) have ended up with 4 and that effectively would have ended his season.

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

There you have it. A concise summary.

As I said in an earlier post, the AFL has adopted a result/injury based penalty system, except where there is no injury, medical treatment, or even leaving the ground, if it looks bad. Then make it up on the fly.

And it always seems to be one of ours, JT, JV, ANB, to us dee supporters anyway ?

I love Jack but this deserves two weeks. 

It wasn't a reflex action that took place around the ball. It was a considered decision to place his elbow on the throat (or jaw) of the opponent.

I understand and agree with the arguments around precedents but this type of thing has to be removed from the game - as much as it pains me to say it, this needs to be the new precedent.

You take your medicine and move on.

7 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Viney got suspended for the optics, not the outcome, nor the intent. That’s whats important for the AFL. 

Nailed it, one week would have been consistent and fair based on previous incidents of serious misconduct. The extra week is because of the optics and the hoopla that followed when examined by the media pundits. I didn’t like it, I think is crossed a line so he deserved time of the sideline. But it seems inexplicable that one of the points of conjecture was where the impact was being felt on Collins, so why not have him provide some clarity?

The decision not to challenge says they don’t have any new evidence to provide. No point in wasting anyone’s time, shame he can’t get back to Melbourne early. Some time with the family could do his mind some good. 

Patrick Dangerfield should shut his pie hole on this one. 

6 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Patrick Dangerfield should shut his pie hole on this one. 

Was Dangerfield just as vocal with respect to Selwood's eye gouging?

#lookafteryourmates