1 minute ago, In Harmes Way said:

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

#lookafteryourmates

‘Not a good look’- the lowest common denominator statement about JV atm.  Spot on - where was the commentary re Selwood?  Shouldn’t he comment on behalf of the players, not sink the boot?  

19 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Patrick Dangerfield should shut his pie hole on this one. 

The Age has written:

Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game.  

“I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN.

“It’s an ugly look, there’s no doubt about it. Jack plays on the edge, he’s an aggressive player, but I also believe him to be a fair player as well. I don’t think we should hang him out to dry.

“He’s copped his whack, he’ll no doubt be disappointed and we all move on and learn from it as a code and individually, and we get better from it.” 

I dislike Danger intensely but I don't have much of a problem with his comments in this instance.  Jack did say at the Tribunal that it wasn't a good look for the game so no problem with that part of Dangers' comment.  Yes, he said 2 weeks was about right and we would all disagree.  

But, I like what seems to be genuine praise for Jack, which I have bolded.  Hopefully, that quietens the idiots saying it should be 3 or 4 weeks.

Edited August 4, 20213 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Dangerfield and Riewoldt both gobbing off, absolutely wankers the both of them.

12 hours ago, Pates said:

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. 

The media reporting and punditry of the incident ensured he would be suspended. Normally if a big name name player is reported, the facts are stated dryly, emotion is checked, seeds of doubt are planted and presumption of innocence are aired. In Viney’s case the immediate reporting was of outrage, high emotion, George Floyd comparisons and inference of unimpeachable guilt mostly because it looked bad even though nothing of consequence really happened. 
The AFL duly sensed the vibes and basically ensured the outcome would be a suspension never mind lack of convincing evidence and making a mockery of presumption of innocence. A classic Kangaroo Court and Viney never had much hope to make his case. In the end the AFL didn’t want to be the target of the following media wrath if they cleared him. The club were also ready to let the issue rest because they don’t the need a drawn out distraction at this stage of the season. 

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

20 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

The comments coming from the media didn’t give Viney a chance

Was always going to happen, making an example of a player from a low profile club

No point appealing we’re  not Geelong or Sydney

2 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

The media reporting and punditry of the incident ensured he would be suspended. Normally if a big name name player is reported, the facts are stated dryly, emotion is checked, seeds of doubt are planted and presumption of innocence are aired. In Viney’s case the immediate reporting was of outrage, high emotion, George Floyd comparisons made and inference of unimpeachable guilt. The AFL duly sensed the vibes and basically ensured the outcome would be a suspension never mind lack of convincing evidence and making a mockery of presumption of innocence. A classic Kangaroo Court and Viney never had much hope to make his case. In the end the AFL didn’t want to be the target of the following media wrath if they cleared him. The club were also ready to let the issue rest because they don’t the need the distraction at this stage of the season. 

I haven't seen or heard any George Floyd comparisons but it is absolutely relevant to make them. Viney's actions need to be condemned precisely because we don't want professional or amateur players doing what Viney did and assuming no physical harm can come from it. It doesn't take much for something to go horribly wrong and leave the victim with permanent damage.

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I haven't seen or heard any George Floyd comparisons but it is absolutely relevant to make them. Viney's actions need to be condemned precisely because we don't want professional or amateur players doing what Viney did and assuming no physical harm can come from it. It doesn't take much for something to go horribly wrong and leave the victim with permanent damage.

OK, next time a player in a fight applies a headlock(strangle hold) to an opponent for about 5 seconds will we see a suspension? There are many players that almost lost consciousness in headlocks. The action can apply dangerous  pressure to breathing and blood flow to the brain. Not even reportable or free kick worthy. 

 

 

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Age has written:

Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game.  

“I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN.

“It’s an ugly look, there’s no doubt about it. Jack plays on the edge, he’s an aggressive player, but I also believe him to be a fair player as well. I don’t think we should hang him out to dry.

“He’s copped his whack, he’ll no doubt be disappointed and we all move on and learn from it as a code and individually, and we get better from it.” 

I dislike Danger intensely but I don't have much of a problem with his comments in this instance.  Jack did say at the Tribunal that it wasn't a good look for the game so no problem with that part of Dangers' comment.  Yes, he said 2 weeks was about right and we would all disagree.  

But, I like what seems to be genuine praise for Jack, which I have bolded.  Hopefully, that quietens the idiots saying it should be 3 or 4 weeks.

Agree there was nothing malice in his comment nor was he having a crack at Viney. Dangerfield is always the first to support players in the industrie, especially in his current role as AFLPA.

I do honestly believe in hindsight if Viney had his time again, he wouldn't do it. It was silly no doubt, but you're never going to reprogram someone who's played right on the edge all his life.

Just has to learn from it and move on now.

The only positive I take out of this is that it gives Viney a break to freshen up before finals especially with his lingering foot problems.

Will be cherry ripe and hungry for finals.

21 hours ago, McQueen said:

Accepted the two.

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

Rubbish outcome.

l suspect they were expecting 1 week that would give jack a chance to freshen up before finals .. 2 isn't ideal but he will still have a week back before finals which he is made for

19 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

OK, next time a player in a fight applies a headlock(strangle hold) to an opponent for about 5 seconds will we see a suspension? There are many players that almost lost consciousness in headlocks. The action can apply dangerous  pressure to breathing and blood flow to the brain. Not even reportable or free kick worthy. 

 

 

Should be both. 

I've said previously that the whole MRO/Tribunal/Appeal framework needs to be redeveloped. I don't just mean the process and the people involved, but a full review of its purpose (is it to punish players? educate players? does it have a responsibility to set precedents for the broader football community? should it protect the AFL's image? etc) It seems to me there continues to be divergent views and much mixed messaging as seen by the discussion about the Viney case in this thread. 

That goes on the whiteboard if Viney comes back for the cats game.  

Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game.  

“I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN.

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Age has written:

Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game.  

“I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN.

“It’s an ugly look, there’s no doubt about it. Jack plays on the edge, he’s an aggressive player, but I also believe him to be a fair player as well. I don’t think we should hang him out to dry.

“He’s copped his whack, he’ll no doubt be disappointed and we all move on and learn from it as a code and individually, and we get better from it.” 

I dislike Danger intensely but I don't have much of a problem with his comments in this instance.  Jack did say at the Tribunal that it wasn't a good look for the game so no problem with that part of Dangers' comment.  Yes, he said 2 weeks was about right and we would all disagree.  

But, I like what seems to be genuine praise for Jack, which I have bolded.  Hopefully, that quietens the idiots saying it should be 3 or 4 weeks.

Sorry I don't think thugs like Dangerfield should be commenting on this matter. It seems to me that the Sporting Press, such as it is, tries to whitewash its favorite thugs  so that they can be elevated to "idyllic sportsmen" after retirement. As they can no longer portray them as loveable rogues, like Jack Dyer, if they can ignore the continual thuggery that marked their playing days and call for their expert comments, usually with a touch of outrage, when the next generation tries to maim someone on field in the future.

38 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Just has to learn from it and move on now.

You mean learn from it like he’s learnt from his HTB episodes? I don’t think Jack learns anything very quickly.

But let’s hope he does.

25 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

That goes on the whiteboard if Viney comes back for the cats game.  

Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game.  

“I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN.

Hopefully gives Jack & the team a bit of incentive to smash Geelong twice in the next 6 weeks 

The arrogance of Dangerfield potting opposition players  & not his own serial offender of a captain is typically Geelong 

44 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Should be both. 

I've said previously that the whole MRO/Tribunal/Appeal framework needs to be redeveloped. I don't just mean the process and the people involved, but a full review of its purpose (is it to punish players? educate players? does it have a responsibility to set precedents for the broader football community? should it protect the AFL's image? etc) It seems to me there continues to be divergent views and much mixed messaging as seen by the discussion about the Viney case in this thread. 

How penalties and justice is dispensed by the AFL is mostly media driven. If the media suddenly trotted out experts to highlight the very real dangers of lingering headlocks and made a strong case then the AFL would be compelled to take action.

 

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by John Crow Batty

I do think it’s a bit rich for Dangerfield to be talking about something not being a “great look”, when he’s managed to get off from eye gouging which is one of the dirtiest actions you can see on a footy field. 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I haven't seen or heard any George Floyd comparisons but it is absolutely relevant to make them. Viney's actions need to be condemned precisely because we don't want professional or amateur players doing what Viney did and assuming no physical harm can come from it. It doesn't take much for something to go horribly wrong and leave the victim with permanent damage.

George Floyd comparisons shouldn't be made and if they are, they before a misunderstanding of the George Floyd situation.

A policeman used his position of power as a way to injur, humiate and eventually kill a human for whom he had a duty of care. In addition, the particular police civilian relationship is fraught with racism and other issues related to social inequality. George Floyd was pinned for nearly 9 minutes in a clear abuse of power, and it cost him his life.

 

Jack Viney stuffed up. It presented a risk of injury, sure. It looks terrible. I am ok with that act being banned and a suspension resulting. But he was effectively wrestling with someone who pulled him in, and applied pressure for 5 seconds in the heat of that 2-sided confrontation before moving on. There was no power distance, no imbalance, no indifference [censored] to race or social status.

 

The only time the incidents should be compared is to point out they are not related.

3 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

You mean learn from it like he’s learnt from his HTB episodes? I don’t think Jack learns anything very quickly.

But let’s hope he does.

Yeah look I agree..

1 hour ago, deanox said:

George Floyd comparisons shouldn't be made and if they are, they before a misunderstanding of the George Floyd situation.

A policeman used his position of power as a way to injur, humiate and eventually kill a human for whom he had a duty of care. In addition, the particular police civilian relationship is fraught with racism and other issues related to social inequality. George Floyd was pinned for nearly 9 minutes in a clear abuse of power, and it cost him his life.

 

Jack Viney stuffed up. It presented a risk of injury, sure. It looks terrible. I am ok with that act being banned and a suspension resulting. But he was effectively wrestling with someone who pulled him in, and applied pressure for 5 seconds in the heat of that 2-sided confrontation before moving on. There was no power distance, no imbalance, no indifference [censored] to race or social status.

 

The only time the incidents should be compared is to point out they are not related.

Fair points. My reason for saying the comparison is fair to make, though, is not because of what Viney did but what other people might do. We know suburban and amateur football can be violent. A player who copies what Viney was doing may not appreciate the nuances of duty of care and press on another player's neck for too long depriving oxygen to the brain. That's why I think it's not unreasonable to bring George Floyd into the conversation. 

I appreciate others may think my view is an over-reaction, but I'd rather err on the side of safety.

  

So Adrian Anderson stuffs the MFC once again.

You'd think they would have learned their lesson.

Amateur hour.

An insight from this game (what my 12-year old daughter would call a 'true fact')  - Sam Collins topped the stats for Percentage Time On Ground!

5 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

How penalties and justice is dispensed by the AFL is mostly media driven. If the media suddenly trotted out experts to highlight the very real dangers of lingering headlocks and made a strong case then the AFL would be compelled to take action.

This is the very reason why once upon a time, TV & radio were not permitted to show/talk about reported incidents.

But of course, the mighty money making machine, ie TV, has decreed that we even get to hear the umpires blathering to the players. So of course we see every incident over and over, from every angle, and the "expert" commentators, usually undistinguished by any "expertise" one would suppose was lent them by their on-field experience, crap on and on, free from any restraint, self discipline, or independence from club allegiances.

Not to mention the umpires never report anyone anyway, having been neutered by a succession of umpires directors, in turn compromised by their buy-in to the AFL concept of rule "interpretations" and umpiring "to keep the game flowing".

Does all the extra vision & microphones add to the viewing experience?

Not to me. (I watch with the sound off anyway.) I prefer the old system.

5 hours ago, Pates said:

I do think it’s a bit rich for Dangerfield to be talking about something not being a “great look”, when he’s managed to get off from eye gouging which is one of the dirtiest actions you can see on a footy field. 

Beggin' yor pardon, sorr, but Dangerfield has achieved the coveted status of "good bloke", which brings immunity from charges of thuggery and hypocrisy.

You're probably married to concepts like "justice", "fairness", "precedent", "level playing field" and other quaint notions which have no place in the degraded & corrupted sporting competition known as the AFL.

23 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

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.

Agree with all of this. I'd like to see all jumper punches (off the ball hits to the chest with an open/closed hand to the chest) automatically receive 1 week. It is not a good look and should be stamped out of the game. Further, eye gouges and head punches such as Selwood earlier this year should receive a suspension irrespective of medical report and injury based on the threshold that they are deemed unsportsmanlike.

This is an opportunity for the AFL to set the standard for all off ball / out of play actions that are a poor look.

Edited August 5, 20213 yr by chookrat