Jump to content

Featured Replies

Best guess is 3 weeks (because he changed to not guilty)

would have got 2 weeks if maintained guilty plea, and admitted he was on the throat 

 
2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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

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.

Again, what Gleeson says isn't determinative of anything! He's arguing for the AFL, not setting the charge or defining it.

Gleeson submitted to the Tribunal what they should find. It turns out they've agreed with him, but when Gleeson gets up and says "this was contact to the throat", Viney was entitled to deny it.

There's no "spin" here and for you to suggest Anderson didn't "check" something is in my view seriously misplaced.

Given the shenanigans of this evening I’d say we are a good chance to challenge, with Collins as the star witness for the defence.

 
1 minute ago, 1964_2 said:

Best guess is 3 weeks (because he changed to not guilty)

would have got 2 weeks if maintained guilty plea, and admitted he was on the throat 

 

The Tribunal is entitled to conclude it was contact to the throat, given the footage and their impression of Viney and what he said today.

The Tribunal could also have penalised him for making contact only to the jaw, so it may not matter.

What might matter is if they give him 2 or more weeks for something that inconclusive (at least when I watch the footage, I don't know how anyone can tell that was contact to Collins' throat as opposed to jaw).


Collins instigated the tussle with Viney. He should testify and help sort this mess out

AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson says his proposed two-week ban was premised on Viney's guilty plea. He says the jury is at large but their penalty should not be less than two weeks. David Jones say the jury can attach what weight they wish to the initial guilty plea.

If viney seriously gets 2+ weeks for this then selwood will never be able to play again.

 

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

Again, what Gleeson says isn't determinative of anything! He's arguing for the AFL, not setting the charge or defining it.

Gleeson submitted to the Tribunal what they should find. It turns out they've agreed with him, but when Gleeson gets up and says "this was contact to the throat", Viney was entitled to deny it.

There's no "spin" here and for you to suggest Anderson didn't "check" something is in my view seriously misplaced.

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 

 

Regardless of what happens now, this stupid act from Viney has added unnecessary distraction to an already compromised preparation for a very important game. [censored] poor leadership. 

What Viney need to do was get up, drag Collins to the boundary line, climb the fence and drop the peoples elbow on him. It’s ok to elbow guys in the head.

2 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Again, what Gleeson says isn't determinative of anything! He's arguing for the AFL, not setting the charge or defining it.

Gleeson submitted to the Tribunal what they should find. It turns out they've agreed with him, but when Gleeson gets up and says "this was contact to the throat", Viney was entitled to deny it.

There's no "spin" here and for you to suggest Anderson didn't "check" something is in my view seriously misplaced.

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 


2 minutes ago, BDA said:

Collins instigated the tussle with Viney. He should testify and help sort this mess out

He should've been pinged for holding the man instead of stopping Viney from getting to the next contest illegally. None of this would've happened.

  • Author
2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Regardless of what happens now, this stupid act from Viney has added unnecessary distraction to an already compromised preparation for a very important game. [censored] poor leadership. 

?give it a rest mate.  

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Regardless of what happens now, this stupid act from Viney has added unnecessary distraction to an already compromised preparation for a very important game. [censored] poor leadership. 

That's a bit of an overreaction.


David Jones sounds sensible... Going to give weight to the guilty plea, despite the change and objections to the detail

1 week

Also, I have a few expired vouchers, perhaps he'll let me get a few new business shirts??

 

 
Just now, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Also, I have a few expired vouchers, perhaps he'll let me get a few new business shirts??

 

That might depend on the size of your neck (not unlike Sam Collins).


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

    • 39 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 252 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Like
    • 47 replies