Leaderboard

My son wanting to know where his Melbourne jumper was to wear to training tonight.

There are two ways to protest against the AFL's moronic decision to suspend Viney for two games. The first is to boycott Melbourne games. To me this is not an option because it will hurt our club more than the AFL. The best way is to boycott the sponsors of the AFL. But you need to tell them that you're doing it, send a message to the AFL that you will boycott their Corporate Sponsors in protest and then send a message to each one explaining why. Don't be aggressive, just tell them that whilst they sponsor the AFL you won't be using their products. This is the only way to make the AFL listen to the people that makes their large pay packets possible. Here is a link to the AFL's sponsors: http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/partners/corporate-partners For Toyota click on this link: http://www.toyota.com.au/email-us?enquiryType=Company For Gatorade: http://www.gatorade.com.au/contact-us.php Coca Cola: https://www.coca-cola.com.au/contact Carlton Draught: https://www.carltondraught.com/contact.php nab: https://ols.nab.com.au/onlineforms/...stions/f886746d-eef0-4cdb-8a22-28d657d8c7e9/1 The more people who do this the more impact there will be.

So far I have phoned Channel 7. They took my complaint and said it would be passed onto the Director of Sports. I said that as a family we would be boycotting AFL sponsors products Channel 7 programs & sponsors until the Viney penalty is removed. I have emailed AFL, Coca Cola, Telstra, Foxtel, Gatorade, Carlton United, NAB all basically the same message but specific to each of their products, more to come. I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!

Interesting post on BF forums: The appeal should be very very simple to make in fact. The Tribunal rules offer two circumstances under the Rough Conduct(High Bump) section, in which players will be found not guilty. One of these is: "The player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball;" Gleeson made the AFL's case that Viney had a duty of care which required him to avoid the contest. There is no such requirement in the rules. The AFL made no attempt to suggest that tackling was a realistic alternative to contest the ball, they suggested the alternative was avoiding the contest altogether. If the tribunal ruled on the basis that Viney had a duty to avoid the contest in order to fulfil his duty of care they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned.

There is a lot of rubbish being thrown around regarding this saga. First, we get morons like Damian Barrett who spurt the 'we have to protect the head' line. Of course we do, no one is debating that. It's not the policy of the AFL's that we're concerned with here, it's the implementation of that policy, and in particular, it's implementation in Viney's circumstances. For that reason Barrett's entire article is, like the rest of his pathetic existence, irrelevant. Second, we get those who say 'it's not Viney's fault, it's the rule'. Actually, I think the rule is relatively decent. It provides that if you elect to bump and you had a realistic alternative to bumping, then the onus is on you to avoid the head. That's fair, I think - if you are on the field, you have the option of bumping and the option of, for example, tackling, then if you make that decision to bump, and you hit a player in the head, then you should be penalised. Again, the issue is in the application of that rule to this situation - Viney did not 'elect' to bump. He 'elected' to brace himself for impact. The rule also provides that if you don't have a realistic alternative to bumping, then you can't be held liable for the consequences. The word 'realistic' gets lost in this debate. It's one thing to say he had alternatives - yes, theoretically he could have jumped, or he could have dropped to the ground to let Lynch run over him, or he could have leaped forward, or he could have pivoted, or whatever. But is any one of those options 'realistic'? Of course not. Realistically, he had no alternative course of action but to brace himself for impact given he and Lynch were running towards each other and the ball had bounced away from him. So I'm not upset at the wording of the rule, or the AFL's general policy to attempt to reduce head injuries. I'm upset at the way that rule has been implemented by the Tribunal, which IMO has got it unquestionably and unjustifiably wrong. The appeal ground, that the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to it given the evidence, is a high bar to clear. Very high. But it's designed to avoid decision-makers coming to conclusions that are pre-conceived or irrational. Here, the evidence before the Tribunal simply does not, in any manner, lend itself to the conclusion that Viney had a realistic alternative to contesting the ball. To me, that's sufficient to clear the bar, and that's without acknowledging that Viney didn't even bump, or elect to bump, in the first place. Except for, you know, the Trengove appeal. All of two years ago. Agreed - Hodge got off last year through a correct implementation of this rule. He had no realistic alternative. Unfortunately, the Tribunal (and, I suppose, the Appeals Board) do not operate on a model of precedent. It's a disgrace, it's something the AFLPA under Matt Finnis wanted changed, but it's how things are.

Following the Jack Viney suspension I managed to get my hands on the AFL's new advertising campaign, watch it here. http://youtu.be/DXjOunDKc8U

This is what the tribunal thinks Viney should have done. Seriously.

The club will be appealing on the grounds that “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it".

I have it on good authority we will be appealing the case and a QC lawyer will be taking it on and representing Viney. Stay tuned.

With the Jack Viney debacle taking some of the gloss off the win, I wanted to turn focus back to the positives. It's very hard to chose my favourite part from the win. Dawes' tackles, marks, goals, pumping up of Jack Watts. The two rookies' first quarter goals. Grimes' spoil(!) But my favourite thing, I reckon, did not even happen with time running. After Tyson's goal, the response he got from his teammates was electric and spine tingling. I haven't seen a response like that from Melbourne boys in what feels like a very long time, especially away from home against 40,000 opposition fans. Every player in the area showed such instant glee, it reminded me of how I fell in love with footy originally - watching players have fun, do well, and celebrate like nutters.

Ins: Riley, Clisby, Fitzpatrick Outs : Frawley (inj) Viney (persecuted) Byrnes (omitted)

I'd listen to Gerard Whateley over just about anyone else.

I say its all Lynch's fault, surely he should have just stepped out of the way !!

The rationale for declaring Viney guilty can only be either: (a) they think "I braced, I didn't bump" was an outright lie; or (b) they believe that bracing for contact is exactly equivalent to bumping - they're one and the same; if you brace for contact, it's now the same as bumping. If they chose (a), it's plain disgusting. If (b), it should be easily argued that it's an unreasonable and irrational to equate "bracing" with "bumping". Moreover, equating "bracing" (which happens several times a game) with "bumping" (which happens much less often) almost makes the game ungovernable in trying to determine what's acceptable & what isn't. It's insane having to decide on appeal without knowing the grounds for the decision.

Greetings from Rugby Leagues heartland. The Viney decision confirms the accusations of many followers from other codes that AFL is aerial ballet! The AFL is now free to develop this concept in a number of important areas. Firstly a whole new nomenclature is needed in order to "brand" the game and in future commentators will be mandated to use the following terms . Pirouetting, replaces the baulk, pas de deux is to be the modern terminology for the tackle now forbidden, and training will solely be en barre, backing out of packs, en derierre, speckies now become en l'air etc But ballet isn't the only form of dance the AFL embraces, goal post will now be bedecked with streamers and goal umpires will signal each goal with a dance round the Maypole. Of course funding will be under the auspices of the Ministry of the Arts although the AFL commissioners and their lackies will still need to retain their current sinecures. What a farce!

ANOTHER BLACK PINK DAY by Whispering Jack Wednesday: Last night the AFL Tribunal delivered an extraordinary verdict in the case against Jack Viney when it agreed with the prosecutor Jeff Gleeson's submission that the player should have avoided what was virtually the unavoidable contest. This made him guilty of failing to take a split second decision to pirouette away from a physical clash and, in other words, of showing courage on a sporting arena in front of more than 40,000 spectators and thousands more viewers on television and in other media. Wayne Schimmelbusch, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Henwood who made up the Tribunal and who must be named and shamed therefore relegated the sport from one in which courage and skill is its hallmark to one in which fear of making contact with an opponent is an imperative of the game and in doing so, ensured that it took only 15 months for the AFL to produce another black day in Australian sport. Viney's teammates will (pending a decision on an appeal) take the field on Saturday night with the responsibility of fulfilling his pledge not to change the way he plays, to attack the ball with ferocity and to never wave the white flag. That exercise should be left to the fans in the stands as a message to those who run the game and are seemingly intent on destroying it. A TOUCH OF PINK by Whispering Jack Thursday: The controversy over the Viney report has overshadowed what is a most commendable initiative by the clubs involved in the game - Field of Women - to highlight the battle against breast cancer. It also overshadows the fact that this encounter is one of vital importance to two struggling clubs which appear well out of contention for finals honours even at this stage but are desperately seeking victory to demonstrate to themselves, their supporters and the world at large that they're moving forward. The Bulldogs are seemingly at a distinct advantage in that they are free of concern from major injury worries or the distraction of controversy such as that which has been raging around Viney this week. Whilst they are sitting on a three game losing streak, their form hasn't been all that dismal and they could easily have come out in top in each of the last two encounters. They have the more experienced campaigners in their ranks. These teams met twice last year with honours even at one win each. The Demons in their second game under caretaker coach Neil Craig played their best game of the season at the MCG and held a massive seven goal lead halfway through the final term before running out of steam and almost ceding victory. In the return match at Etihad, a similar lapse in the second quarter gave the Bulldogs the initiative and the eventually ran out 20 point winners but they were certainly not convincing in their victory. However, what they did achieve in between those two matches was that they produced consistent performances including some wins against more fancied opponents. They had an emerging young midfield, a solid core of steady experienced hands including the likes of Griffin, Murphy and Cooney and were on the up and up. The Demons, on the other hand, were going nowhere. The emergence of a highly credentialed coach and the introduction of midfield depth and a playing strategy that is slowly starting to seep into the team's mindset is beginning to redress the many layers of on field deficiencies that once beset the Demons. Last week's game showed they have far greater leadership strength than they have had for a number of years. Nathan Jones continues to set the example around the ground, Jack Grimes is looking more at home leading a stable, revitalised defence and Chris Dawes has fired up the attacking division although it could do with one or two more players capable of scoring goals on a regular basis. I see Melbourne well ahead of the Western Bulldogs in defence as well as holding a slight advantage in attack and if the week's distractions are not allowed to influence the team, I expect it to make the MCG its own Field of Men on this special day and to bring home the four points for the first team as a home team, even if not in the truly traditional colours of the club. A touch of pink and Viney in the jumper will do the job nicely. THE GAME Melbourne v Western Bulldogs at the MCG Saturday 10 May, 2014 at 7.40 pm HEAD TO HEAD Overall Melbourne 84 wins Western Bulldogs 72 wins Drawn 1 At MCG Melbourne 44 wins Western Bulldogs 26 wins Past five years Melbourne 1 wins Western Bulldogs 4 wins The Coaches Roos 0 wins McCartney 0 wins MEDIA TV - Channel 7, Fox Footy Channel @ 7.30pm (live) RADIO - Triple M 3AW ABC THE BETTING Melbourne to win - $3.00 Western Bulldogs to win - $1.40 THE LAST TIME THEY MET Western Bulldogs 16.11.107 defeated Melbourne 13.9.87 Round 23, 2013 at Etihad Stadium The experience of the Bulldogs won out in the end and one of their best was Daniel Cross playing his last game in their colours. THE TEAMS MELBOURNE B: Neville Jetta, Tom McDonald, Dean Terlich HB: Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Jack Grimes C: Daniel Cross, Dom Tyson, Bernie Vince HF: Rohan Bail, James Frawley, Jack Watts F: Jeremy Howe, Chris Dawes, Cam Pedersen FOLL: Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones, Jack Viney I/C: Christian Salem, Shannon Byrnes, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Matt Jones EMG: Mitch Clisby, Max Gawn, Aidan Riley IN: Colin Garland OUT: Alex Georgiou WESTERN BULLDOGS B: Liam Picken, Tom Williams, Easton Wood. HB: Shaun Higgins, Dale Morris, Robert Murphy. C: Adam Cooney, Ryan Griffen, Jack Macrae. HF: Jake Stringer, Stewart Crameri, Tory Dickson. F: Luke Dahlhaus, Liam Jones, Daniel Giansiracusa. FOLL: Will Minson, Matthew Boyd, Tom Liberatore. I/C: Jason Tutt, Fletcher Roberts, Lachie Hunter, Jason Johannisen. EMG: Marcus Bontempelli, Brett Goodes, Michael Talia IN: Daniel Giansiracusa, Fletcher Roberts, Jason Tutt OUT: Marcus Bontempelli, Koby Stevens, Michael Talia THE STATISTICS: ROUNDS 1 to 7 by Sam the Stats Man The numbers are stacking up well for the Demons of 2014 - at least in comparison with 2013. They have come from being the worst side defensively to middle of the road. They have players in the top 10 for kicks (Bernie Vince), handballs (Daniel Cross), marks (James Frawley), disposals (Nathan Jones) and shepherds (surprisingly Neville Jetta). Another player of interest who is shining when it comes to the figures is Dom Tyson who has been impressive all round and is probably just a little behind Nathan Jones when it comes to favouritism for the Bluey at this point in time. Twenty year old Tyson has played just 20 games of AFL football and earlier this week, the Footy Classified panel looked at his statistics which measured up favourably against some of the current day stars of the game. He averages 18 handballs, 4.7 marks and 2.9 clearances per game, figures that eclipse Chris Judd, Brett Deledio, Brendan Goddard and Garry Ablett Junior in every caterory by a decent margin at the same stage of their respective careers. The signs are pointing in the right direction statisticall heres my regular run through of the list to date. BAIL, Rohan MFC 7 games, 3 goals. Has made an excellent recovery from the concussion issues that affected him in the past couple of seasons and has become an important contributor to the team. BARRY, Dom CSFC 3 games, 0 goals. Some injury and form issues are slowing his development at Casey. BLEASE, Sam CSFC 5 games, 3 goals. Battling to show the form necessary to gain promotion from the VFL. BYRNES, Shannon MFC 5 games, 5 goals, CSFC 1 game, 3 goals. Has had his moments near goals. CLARK, Mitch (retired). CLISBY, Mitch CSFC 5 games, 1 goal. Getting close to promotion from the VFL. CROSS, Daniel MFC 7 games, 0 goals. A strong contributor either in the midfield or in run with roles. DAWES, Chris MFC 4 games, 8 goals. A team lifter since resuming his place in the team. DUNN, Lynden MFC 7 games, 3 goals. Has stepped up and is producing consistent performances in both defence and occasionally in attack. EVANS, Michael MFC 3 games, 1 goal, CSFC 2 games 1 goal. In between the senior and Casey team as he strives for consistency. FITZPATRICK, Jack MFC 3 games, 0 goals, CSFC 3 games 4 goals. Concussed early in the opening game of the season and, Fitzpatrick was unable to reproduce the form that made him a promising tall prospect last year. FRAWLEY, James MFC 7 games, 5 goals. Has had his moments but lacked consistent form. Now battling a toe injury. GARLAND, Colin CSFC 3 games 1 goal, CSFC DL1 game 0 goals. Recovering from pre-season surgery and after four weeks at Casey is ready to resume his place in the senior side. GAWN, Max CSFC 3 games, 0 goals. Another trying to break into the senior side after an injury-interrupted pre-season. GEORGIOU, Alexis ® MFC 7 games, 0 goals. Promoted from the rookie list, Georgiou has made the most of the opportunities presented to him and has played every game in the AFL team. GRIMES, Jack MFC 7 games, 0 goals. Seems comfortable on return to defence. HARMES, James ® CSFC 3 games 0 goals, CSFC DL1 game 1 goal. Was showing promise at Casey until a punctured lung stopped him in his tracks. HOGAN, Jesse (injured - yet to play). HOWE, Jeremy MFC 7 games, 1 goal. Struggled up forward but relishing games down back. HUNT, Jayden CSFC 4 games, 0 goals, CSFC DL 1 game 0 goals. Finding his feet with the Scorpions. JAMAR, Mark MFC 2 games, 1 goal, CSFC3 games, 2 goals. Has made a good return to the ruck after a long period on the injury list. JETTA, Neville ® MFC 3 games, 0 goals, CSFC 2 games 2 goals. Great last up game on Eddie Betts could be the turning point. JONES, Matthew MFC 7 games, 1 goal. Quiet and unassuming but puts in every week. JONES, Nathan MFC 7 games, 3 goals. The heart and soul of the Demons. KENNEDY-HARRIS MFC 7 games, 4 goals. An exciting prospect who is so clean with his disposal. KENT, Dean MFC 2 games, 1 goal, CSFC 1 game, 0 goals. Was showing something when injured and was reported in his first game back. KING, Max ® CSFC 2 games 0 goals, CSFC DL 1 game 2 goals. Young lightly built rookie ruckman set to miss another month with injury. McDONALD, Tom MFC 7 games, 0 goals. Solid emerging defender. MCKENZIE, Jordie MFC 2 games, 0 goals, CSFC 3 games, 1 goal. Desperate to get back into the side after an early form setback. MICHIE, Viv MFC 2 games, 0 goals, CSFC 1 game 0 goals. Broken jaw has kept him out in recent weeks. NICHOLSON, Daniel CSFC 5 games, 1 goal. Unable to break into the senior team. PEDERSEN, Cameron MFC 7 games, 2 goals. Much improved this season. RILEY, Aidan CSFC 5 games, 0 goals. Coming back from a long term injury, Riley has impressed with his strong tackling at Casey. SALEM, Christian MFC 2 games, 2 goals, CSFC 3 games, 3 goals. Impressing in the very early stage of his career. SPENCER, Jake MFC 5 games, 0 goals. Played a lion-hearted role in the ruck in the early games only to suffer injury. STRAUSS, James CSFC 4 games, 1 goal. Another returning from injury and unable to break back into the AFL team. TAPSCOTT, Luke CSFC 2 games, 0 goals. Injury-riddled in the preseason and just finding his feet again. TERLICH, Dean MFC 7 games, 2 goals. Steady in defence. TOUMPAS, Jimmy MFC 2 games, 2 goals, CSFC 5 games, 0 goals. Went back to Casey and working hard on his game. TRENGOVE, Jack MFC 2 games, 0 goals, CSFC 2 games, 1 goal. Broken navicular ended his season. TYSON, Dom MFC 7 games, 3 goals. A great acquisition for the club and a potential future star. VINCE, Bernie MFC 7 games, 1 goal. Going great guns in the club's revitalised midfield. VINEY, Jack MFC 5 games, 2 goals. This future leader has shown great bravery and courage. WATTS, Jack MFC 7 games, 5 goals. Sometimes unfairly maligned but there are some positive signs. WESTRUPP, Maia ® CSFC DL 4 games, 0 goals. International rookie still learning the ropes in the development league.

Watching Christian Salem throw the ball onto his boot for a great goal in the first quarter against Adelaide reminded me of Geoff Tunbridge. Geoff kicked like that EVERY time and the ball would seemingly miraculously pass between the big posts. He could only kick with his left foot but always seemed to find the time to get himself into position to kick his very wobbly, looping goals. Yes, he would just throw the ball towards his boot and the result more times than often was the perfect one. Uglier goals you would never see BUT we Demon supporters thought they were just beautiful. We are on the way back thanks to Roos and our fantastic recruiting. Go Dees.

Simple really, the club should not have to deal with this. The AFL must step in. Time to earn your money Mark Evans lets see if you are a man or a politician.

How long until someone does a hitler voice over of this incident?

I was once a regular reader of the defunct Demonology web site , but finally refused to open it up again because of the incessant and banal arguments between the same protagonists . Sadly I suspect those same belligerents are making a home and a 'scene' regularly on this site. Let's just attack the argument , not the man, children!!

The Tribunal rules offer two circumstances under the Rough Conduct(High Bump) section, in which players will be found not guilty. One of these is: "The player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball;" Gleeson made the AFL's case that Viney had a duty of care which required him to avoid the contest. There is no such requirement in the AFL rules, voiding the ruling made by the tribunal from all legal perspectives. The AFL made no attempt to suggest that tackling was a realistic alternative to contest the ball, they suggested the alternative was avoiding the contest altogether. If the tribunal ruled on the basis that Viney had a duty to avoid the contest in order to fulfil a duty of care which does not exist in any existing AFL rule, it is black and white; they ruled incorrectly and it should be overturned, as Viney has contested the ball with no realistic alternative. Pivoting his foot and avoiding the contest is contrary to the aforementioned code. The tribunal did not state any scientifically proven alternatives for Jack to CONTEST the ball, nullifying their decision. Avoiding contact is not contesting the ball and thus a contradiction of the very code the tribunal is meant to rule from.

Club appealed, super happy, that's an extra $200 from me to the club, small beer for some, but i'm going to get 3 more people to sign up as members before QB as well.

I reckon Jude Bolton has just installed himself as the favourite for the Apprentice coaching gig under Paul Roos, based on his article in 'The Age'.

Anyone who boycotts this or the Melbourne game because of Viney is a disgrace. The best form of protest is to attend the game.

Interesting article in The Age indicating that Gleeson seemed to be on our side and was more playing devils advocate. He openly said he would understand if it was decided it wasn't a bump, and once it came back guilty then openly suggested it one week would probably be enough. It seems the panel is the real bunch of either just straight out idiots or puppets of someone else's agenda. Still mad as hell. I hate injustice and I hate when logic goes on holiday. Damn I'm angry.

They call it the soft box at the AFL, the word hard has been removed.

Same crap, different year. Happy to call the game AFL now. Aussie Rules it ain't.

I've got half a mind to come dressed in swathes of bubble wrap and a tutu. Can you picture me twirling delicately through the crowds as I try not to make contact with anyone around me?

QUIET YOU FOOL! They might read this, the MRP has ears everywhere...

New @AFL approved book released featuring @Jackviney7 #freeviney

Barrett works for the AFL. He's going to trot out the company line - which in the Viney case is utter codswallop

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-luke-hodge-wins-tribunal-challenge-against-rough-conduct-charge/story-fni5f8ge-1226664950294 Just last year Luke Hodge uses pretty much the same defense Viney did. Jeff Gleeson SC asks Hodge if he'd do the same thing if a Hawthorn player was in his way. He said he would. It's similar line of questioning to the Viney spin out of the way questions. 2 of the tribunal members sat on both cases (Henwood and Dunne) Yet the result was different. Makes you wonder if they got specific instructions

I just re-signed up my two girls, despite their total lack of interest...

I like it. But I will say, this appeal adds to the culture change at Melbourne. In my lifetime, MFC have whimpered....AFL or others have barked... MFC have walked away with tail between legs. Groundhog day? Groundhog year. Even if Viney gets another week, it shows the club will back the player (who is in the right), no matter what. Additionally it shows a bit more that it stands for something. This hasn't happened for several reasons, and culture has to be implicit in that. The AFL don't want this appeal. It keeps Viney in the headlines; twitter going nuts, invites more comment. This appeal strikes at the common-sense and integrity of Moose Henwood, Goose Shimma, and Emmett Dummett.

Misses the point completely

I feel that the club must take a strong stand against the stupidity of last night's decision, regardless of the whether there is little or no chance of having the decision changed. It is an outrage, and meekly accepting it would go against the grain of everything we have gained since the appointment of Paul Roos. We need to stand up and be counted. With the wide support of the football public the AFL would have to be seriously embarrassed by the whole thing. Could you imagine Eddie accepting such an outcome if it was a Collingwood player? When you compare this with the elbows to the head dished out by Gibson and several others last week that 'got off', it shows how farcical the whole judicial process is.

If Lynch was roughly upright his shoulder would have gone into Viney's head as he is much taller than Viney. It was Georgiou's tackle dragging Lynch down which caused Viney to connect with Lynch. If the proscecutor, Gleeson, can mount the side-step argument surely our legal team can demonstrate it was the tackle, which Viney could not have seen nor aniticpated as his eyes were on the ball. Bit surprised our legal people didn't highlight this to the Tribunal. Hate to say it but feel a bit let down by our legal reps last night. ps Regardless of the appeal outcome this is my last word on this sad and sorry episode.

Appealing! Good work MFC.

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a pre-determined outcome. I think the AFL are scared of increased junior involvement in soccer and don't want parents pushing their young kids to play soccer as it's a safer game. As part of this they would be extremely keen for any indicent that results in a serious facial injury to be punished. They wouldn't want an incident that results in a broken jaw to be deemed to be part of the game as this sends the message to the parents that their kids could suffer the same fate as part of the game. This is the only way I can justify the decision - otherwise how can three members of the jury have views so divergent from the wider footy public, including coaches, players, past players, supporters and journalists? It's astonishing and beggars belief. The only people I have head support this decision is Damo 'I judge players without having seen them play' Barrett and our good mate and commentary icon "The Firestarter". The fact that this decision has caused so much outrage clearly shows the view of the wider footy public. We need to appeal this and not meekly cop it.

Managed to sneak the Terlich out again I see, I asked Dean about this at training on Tuesday, he says he knows you will never forgive him but he is ever so sorry he ran over your cat

Corey Dell'Ollio got sighted off the video and got 3 weeks for rough conduct for contact with Michie which broke his jaw.

The AFL must have a good hard look at themselves here. They run the risk of being the laughing stock of the sporting world. Not only is the decision laughable, it's dangerous. They speak about duty of care but fail to consider the ramifications for Viney had he not protected himself. The only way he could have avoided the contact was to have made a decision not to go after the hard ball. Do they want that stat to disappear from the game? Does contested possession become the next casualty. What will happen if Jeremy Howe collects somebody's head during his next big mark? Goodbye to the specky? My oh my. FMD.

On a side note, I also can't stand that they ranked this as medium impact. A 4-6 week injury just has to be ranked as severe. The punishment was determined before the event , and then they have made themselves look like even bigger fools by calling it medium impact to reach the 2 weeks. Pathetic and spineless.

The song being played around Adelaide oval after the game

Well done, very clever. What are you going to do, storm his chambers?

Four years ago, but yes. In that case the MRP used their discretionary powers to determine that there was no case to answer and it never went to the tribunal. Why they didn't do the same this time is beyond me, and the basis for my repeated claims of cowardice and moral bankruptcy on their part. THey lacked the courage to make that call and instead passed it on to the tribunal, who have gifted us this travesty.

Wearing black arm bands is a way of showing respect for the death of a club great or friend. As outraged as I am about the Viney decision, it does not come anywhere close to death.

Jack Viney ‏@jackviney7 4m Disappointing outcome tonight but I really appreciate everyone's support! Many kind messages. Don't stress Dees fans, I won't change!