Demonland

Nathan Schmook: In plain terms, Gleeson is arguing that the jury found this was a bump, who is the Appeals Board to find differently?

Comment From Matt How can the Tribunal's decision from Tuesday night be overturned? Do Melbourne FC need to prove that Viney did not bump? Nathan Schmook: They need to prove the Tribunal acted very unreasonably…. Comment From Guest the whole country thought the tribunal was unreasonable though

Nathan Schmook: A lot of legal speak unfolding here.

Gleeson is doing the Chewbacca Defence:

Nathan Schmook: So Gleeson is suggesting the peals Board will have to find the Tribunal's decision to be "so unreasonable" that no Tribunal acting reasonable would have come to that decision.

Nathan Schmook: "This was a decision that, in simple language, was reasonable for the jury to make." Gleeson

Nathan Schmook: Gleeson QC now making his case as AFL counsel.

Nathan Schmook: In a nutshell, Grace QC's point is that the Tribunal was unable to give Viney the benefit of the doubt on Tuesday night. He is suggesting that if there were two competitng arguments (bump land brace) and the jury was split 50-50, they needed t have the option to give the benefit of the doubt to Viney.

Nathan Schmook: If the jury couldn't dismiss a brace on the balance of probabilities, Grace is suggesting, the charge should have been overturned...

Nathan Schmook: It had to be one or the other on Tues night - a bump or a brace.

Nathan Schmook: Suggesting the jury wasn't able to find that a "brace" couldn't be dismissed on the balance of probabilities on Tues night.

Nathan Schmook: Grace QC suggesting the jury was not properly directed on Tuesday night.

Some idiot made this comment: Comment From Greg Nathan, I'm in support of the AFL, I think any instance a broken jaw occurs that the player MUST be sanctioned. For Tom's sake, he deserves the 2 weeks which is lenient.

Nathan Schmook: "Half a second is what he's been criticised for, in not pivoting or pirouetting to get away from the collision. Unrealistic…"

Nathan Schmook: DG "What occurred, and it's most unfortunate what occurred to Mr Lynch, but it was outside the control of Mr Viney."

Nathan Schmook: "What is submitted is the forceful contact to the head was caused by circumstances outside the control of Jack Viney." Nathan Schmook: "How could he reasonably foresee that?" DG

Nathan Schmook: DG "Why would one come to that finding when the result was a broken jaw?" We hired Columbo!!!

Nathan Schmook: DG: "This was a bracing action done to protect himself from what he was trying to avoid - injury of the kind that he feared would cause him much worse than what occurred." Nathan Schmook: Grace QC notes the Tribunal came down with a medium impact finding….

Comment From James Has Tom Lynch came out and said anything about this? Nathan Schmook: He's only just come out of hospital having two breaks repaired... Stop showing your bias Nathan.

Comment From Eric Entirely reasonable to go over the evidence submitted on Tuesday night to a new panel of jurors. Illustrating exactly why the verdict was unreasonable. Going by what Grace is saying, though, perhaps he should've been Viney's counsel on Tuesday night. Comment From Wayno Essentially they are saying it wasnt a bump it was just one player protecting himself from impact Nathan Schmook: That's the Melbourne case, Wayno

Nathan Schmook: We're seeing the vision in normal time now.

Some comments from the peanut gallery. Comment From Shafty I'd say the finding was unreasonable in that the tribunal misinterpreted what a bump actually is. Comment From Shetski Are they trying to argue it was unreasonable to judge it as a bump? Comment From kiel maybe they have to prove it wasn't even a bump to consider the decision unfair Comment From Ash I guess by arguing that it shouldn't have been classified a bump then they're headed towards proving it wasn't fair? Comment From Matt They are aren't they? They are basically stating that the conclusion the Tribunal came to was incorrect in determining it as a bump.

Nathan Schmook: I'd suggest what they're trying to establish is the Tribunal was wrong in deeming this a bump, for the purposes of the rough conduct (high bumps) rule. But the Tribunal had the option to find that on Tues night….

Comment From Glenn In the appeal, don't they have to prove the original tribunal came to an unreasonable verdict with the evidence put forth? This seems like a retrial? Nathan Schmook: Spot on, Glenn. So far they seem to be going over the Tuesday night case. They will need t prove the Tribunal was unreasonable in its decision based on the rules. I think Nathan works for the AFL. Mwwwwwuuuuhahahahahahaha.

Nathan Schmook: "And this, the Tribunal found, was a bump." Grace QC