ManDee

You are too kind. I hope they don't sleep at all. Cheats.

The fan has been rolled in and ASADA are about to tip a bucket of something that resembles Hird into it. Remember where you are when the show cause goes out, it will be like JFK - Lady Di - 911. The day that Essendon gets neutered. Can't wait.

Is Max Gawn injured?

Tick tick tick........

He doesn't eat Barretts, he sh1ts them.

Barrett has discovered an infallible contraceptive, his personality.

Damian Barrett at Eurovision.

Put down the sword, I am about to brace myself against your head.

Not tanking, "bringing the game into disrepute". I think it was in reference to Chris Connolly & "the vault meeting" and that Connoly's words may have brought the game into disrepute through innuendo I presume.

Common sense tells AFL fans that Viney should not be out for 2 weeks. The problem is fitting common sense into a matrix. The way to fix that is the entry point of the matrix or not fit the matrix. Changing bump to brace keeps Viney out of the matrix. No penalty possible.

My point is that an expert is required. That expert can make everyone happy.

The case rides on bump or brace. If the tribunal uphold the determination that Viney chose to bump we are in trouble. The tribunal need to change that one word to brace and Viney is off. The tricky bit is to change the interpretation of the incident from bump to brace without the media calling the AFL back flippers. It is a subtle difference but a world of difference. An expert is needed to argue that Viney braced himself for imminent impact not chose to bump. The AFL can use the expert as their way out, a clarification of terms that the previous tribunal did not have. The definition of brace must be carefully worded to avoid miss use in the future. Perhaps "to determine when a player has braced himself in an impact the arms are to be by the players side at point of impact, and the player is thrown backwards from the force of the impact." This would establish no intent to hurt and that the player is not putting more force into the impact than the opponent. It would also prove Viney innocent. Edit: This is a copy of my post in the Mark Evans must appeal thread.

The case rides on bump or brace. If the tribunal uphold the determination that Viney chose to bump we are in trouble. The tribunal need to change that one word to brace and Viney is off. The tricky bit is to change the interpretation of the incident from bump to brace without the media calling the AFL back flippers. It is a subtle difference but a world of difference. An expert is needed to argue that Viney braced himself for imminent impact not chose to bump. The AFL can use the expert as their way out, a clarification of terms that the previous tribunal did not have. The definition of brace must be carefully worded to avoid miss use in the future. Perhaps "to determine when a player has braced himself in an impact the arms are to be by the players side at point of impact, and the player is thrown backwards from the force of the impact." This would establish no intent to hurt and that the player is not putting more force into the impact than the opponent. It would also prove Viney innocent.

Patience grasshopper. The training is complete when you acquire patience.

Not possible he would have pirouetted out of the way. In fact he wouldn't have gone that hard at the ball, he would have waited till Lynch took possession, Georgiou tackled then the ball comes free then Watts would pick it up and dance away.

Simply a statement of fact. We all know it to be true, and he reinforces it on a daily basis.

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!

Can you imagine if Viney had actually maintained his speed and at the point of impact pushed up and into Lynch & locking his back leg? The injuries would have been horrendous. Viney absorbed the impact to lessen the damage. He could have really hurt Lynch and Georgiou and probably himself. He should be praised for his actions.

I am not a Barrett hater either. I am fairly ambivalent about him. I do think he is a terrible waste of oxygen though. If I want to listen to the opinion of idiots I could go to a Collingwood Carlton match.

The physics tells us where the greater force was coming from and it was not from Viney, he got knocked backwards.

VFL umpires wear dayglo orange. Kozy always had tunnel vision, he often got bumped or tackled from the side and did not see them coming. In his defence at the time VFL umpires would move to the boundary side after a bounce, the AFL umpires move towards the centre.

Maybe for outside mids, Tyson gets most of his possessions inside.

Might have been wrong!

Lynch does not take possession prior to impact - Viney cannot tackle. ( Some angles it looks like he does - he does not) Viney is virtually stopped, bracing for impact. Lynch hits Viney. Viney is knocked backwards as a result of the impact. Lynch's head hits Georgio's head both concussed. Should Lynch be charged with charging? No accident in play. Should Lynch be charged with head high contact on Georgio? No accident in play. Should Viney have been charged with rough conduct? No accident in play! Should Georgio be charged with head high contact? No accident in play. This is one of those cases where a set of circumstances results in an injury where no player has broken a rule. If Lynch had been uninjured and Viney been concussed would they charge Lynch? I say no, it was chain of legal events leading to an unfortunate outcome.

This is very important in my opinion. Had Viney continued at his earlier pace and actually bumped Lynch I fear that they may still be looking for the contents of Lynch's head.