Vipercrunch

They can't rank the impact of this one same as they ranked the Viney/Lynch one. It's just not possible. The whole system is just broken. I hope they take it on.

The team is crying out for the attributes that Blease possess (outside speed and finishing) but it doesn't sound like he warrants selection. I believe there is a spot with his name on it when and if he improves in whatever areas Roos is demanding of him.

Rapt for the kid and the game. Yes!!!

The letter of the law is "elect to bump". It is clearly those factors that are in question, not the impact. Did he have another reasonable alternative? You can't "elect" to do something if there are no alternatives or no time to execute those alternatives. Was it an actual bump or someone slowing down and bracing for unavoidable contact? The uproar is because so many people don't believe he had and a choice (did not "elect") and because it wasn't how most describe a bump. In most peoples view, even to the letter of the law he wasn't guilty. He was neither reckless, negligent or intentional in his actions. There is no "accidental" box which is how most people see the incident.

Would love the live Footy Show audience to boo and heckle Barrett throughout his segment. What could they possibly do about it? He is simply grandstanding and acting as though he is one of the enlightened few who really understand the rule but making himself look so disengaged from the general public. Arrogance and attention seeking at it's worst.

Re comments from Demetriou - Glad to read it. Still doesn't ensure a better outcome but certainly glad to read it.

If you want to read a terrible article on this matter try the one from The Australian which includes a lot of comments from Chad Wingard. Which is fine except Chad hasn't actually seen the incident.... Hmmmmm

They must emphasise and prove just how little time elapsed between the ball being truly 50:50, with the ball yet to bounce and both players intent on taking possession and the actual collision. Prove that there was not enough time to firstly react to that final bounce, sum up the likely outcome that Lynch takes possession, decide on an action to take that isn't a "bump" and execute that action. That period of time is so short that all that any player could be reasonably expected to do is self preservation. Also must argue that a bump is an action that involves acceleration towards the target and pushing into the target just before impact while a brace is a reaction that involves deceleration and all attempts to minimise the force of impact. The vision clearly shows Viney slowing down, getting low and trying to soften the impact. Any frame-by-frame footage must be shown with clear time elapse shown to highlight just how much occurred in such a short period of time and the expectations of decisions and executions of evasive manoeuvres are just ludicrous.

Not sure if its been said, but the Jude Bolton article in The Age is excellent.

The appeal will either let them show some common sense and throw it out OR it will force them rule that a broken jaw is more than medium impact and requiring a 4 week ban. Surely they couldn't say again that a broken jaw is medium. Would love to see the reaction of the football public if the ban jumps to 4 weeks. Not an ideal outcome for Jack or the MFC, but the bigger the foolishness, the bigger the fallout.

As a parent I would much prefer my child to play a game where the rules and interpretations are clear and consistently applied. Where if you play the game the way it has always been played and the way you have been trained to play, then you don't get whacked when accidents happen. These inconsistent and illogical outcomes will drive far more kids away from the game than accidents. We've lived with accidents for generations now and it's the biggest sport in the country. These misguided and unjust attempts to legislate against accidents is turning me away in a hurry.

Surely as well as hi-vis clothing and full body armour, the AFL have to make the ball round to eliminate the random nature of a bouncing oval shaped ball.

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.

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.

The rule is that if the player elects to bump, then they are responsible for any injury. The verdict shows that they believed that Viney did bump and had other options. Clearly they felt he should have either taken evasive action or stayed front on and being wiped out (not "bumped").

So Gleeson wanted Viney to step aside or spin to avoid the collision? Surprised he didn't suggest Viney should have squealed like a little girl as well.

What amazingly stupid comments. It was less than 1 second between the ball being 5 meters away from each player (and still bouncing meaning to could go any direction and at any pace) to the collision. He did not ELECT to bump. He didn't even bump. He collided with another player while chasing a bouncing oval shaped ball.Crawl back into a very, very deep hole ffs.

The onus is now for players to take evasive action to avoid contact or suffer the consequences. Please, please appeal.

Sounds like they are doing well. Step through the vision, explain what the thought process was, and highlight how quickly it changed from being a 50:50 ball to "oh crap" brace myself then play on. All happened so quick and at no time did his actions indicate he was bumping someone, just reacting to the bounce of the ball and proximity of the other players.

I took a whole bunch of screen grabs of the incident. 11:15 on clock. Ball is loose and bouncing, equal distance to Viney and Lynch (about 5 meters to each), but moving towards Lynch. A true 50:50 contest 11:15 on clock. Ball about to bounce for the last time, now closer to Lynch. Ball accelerates towards Lynch after this bounce. 11:15 on clock. Ball at Lynch (not in possession though). Viney about 2-3 meters away, turning towards the ball (on Lynchs right side/hip). 11:14 on clock. Collision occurs. 11:14 on clock. Players all on the ground. 11:13 on clock. Viney on his feet, ball in hands about to run away from the contest. Can anyone truly say that Viney made a decision to bump? And if so, why did he slow down considerably, shedding nearly all his momentum and not push off into the bump? Must get off.

I should have reworded he first bit as I focused further into the incident. It was only when the ball sat up on the last bounce did it become clear the Lynch would get to the ball first and have first chance to gather possession. I stand by what I said about Lynch not securing the ball at any stage and there being no where near enough time to attempt a tackle. Even in slow motion the time between the final bounce of the ball making it clear the ball was likely to be gathered by Lynch and the contact was very short.

The crux comes into whether he actually chose to bump and if he had an alternative to bumping. I watched the footage on the AFL website over and over and these are the key points IMO. Initially he is chasing a bouncing, loose ball at full speed. He has every right to do this. On the final bounce, the ball sits up and it only then becomes clear that Lynch will take possession before Viney does. (until then, the ball could have changed direction meaning Lynch could have missed it and Viney could have run on to it). Viney responds to this by slowing considerably and in that very short period (I would love to know exactly how long it is from when the ball last bounces and it becomes clear that Lynch will take possession and whent the contact is made - very short period of time) he braces for impact. In that short period of time, there is no way he could change direction to avoid the contact. At no stage did Lynch secure possession. The ball was still bobbling around when contact was made. When two people pursue a loose ball and reach it at a very similar time, a collision is inevitable. Lynch took possession of the ball and was propelled forward so he could not brace himself. Viney barely had time to brace for impact. Any change of direction for Viney was because he was following the ball, not because he was trying to bump. Would love to say that would be enough but history is against us.

I think the advice he received to retire from football had a lot to do with his medium to long term chance of getting his body right. Treatment for depression usually revolves around education and sometimes medication to help develop the patients ability to cope with their circumstances. In the short term the patient is removed as far as possible from those circumstances to allow this to occur. If the depression was related to excessive work stress, the patient would be advised to take time off or go on modified duties to give them room to heal. If Mitch's circumstances (his physical injuries) weren't likely to change any time soon, then the only real advice would be to make those injuries no longer matter as much. Now that he has retired, it doesn't matter as much if he can't perform on the field and can't justify his salary (which has been reported as a concern of his). His circumstance has changed and he can begin to learn to manage his depression.

Hmm, that's gonna get some replies... I've been thinking myself if "Bravery" is the right word for this action. Cowardly definitely is not the right one but is it brave to take the action that is recommended by your doctors and you put your health at the top of the priority list. Sure it's difficult and very public. Unprecedented perhaps, but brave? Just not sure if that's the right word, if there is a right word.

Jurrah, Schwarz, Jackovich, Clarke, Wonna, Lyon.... Haven't we been teased by some serious talent in the last decade or so only to see their careers cut short or seriously effected by injury or other circumstances. Arrrghhh!!!!!!! The first dozen or so games from Mitch were awesome for us. A real ray of sunshine in a pretty dark place. A wonderful mark and such a reliable set shot for goal. On top of that he was very dangerous with the ball on the ground. We all knew he was going to be wonderful for us as the midfield developed and he got some mates up forward to occupy the other defenders. And then... a rare foot injury, complications and a long term, frustrating stretch out of the game that combined with who knows what else away from the game and he is gone at 26. Arrrghhh!!!!!!!! When will it end?