RalphiusMaximus

I think we need to take another angle on this issue. I think that this is actually proof that the AFL is right in their obsessive protection of the head. Here we have three former players who have demonstrated their complete and utter lack of basic reasoning skills. I say bravo the AFL for picking up on the issue and taking steps to address it.

Twitter is blowing up here.

I'll happily chip in for the $5000 for the appeal. I'm sure other fans will as well.

Agree, the second part is the big issue. No reasonable person, on being presented with the evidence, could make that ruling. Clearly there has been a miscarriage of justice and an appeal must be lodged.

This is an utter disgrace, but is anyone really surprised? We know the system is broken and drastically slanted against the player.

Anyone in need of venting their fury, can I suggest the three members of the jury might be interested in your opinion? That's Wayne Henwood, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch. I'm sure they have a presence online somewhere that can be contacted.

Take it to court.

Guilty. Bastards.

Should use Luke Darcy. He repeatedly beat charges at the tribunal representing himself.

I think it's got to do with the way they train them now to "put the head over the ball." Once upon a time players were taught how to come at a contest in a way that would both allow them to get the ball and protect themselves. Since they changed the rules to give free kicks to the player who dives in head-first, players have stopped taking that approach and charge in full-frontal secure in the knowledge that even if they don't win the ball they're likely to get a free kick. The rare player who does it the right way (such as Viney) finds himself being penalised and even booked for being the only player in the pack to do things correctly.

They've been doing it that way for a while now and it makes them look ridiculous. To be consistent, they should also be penalising players who cause other injuries through tackles, bumps etc. Why are we not seeing someone up before the tribunal every time an ACL snaps? That's a much more serious injury than a broken jaw.

Wojo got one week. They argued that due to the upcoming byes for the Geelong reserves any more than one week would amount to 4-6 weeks of no play with the byes added in, so the panel decided to reduce the penalty. The player would be fined for umpire contact of course.

Newman as well. That's 50% of the class in their side gone.

I watched both games (as no doubt did many). Langdon was good, but JHK was better. The difference is that Langdon played on the Friday night blockbuster.

The issue I have with that claim is that the MRP did have another option. They could have straight-out said that there was nothing in the incident. He wasn't reported at the time, so there is absolutely no onus on them to even look at the incident, much less penalise him over it. If someone is claiming that the MRP don't have discretion to say "nothing to see here" then the alternative is that their formula has to be applied to every bit of contact that occurs in every game, resulting in pretty much every player getting suspended in round 1 since every contact made during a match would attract points if it were to be assessed.

So why hasn't Talia been cited as well? His little push on Watts resulted in a serious back injury that forced Watts from the field and may well see him miss a game. You can clearly see him throw a reckless arm at Watts at about 18:33 in the second quarter.

We all know that it was beautifully executed football, the problem is that Trengove's tackle on Dangermouse was a perfectly executed tackle as well. The tribunal and MRP have a long history of ignoring their own rules and hitting players with over the top penalties to make a statement. They do this to players from "weaker" clubs who have less access to media to make a fuss over the inconsistency. This case has all the hallmarks of being another such occasion, so all the logical analysis of the incident in the world is not enough to make me confident that they are not going to throw the book at young Jack and give him a month-long holiday. Incidentally, has anyone else noted that they tent to target Jacks with these beat-ups? Jack Trengove, Jack Ziebel, Jack Viney...

So you're saying that if the ball is 20m away players are not to try to win it? It was a loose ball and he had every right to charge in and win it, which is exactly what he did. I generally think what it means is that the MRP want a certain outcome but are too cowardly to take the heat they know will come from actually making the call themselves. In this case, they want Viney rubbed out, they know the sort of response it will draw, so they figure they can have it both ways by passing the buck to the tribunal and letting them take the heat.

Just finished watching the game and it was even better than I expected. I was really impressed with how hard the team fought it out in the last quarter. A few thoughts: Watts was so much better than the past few weeks. He really did put in the effort to chase, tackle and generally pressure them. JKH was insanely good for a player in his seventh game. Jetta still doesn't think before kicking, but his defensive game was great. Tom McDonald continues to grow as the primary defender with Frawley playing in the forward line. Dawes is earning his pay. His work was brilliant all night, as was his leadership. Viney was a steal. There is no way we should have gotten him for a second round pick. Awesome player. Salem still needs to get his head around the speed and rhythm of the game at this level, but the class is there. We had no passengers this week. Very happy with this game, even if it was the only one I got wrong for the round.

There are a few guys who would be considered automatic selections normally who are waiting int he wings right now, but why would you change the team that won in Adelaide for the first time in twelve years? If Viney goes out we bring in one of the mids, otherwise no change.

The MRP has a long and diabolical history of punishing for the injury rather than the action. This wouldn't stand up in a real court, but sadly the AFL gets to run it's little kangaroo court sideshow without being held to any realistic legal standards. They have repeatedly said that if you bump and the player is injured you will go, regardless of whether or not the bump was legally executed. Even if they were to decide that the height wasn't an issue, the fact that the player has a broken jaw more or less guarantees that they will go for him. I think that his best hope is to deny that it is a bump at all and say that they were both going for the ball and he simply turned his body and braced, which is of course the correct way to attack the ball in that situation. I seriously doubt that this will be enough to avoid sanction (see again the Ziebel case), but it may get him a little less time off.

Sadly, I think that's head-high contact right there.

Actually, if you look at the footage his shoulder does hit Lynch's head. The real question is whether they regard it as a bump or incidental contact while they are all going for the ball. Of course, going for the ball isn't a defence according to the Ziebel suspension.

MMM had him in the top three on the ground.

I would say a lot depends on whether they view his action as a deliberate bump or bracing for the impact while going for the ball. As Stated above, they take the line that if a player chooses to bump and an injury results they will be suspended, so if they look at it from that side he may be in strife. If you watch the footage, he turns and braces a few steps before impact, so in slow motion it looks pretty premeditated and he certainly hist Lynch high with his shoulder. At full speed it looks a lot better for him because you can see the speed at which they are moving and how little time he had to register that the collision was coming and react. I would say that if he played for a top side there would be nothing to worry about, but the tribunal has a history of coming down hard on players from the "weaker" clubs, also known as easy targets. Think back to Jack Zeibel getting three weeks for a totally legal attempt at the ball and Trengove's perfect tackle on Dangerfield which also copped three weeks. Based on that record I have a sad suspicion that they will look at this as an opportunity to show that they are coming down hard on dangerous play and will try to throw the book at him.