nutbean

Unfortunately common sense is not all that common. They got this one right...........eventually.

Boo yah !

Apparently it was a certain non tanking saga.

Absolutely logical. Don't tempt them !

88% of the age readers polled said the jury did [censored] it up. A cross section of all football followers

You can only judge Viney's movement in the last half second. Before that time the ball was in dispute.

Judges have been known to overturn blatantly incorrect jury verdicts. That most of the football community feel it was brace not bump ( not just MFC supporters) tells you that this jury just got it wrong.

DG is right to make the brace/bump distinction the main argument. If there is doubt whether it was brace or bump then you dismiss the charge. How you can have a justice system that says " we are not sure so we will just go with guilty"

Yeah...that's it...it's just the vibe.....

This is also what I don't understand from the " follow the letter of the law - he is guilty" camp. Defining bumping is the issue - in real life you can voluntarily and involuntarily bump ( did Viney involuntarily bump into Lynch - of course) . You would hope that a bump in AFL would be defined as a premeditated intentional action. Viney was slowing and was bracing so you would hope that comes sense would dictate that you exclude that as a bump. All talk by the AFL has been "if you CHOOSE to bump" - Viney didn't choose to bump. I just bumped into the door at work and bruised my leg - I certainly didn't chose to. Defining reasonable alternative is the other issue - with under half a second to decide - again,you would hope that AFL would define pivoting, pirouetting or jumping out the way as not a reasonable alternative. To me it comes down to definitions.

glad to hear that. Getting up and winning for XXXX is unsustainable and has proved so in the past. Wanting to win should be the prime driver in a footballers make-up

MRP/TRibunal and Appeal board repeat after me 5 times Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase. Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase. Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase. Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase. Adjudicate on the Action not the outcome. If guilty of an action then and only then take outcome into account on penalty phase.

Firstly - the incident needs to be assessed from the time the ball was no longer in dispute and that is less than one second. Even the AFL ex Boss is suggesting that he is unlucky and you can argue "bracing" not "bumping". I keep coming back to burden of proof. Surely if the football world at large is suggesting that it was bracing himself and even the sceptics are saying there is no certainty if it was brace or bump then you have to find him not guilty.

I re-read the Barrett and he is right. The opinion he puts forward is right - if you break a jaw you will get sanctioned. The problem for me is that he didn't write a conclusion to his article and the conclusion should be that the tribunal and MRP needs to be driven by actions not outcomes. I have written an article and trying to get it onto AFL.com. I had success being published on AFL.com during the Scully debacle but AFL.com has since "Changed hands". I am incensed that a Journalist like Damien Barrett can write an article ( Viney’s suspension simple) which points out a very simple principle being the Tribunal is concerned with outcomes not actions and not put a conclusion to the article being that principle is simply wrong. “Cause damage to an opponent's head at an AFL venue in 2014 and there is a penalty coming your way”. “Those who argue that had Lynch not suffered a broken jaw we wouldn't have heard one more thing about the Viney incident are correct.” “In footy in 2014, if you break someone's jaw, no matter how, you need to know you will be sanctioned.” “From now on, forget the words like intent, impact, intentional and negligent which the Match Review Panel uses, and be aware that a broken jaw means a suspension.” “It's just the way it is.” As a football lover , there is much more at stake here than a two week suspension to Viney. We are fundamentally changing the game and the way it will be played. Players will now second guess going to a contest that is 50/50 for fear of injury they may cause and the consequences that will follow. Damien should have put a conclusion for football lovers like myself. “No-one wants to see injuries and players hurt but football is a contact and collision sport. Players who make clear choices to bump an opponent and the opponent is hurt should face penalties from the MRP/Tribunal. When a player approaches a 50/50 contest and a collision occurs then common sense should prevail. Collisions are part and parcel of our game and tribunal/MRP decisions need to be based on actions not outcomes.”

Does anyone know what the burden of proof is ? I know this is not a court but simply in a criminal court a charge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and for civil matters it is on the balance of probabilities. How any tribunal could suggest that his intention was to bump not to brace beyond reasonable doubt is mind blowing. Even on balance of probabilities is hard to argue what his intention was. Forget about Demonland - the community at large - coaches, players, ex players, media commentators - an overwhelming majority have viewed the footage and said the decision is wrong. Doesn't that tell the decision makers something ? A complete cross-section of the footballing has made it loud and clear that they have got it wrong.

I have long been in the "Anti conspiracy" theory camp and there are a lot of conspiracy theories that get aired on Demonland. I am scratching my head on this one and can only reach one of two conclusions - this is just a matter of incompetence of the highest order or something is going on behind the scenes.

Talking about it on SEN and apparently Evans can send this to the appeals board without reference to tribunal.

In my mind, previous history - whether you are a clean skin like Robbie Flower or David Rhys Jones should only be taken into account for the penalty phase not on deciding guilt or innocence. Each incident needs to be adjudicated on its merit.

In a game played at breakneck pace what I don't like is that no benefit of doubt was given in this case. There is so much doubt as to what was and wasn't possible in that split half second yet the tribunal determined exactly what he could have done..they determined there was alternatives.

Some complained at the time at the $500k plus price tag.

I can't see any positive to a fundamental change to the way our game now has to be played. As many commentators have pointed out, this is not just about Jack Viney.

We need a laugh. Follow the link and look at the last two tweets from Merk Robernsern

I think it makes them look more incompetent. Either guilty 4 weeks or not guilty.

Eurovision

[quote name="jumbo returns" post="921898" timestamp=" JV will learn, and contrary to hand wringing disbelief, he will now be seen as the hardest going around and many a player will take short steps up against this kid.