nutbean

And yet James Packer and David Gyngell weren't even cited. A joke

That's what you are not getting. Now to be discriminate means pulling out of contests for the fear of causing injury.

Brad green tweeted " step aside and avoid contact... PLEASE" Onya Brad.

Yes...by pirouetting out of contest at the last split half second.. I said this afternoon that I fear for Jack Viney because of his attack on the contest. they are sending a clear message - do not attack a contest unless you are 100% sure you will get there first or not cause harm. the rationale of this verdict is that " someone head got hurt so someone must pay".

I would rather suggest that justice be sacrosanct but each to their own.

I posted that this afternoon. 4-6 weeks or not guilty. 2 weeks is nonsensical

If the case is not strong and you have to resort to players pulling out of a winnable contest or doing ballet moves to avoid contact then the AFL should say " on further examination no charge to be answered". If the case is not clear and unambiguous then withdraw charges. telling players to pull out of winnable contests goes against everything that players are taught since little league.

I have some concerns at how hard he goes at the contest. I don't think he is guilty on this one but it is a very fine line regarding his attack on the contest and opponent. Be very clear - I love Jack and the way he plays - I detest the way the game has become so sanitised that it makes me worry about suspensions to a player like Jack Viney.

I think that was most peoples concern.

Herein lies the problem - you may pick up a not wanted from another club cheap - but quality will cost you overs - its the way of the world

loved him at Collingwood and so happy when we got him. His work without the ball is super impressive. Such a leader. My only knock was whether we could get him on the park.

The interesting part in all of this as opposed to most other bumps is clearly highlighted by this post. Most other bumps we have seen has the player receiving the bump clearly in possession or in a near possession of the ball as opposed to the bumpee. The Viney incident is almost a 50/50 contest and he turns his body on the last three steps to avoid being hospitalised - he would have been split down the middle by a 192cm near 90kg key position footballer.

i was very badly burned by the whole Scully saga. I now beleive that any player who has not signed by the mid year break of the last year of their contract is gone gone gone. I actually have no idea at all but that thinking means that if they do go I am not bitterly disappointed as I haven't invested too much emotion into it. If the player stays then its happy days for me !

Because if you watch the game you actually don't notice Tyson and then realise at the end that he has got it 30 times. Then you watch again and concentrate on Tyson and see how much good work he actaully does. He seriously goes about it with a minimum of fuss and and looks unobtrusive in what he does. And yes...he should have been in the votes.

Not that you don't want pay someone their worth but the benefit to Melbourne if he signed a two year extension would be that it wouldn't be an expensive exercise. If the footy department believe he has got what it takes to develop into a really good footballer, extend the contract whilst his price is low. I reckon it is a risk after 6 games ( even though he has shown plenty) but an acceptable risk.

I disagree with 2 weeks. To me the tribunal can only go two ways - they either have to deem it unavoidable and a "collision at the contest rather than a bump" and clear him or deem it a bump and give him 4 weeks. Giving him only two weeks would be like saying to a team that you didnt really tank but we are going punish you anyway... oohh wait on....

I think it is a bit like the goal line replay - the MRP is bound to either give 3-4 weeks or clear - no discretion beyond that . I hope I am right in thinking that MRP wanted to pass the buck on it and not be the mugs who cleared a player that "broke another players jaw" or suspend a player for something that was a "collision - nothing to see here- move on". The MRP has absolved themselves of responsibility. All logic tells me that he should get off - my nagging doubt is the use ofthe word logic and MRP/Tribunal in the same sentence.

I don't like a "persecution complex" , the "its always us" but there was a message sent on the Trengove sling that hadn't been sent before and I am scared the tribunal will send another first time message.

The other problem with all these things is that footy is played is played at a million miles an hour - look at the collision at full pace. Unfortunately - MRP decisions are made in slo mo.

Your avatar is freaking me out man...... ( although he does have a nasty streak that has been lacking for past 5 years)

IM PANNIICKKEDDD !!!!

Couldn't agree more - just don't think that happens...

You can argue all you like but they ask the opposition team for a medical report and the tribunal gives penalties based exclusively on outcome - think Trengove and the sling tackle. Been lots of slings since but if you dont end up injured then nothing happens.

not sure he chose to bump.. however it appears that the end result will dictate the outcome - irrespective of circumstances.

He is in trouble - how many get referred straight to the tribunal and "he cannot accept an early plea on this matter."