La Dee-vina Comedia

While I agree with your first line, I don't want my politicians interfering when a Judge makes a silly decision in a court case. That's why we have appeal processes in the Court system and similarly in the AFL's tribunal system. As much as I want Viney's matter to be overturned on appeal, the bigger picture for mine is that the AFL HQ shouldn't be involved in individual matters like this one. It already has enough (too much?) power and I don't want it to be mis-used.

Just think of the "prosecution" as being "counsel assisting". Someone has to lead the evidence for the Tribunal.

Hope you're using a nom de plume. Otherwise the Mr Spalding from Bendigo who follows Melbourne might be rather too easily identified.

Agree. But most of the credit has to go to Dawes himself. Presumably he had a positive relationship with Neeld and wanted to join him at Melbourne. There is absolutely no evidence that Dawes has 'sooked it up' since Neeld left.

To be honest, if I were Mark Evans I wouldn't get involved in an individual case. I might think the decision made by the Tribunal is foolish and that the game would be better if the Appeals Board overturned it, but the bigger picture for him is that AFL Head Office shouldn't get involved in this quasi-judicial, independent process. His best work would be to fix any problems with the laws of the game and the MRP/Tribunal/Appeals process. That doesn't help Jack Viney tonight, but I don't want AFL Head Office intervening in this or any other case. Think of AFL Head Office like the politicians who make the laws. We don't want them also deciding guilt or innocence, or penalties, for those who subsequently might be charged with breaking those laws. But we do want them to fix the laws which don't work.

Interesting comment tweeted by Dr Larkins. Adds an additional issue to the question of "realistic alternative" Dr Peter Larkins ‏@doclarkins 1h Memo to AFL legal teams - expecting a player to change direction & pivot on one foot at speed is a recipe to invite an ACL knee rupture

I don't know anything about Geoff Tunbridge, so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Assuming what is written is correct (and I know that's a risk with Wikipedia) I'm amused that he refused payment and that he accepted a meat pie before each game. The man had style.

The Age has gone on a 24 hour strike presumably in support of Jack Viney. They'll claim it's actually in support of in house photographers being made redundant but surely with Demon supporters such as Jesse Hogan and Richard Willingham as reporters my assessment of the situation is closer to the mark.

Your wish has been granted. Don't have any influence with the AFL's Appeals Board, do you?

Not sure if he'd do the preseason, but what about James Packer?

Interesting comment from Demetriou. Clearly gives the appeals board an opportunity to overturn the Tribunal's decision

Are you suggesting Viney should have worn the blazer instead of the suit last night?

Here's more info. And go ahead and vote.

AFL has indicated Peter O'Callaghan QC will chair the Appeals Board (which he has done previously). Don't think they've announced the other members.

The worst thing the AFL CEO could do right now is get himself involved in a specific case which is to be heard by an independent appeals board. However, once this matter is finally resolved, whatever the outcome, he should require a wholesale review of the MRP and Tribunal system as well as the rules (laws) of the game which lead to the decisions the MRP and Tribunal make.

Not actually a "moment" per se, but my favourite part of the win is that another player (Jetta) played his best game ever. Add that to Pedersen, Dunn and a few others who have shown significant improvement this year.

Except using the above logic the Tribunal would have found him not guilty.

Whoa. Careful. BBP's post, which I daren't republish by quoting it, looks dangerously defamatory to me. Of course, if there's proof to back up the claim, that's a page 1 Herald-Sun story and BBP wins a Walkley award.

Well, if Evans can appeal it, I'd like to think we can engineer circumstances where he'd feel obliged to do so. An appeal from Evans would likely carry much more weight than one from Viney or the club. Any ideas on how to get Evans to appeal? I would have thought sustained pressure from the media and particularly former players who work in the media.

Can he? Or is the player (or the club, on behalf of the player) the only one who can appeal? If he has the power to do so, I'd like to think someone in the media will ask him if he intends to do so.

Apart from Viney, there are a few with "injury watch" plus the apparently compulsory Mystery Injury of the Week which could make selection challenging. All of Frawley, Watts, Georgiou and Jones are known to have had injury problems last week. Of them, I would expect Watts and Jones to play, but backs can be troublesome (ask Grimes and Hogan) and need to be treated with respect. Georgiou might have been rested anyway this week even without the head clash, although if Frawley's out perhaps without injury he would still have played. I don't expect there will be any omissions. If there were none after the Sydney game, why would there be after last weekend, particularly if there are already some compulsory changes? I think Gawn's time has come and that the Match Committee would like to see what he can do in the Seniors, so he'd be picked ahead of Fitzpatrick. So, I suspect it will be Viney, Frawley and Georgiou out with Garland, Gawn and an available on baller (Riley?) in. (Unless of course Viney appeals and wins.)

It's all to do with definitions. The MRP and the Tribunal have become very legalistic in their approach. Hence, "sacrosanct - adj. regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with". Rookies clearly don't meet that definition.

Jack Grimes on 3AW on Sunday said the team as a group (apart from Bernie) went straight to the airport after the game. He said Bernie was allowed to stay overnight to visit family.

Which compares with Boomer Harvey's 167cm, 75kg...and 369 games (and counting). If anyone thinks size was a factor they must have forgotten that one of the great appeals of AFL is that all shapes and sizes can get a game as long as they've got the skills. (Admittedly, if you're small, you must be fast - either by foot or in mind).

I don't know if there are more broken jaws or not. But if there have been, one reason is likely to be the greater force with which players collide. they're bigger, stronger and faster. When they collide it's a more powerful collision than would have occurred in years gone by. If we have any Physics teachers perhaps they could put Newton's Second Law of motion into English (basically force equals mass times acceleration).