Undeeterred

What a ridiculous post. Would you rather have, for example, Vince, Tyson and Viney, or our emergencies: Toumpas, McKenzie and Nicholson? Use your brain.

Gee, Monfries, Hartlett and Cassisi are good outs for us...

I think the club and list is pretty much exactly where we should expect it to be. Don't forget, with our run after the bye we'll still be looking at probably 6-7 wins, which to be fair is the minimum we should really have expected this year. Next year is when we really take off, I think.

I think the club and list is pretty much exactly where we should expect it to be. Don't forget, with our run after the bye we'll still be looking at probably 6-7 wins, which to be fair is the minimum we should really have expected this year. Next year is when we really take off, I think.

Would you go interstate on a work trip on your wife's due date (assuming you're male of course)? Why would Nathan Jones, just because he's a footballer?

Only my view of course, but I'd take off the rose-coloured glasses and go with the fact that we were either the only ones who offered him another year, or there were a very small number and we offered the best money.

That just proves what everybody is saying above. W@NKER. (Him, not you).

It clearly isn't us. He talks about his team having success. I reckon he's from Hawthorn, to be honest.

Probably means they've chopped off his foot or something.

How many weeks did Chapman get? Surely we should be deterring actions, not impacts. So sticking your elbow into a guys face should warrant a far harsher penalty than Viney's 'brace'. No?

Gee, no change is interesting...

You're fast becoming one of my favourite posters.

I know he feeds on this, but I know he reads this site, so I can't help myself. Lick my swingers, pal.

Sounds like they've got it under control...

Basically, I agree with lots of people in saying that if Viney were intending to bump, we'd still be collecting Lynch's brain matter from the stands at Adelaide Oval.

And very, very good at it.

Not a very enlightened attitude. So what you're saying is that you're ok with paying to watch people receive brain injuries? This isn't Ancient Rome. And anyway, you're missing the point entirely. Nobody except you is saying it is fine that Lynch got injured. What they're saying is that it was accidental and unavoidable and therefore shouldn't get punished by suspension.

I'm confused - was that a case of them stepping in, or not stepping in? I'm not being smart, genuinely interested and remember that suspension but not the circumstances!

Why can't we have both? I'd rather have Dangerfield than about 10 from our team on Saturday. At the very least. Who cares how much he costs?

High profile cases? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd say the original decisions weren't in the same league as this one. Of course, happy to be proven wrong!

I never said he couldn't, just that there was no way he was going to in such a high profile case.

Oh, you spud. Do you really, really think that one of the most senior people in the AFL is going to take a Tribunal decision and overturn it off his own bat, therefore confirming everybody's suspicion that his own organisation is a pack of fools and in the process hanging his own Tribunal members out to dry? Now that's not rocket science, but it must feel like it to you.

Yeah but after that five minutes, he's out of gas.

You really have very little idea about how the world works, don't you?

Don't be ridiculous. There is no way on God's green Earth the AFL is going to appeal a decision. They clearly wanted to make a statement about head clashes, without giving Viney an (in their eyes) excessive penalty. They sure as hell are not going to hang their Tribunal members out to dry. As for Demetriou, he said Viney was unlucky and that the rule should be looked at. That is very different to saying Viney was not guilty and that this specific case should be overturned. Outcome: Verdict stands, Viney gets screwed, they rewrite the rules (again) for next time.