Jack Viney Guilty

[GVGjr]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Commonsense has prevailed.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Common sense has prevailed and hopefully the hysteria now dies down.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Couldn't agree more.

Everything about this is a joke.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Agree 100% Griff. The AFL does it again.

[Ozza]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Should have gotten 1 week!!!

[Happy Days]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I'm glad he's got off, but from a legal perspective, this is a terrible decision.

The threshold of the original decision being so unreasonable is/should be an incredibly difficult one to meet. Most observers agreed that to the letter of the law and the ability for any head contact (whether or not the specific action of bumping caused it, or someone else or the ground did) to be adjudicated against the player creating the impact, it was reasonable for the tribunal to find him guilty. It was also reasonable to say he did bump - albeit most people wouldn't have agreed with the assessment - that is what they determined.

Therefore, this decision is one based on sentiment and is not one based on the principles the tribunal is bound by and meant to uphold.

Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised - it's a standard case of bending the "rules" to suit popular opinion/their agenda.

Spot on; the whole situation is a farce.

[always right]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Personally I think it's crazy that a player can do everything right....turn their body, tuck their arm in, take a low trajectory and make contact fair and square with the opposition player's shoulder....yet still be suspended if contact somehow leads to the other player injuring their head in some way by whatever means.

Whilst some will maintain the bump is not dead, you have to ask the question why anyone would take the risk. The fear of litigation has changed our game forever.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Personally I think it's crazy that a player can do everything right....turn their body, tuck their arm in, take a low trajectory and make contact fair and square with the opposition player's shoulder....yet still be suspended if contact somehow leads to the other player injuring their head in some way by whatever means.

Whilst some will maintain the bump is not dead, you have to ask the question why anyone would take the risk. The fear of litigation has changed our game forever.

Sorry AR... I love your work usually but surely you know how incorrect this bolded bit is? You're wrong on every count. The right thing would have been for Viney to not turn his body, to extend his arms, to try and tackle! He leaves the ground before making contact (ie. doesn't keep a low trajectory) and his shoulder makes contact with Tom Lynch's head!

I don't like this decision at all, I think it's wrong, two-faced and weak. The juggernaut which has built in Viney's favour is nothing more than the straw breaking the camel's back on the ol' fashioned bump, this case has not been judged on its merit, it's been an outpouring of emotion and frustration. The AFL has buckled under the pressure.

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

[Bornadog]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

and all of those suspensions have been direct contact to someone's head.

[Sedat]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Maybe it's my general lethargy with footy and footy 'reporting' at the moment, but I cannot believe the overblown hysteria over this incident. If this is the height of footy interest this week, the game is in quite some trouble - obviously the quality of the footy being played in most games on most weekends is not much of a talking point, so incidents like this one are highlighted so that the scribes have something remotely interesting to write about.

[always right]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Maybe it's my general lethargy with footy and footy 'reporting' at the moment, but I cannot believe the overblown hysteria over this incident. If this is the height of footy interest this week, the game is in quite some trouble - obviously the quality of the footy being played in most games on most weekends is not much of a talking point, so incidents like this one are highlighted so that the scribes have something remotely interesting to write about.

I suspect this is something that has been building for a while and the Viney episode simply brought it to a head. For once I don't think this is a media beat-up......I know in my own workplace it was the topic of conversation from the moment the tribunal's original finding was handed down. It might not be a big issue for you but I know plenty of people who felt very strongly about it. I think there is definitely an air of exasperation about the AFL at the moment and it's not all media driven.

[always right]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Sorry AR... I love your work usually but surely you know how incorrect this bolded bit is? You're wrong on every count. The right thing would have been for Viney to not turn his body, to extend his arms, to try and tackle! He leaves the ground before making contact (ie. doesn't keep a low trajectory) and his shoulder makes contact with Tom Lynch's head!

I don't like this decision at all, I think it's wrong, two-faced and weak. The juggernaut which has built in Viney's favour is nothing more than the straw breaking the camel's back on the ol' fashioned bump, this case has not been judged on its merit, it's been an outpouring of emotion and frustration. The AFL has buckled under the pressure.

There have been umpteen incidents just like this one in the last three years, with players getting suspended time after time. Where's the hysteria and outrage for Dale Morris? This case will either go down as significant precedent in loosening the rules, and some idiots would say a return to the 'tough' game, or it will be proven utterly inconsistent with other incidents.

Mine was a general observation and not a reference to the Viney incident specifically. The fact is an incident that occurs exactly as I've described could result in a suspension if the opponent is injured.

Why the outrage in the Viney case and not others beforehand? I think you're right in stating it's the straw that broke the camel's back but many people (myself included) simply disagree with your assessment and believe that Viney had a reasonable defence against the charge. Not saying that we're definitely right and you are wrong.......actually I am saying that

Not sure why you are surprised there wasn't the same outrage for the Morris incident. Can you explain?

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

and all of those suspensions have been direct contact to someone's head.

Are you saying Viney didn't make direct contact with Lynch's head?

Mine was a general observation and not a reference to the Viney incident specifically. The fact is an incident that occurs exactly as I've described could result in a suspension if the opponent is injured.

Why the outrage in the Viney case and not others beforehand? I think you're right in stating it's the straw that broke the camel's back but many people (myself included) simply disagree with your assessment and believe that Viney had a reasonable defence against the charge. Not saying that we're definitely right and you are wrong.......actually I am saying that

Not sure why you are surprised there wasn't the same outrage for the Morris incident. Can you explain?

Harking back to my previous post on the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process: I can't see any difference between Viney's split second reaction to compact his body, turn side on, hit Lynch high and Morris' split second reaction to reach out with his leg to stop the oncoming player. Neither were 'intentional' or 'reckless' but what is the 'negligent' category for if not for these sorts of cases, and where is the difference between Viney's reaction and Morris'?

The difference between the two incidents is that Morris makes medium impact with the other bloke's leg, whereas Viney makes high/severe impact with Lynch's head. I can't for the life of me understand how Morris could be suspended on that evidence and Viney not.

[soupman]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Harking back to my previous post on the 'negligent' category of the MRP's process: I can't see any difference between Viney's split second reaction to compact his body, turn side on, hit Lynch high and Morris' split second reaction to reach out with his leg to stop the oncoming player. Neither were 'intentional' or 'reckless' but what is the 'negligent' category for if not for these sorts of cases, and where is the difference between Viney's reaction and Morris'?

The difference between the two incidents is that Morris makes medium impact with the other bloke's leg, whereas Viney makes high/severe impact with Lynch's head. I can't for the life of me understand how Morris could be suspended on that evidence and Viney not.

Not sure if serious?

Viney was going to hit Lynch regardless, but he only had one method of doing so which wasn't suicide.

Morris' trip, whilst instinctive, was completely avoidable and would have been averted completely if he chose not to act.

What I'm getting at is that Viney was put in his situation by bad luck, Morris by bad choice, however instinctive.