Jack Viney Guilty

[Bornadog]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

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



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.

didnt touch his head

tripping is a dog act

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

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.

I just don't agree, if Viney opts to tackle there is most likely no high contact, both players take a hit but nothing more than what happens 20 times during the course of a match. By turning his body and not bothering to slow down he diverts all of his momentum into Tom Lynch's jaw.

Both Viney and Morris had an instinctive reaction to an awkward situation.

didnt touch his head

tripping is a dog act

You must be taking the piss.

[Bornadog]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

You must be taking the piss.

No I am not.

Viney never hits anyone above the shoulder during the bump.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

No I am not.

Viney never hits anyone above the shoulder during the bump.

Screen Shot 2014-05-09 at 11.31.55 pm.jpg

He broke his jaw, BAD. How do you think that happened?

[jeemak]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Sorry if it's already been covered, but I thought that the rules were changed to suggest if you decide to bump and someone gets hit in the head or ends up being affected by head high contact then the player that bumps loses all rights to mitigation.

It was clear to me Viney decided to bump. I don't and never will buy that players don't choose to bump, and it was clear to me in this instance he chose that course of action over others.

Whether you think it's right, is irrelevant. The rules as I understand them are no longer up for interpretation (if my interpretation is wrong, then fair enough).

Just another example of the inconsistency the AFL applies to decisions depending on what they see as an optimal commercial outcome.

I highly doubt that Nathan Hrovat doing the same thing would have resulted in an appeal at the AFL tribunal if it happened to be him, let alone a successful appeal.

[chef]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Should have gotten 1 week!!!

Yep, would have rather the suspension stuck

[Bornadog]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

[ATTACH=CONFIG]452[/ATTACH]

He broke his jaw, BAD. How do you think that happened?

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.

Agreed, that was what I had assumed. Not sure which side of Lynch's jaw was broken so I'm not sure we've really got any clarity on it, do we?

[Greystache]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

I was under the impression he broke his jaw when his head jolted back and hit the player on the otherside of him.

Agreed, that was what I had assumed. Not sure which side of Lynch's jaw was broken so I'm not sure we've really got any clarity on it, do we?

He broke the side that Viney hit.

[always right]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Sorry if it's already been covered, but I thought that the rules were changed to suggest if you decide to bump and someone gets hit in the head or ends up being affected by head high contact then the player that bumps loses all rights to mitigation.

It was clear to me Viney decided to bump. I don't and never will buy that players don't choose to bump, and it was clear to me in this instance he chose that course of action over others.

Whether you think it's right, is irrelevant. The rules as I understand them are no longer up for interpretation (if my interpretation is wrong, then fair enough).

Just another example of the inconsistency the AFL applies to decisions depending on what they see as an optimal commercial outcome.

I highly doubt that Nathan Hrovat doing the same thing would have resulted in an appeal at the AFL tribunal if it happened to be him, let alone a successful appeal.

You are right but there is a caveat. The tribunal assesses wheth the player had any reasonable alternative to bumping the opposition player. That's what is in dispute here.

Some posters like you believe he made a conscious decision to bump. Others like me believe his intent was to get the ball and it was only when this was no longer an option that the collision became inevitable. The only question here is whether the circumstances were such that there was sufficient time to make a decision and was there a realistic alternative.

I'm not going to argue anymore as to whether he did or didn't have time to make a conscious decision as we simply disagree. It's wrong however to suggest that there are no mitigating factors taken into account by the tribunal in a situation of this type.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-10/duffield-collects-wingard-high

Not identical to the Viney case but fairly similar. It will be interesting to see how the MRP act.

[jeemak]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

You are right but there is a caveat. The tribunal assesses wheth the player had any reasonable alternative to bumping the opposition player. That's what is in dispute here.

Some posters like you believe he made a conscious decision to bump. Others like me believe his intent was to get the ball and it was only when this was no longer an option that the collision became inevitable. The only question here is whether the circumstances were such that there was sufficient time to make a decision and was there a realistic alternative.

I'm not going to argue anymore as to whether he did or didn't have time to make a conscious decision as we simply disagree. It's wrong however to suggest that there are no mitigating factors taken into account by the tribunal in a situation of this type.

Thanks.

I suppose that's what it comes down to. If it's decided the intention to bump was there - and there was other alterneratives, then no mitigation exists. If that's disputed then that obviously has to be considered.

You're right, there'll never be agreement on whether he did it intentionally and had other options (or otherwise).

[always right]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-05-...s-wingard-high

Not identical to the Viney case but fairly similar. It will be interesting to see how the MRP act.

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

[jeemak]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Apparently Cameron didn't touch JJ's head in this one though.......

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-07-06/cameron-in-trouble

The Wingard one is obvious.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

No brainer. Unlike Viney he can't argue he was going for the ball. He ran at Wingard when Wingard already had the ball for a considerable amount of time and clearly had time to decide whether to bump or tackle. Nothing like the Viney incident to be honest. The only saving grace is that he didn't break his jaw.

I haven't seen it, but assume similar to Roughead last night?

Any targeting of a player going the ball is exactly what they're meant to be stamping out.

After Glass got off for his hit on Wingard I've got no idea what they may do.