Jack Viney Guilty

[boydogs]

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.

Head high bump, free kick. Will probably get weeks but shouldn't IMO

[Scorlibo]

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.

In each example there is a situational change moments before the offending player arrives. Tom Lynch gets to the ball first, Wingard kicks. No doubt Duffield intends to tackle him but once the kick is made can't do so and thus the momentum takes him forward to catch Wingard high. The exact same level of apprehension and 'bracing'. The difference I think is that Duffield's hit was low impact, whereas Viney's was severe. It will be a joke on that evidence if Duffield gets suspended.

[jeemak]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Man, seriously?

Viney went for him without much time, but he still went for him.

Duffield went for him, with plenty of time but still went for him.

The latter clearly hit him late and high, and had a long time to alter his actions. These cases for the same topic, are so far removed from each other it's not funny.

[Twodogs]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Duffield is gone. He takes his eye off the ball to look at Wingard and makes a decision to bump him. Whether he meant to make head high contact or not doesn't matter. Duffield did and that's what he will be judged on.

[Bornadog]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Jones looked like he was trying to get out of the way but still clipped him with his shoulder. Watch is action as he turns his body.

[G-Mo77]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Jones looked like he was trying to get out of the way but still clipped him with his shoulder. Watch is action as he turns his body.

He's gone. At least 2 weeks.

He really did Melbourne a favour with getting him off the ground. Terlich was putrid, one of our best players up until that point.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

Man, seriously?

Viney went for him without much time, but he still went for him.

Duffield went for him, with plenty of time but still went for him.

The latter clearly hit him late and high, and had a long time to alter his actions. These cases for the same topic, are so far removed from each other it's not funny.

It all depends on how much time you think Viney had.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Jack Viney Guilty

All I hate about the new bump rule is the season-long hand-wringing over every single contact on the field. When it's blatant, sure, give weeks, but when it's obviously just in the course of play, let it go.

How ex-footballers can't get that right is beyond me. All I know is that I'd love to read about something in the papers other than whether the bump is dead.