Moved Thread #7: Jack Ziebell [Part I] © -

[Hearts to hearts]

This is the same asshat who has carried a grudge for more than a year about accidental head contact between LT and Reid.

He was one of the morons crusading for any head damage means you are guilty, he is the one at fault for the knee jerk reactions and why the AFL has introduced the shitty change in interpretation. Viny bumped, guy broke his jaw, he is gone. He is the last dickwad anyone should listen to let alone quote as the voice of ******* reason.

This is true too.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I can't see any difference to this incident. Viney and Lynch were tracking the ball from opposite directions. Unavoidable collision occurs. One comes off second best. The end.

The difference is Lynch took possession a split second before Viney got him. If Murphy had taken possession a split second before he was hit, then Hodge would have gone. But he didn't, so the ball was deemed to be still in dispute. Thus it's not deemed a bump, but a collision. (Unless the ball is in the air and your name is Jack Ziebell, as then it reverts to a bump again.)

It's farcical how such a high speed sport has been reduced to split seconds and players are expected to factor for such things. However, as Tas so eloquently pointed out, coaches wanted this after the Thomas/Reid incident.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

This is the same asshat who has carried a grudge for more than a year about accidental head contact between LT and Reid.

He was one of the morons crusading for any head damage means you are guilty, he is the one at fault for the knee jerk reactions and why the AFL has introduced the shitty change in interpretation. Viny bumped, guy broke his jaw, he is gone. He is the last dickwad anyone should listen to let alone quote as the voice of ******* reason.

A grossly underused label.

 

[scooby1279]

on another note how the hell did Deliodio get off? Clear elbow to the head while running off.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

He didn't, he got a week and it was reduced due to good record. 95 carryover points or something similar.

 

[scooby1279]

He didn't, he got a week and it was reduced due to good record. 95 carryover points or something similar.

he got 1 week and he appealed it last night which then got downgraded

 

[Jay-Z]

he got 1 week and he appealed it last night which then got downgraded

Downgraded it from reckless to negligent I think

 

[scooby1279]

Downgraded it from reckless to negligent I think

yep but it was clearly reckless. He ran passed him and decided to lift his elbow and aim at his head.

 

[Jay-Z]

I love this bit of Melbourne's appeal:

The club will be appealing on the grounds that “that the decision was so unreasonable, that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it".

Essentially = we are appealing on the grounds that the first decision was complete bulls**t!

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/melbourne/news/2014-05-07/melbourne-to-appeal-viney-suspension

 

[Mr Reliable]

Classic case of manipulating the outcome too.

Once they found him guilty, it has to be high impact because of Lynch's broken jaw. But doing that would have meant 4+ weeks.

Another example of the AFL's lack of integrity.

 

[Dirty_11]

Schimma continues to disappoint.

 

[Mr Reliable]

yep but it was clearly reckless. He ran passed him and decided to lift his elbow and aim at his head.

I think it was downgraded from Intentional (which it clearly was) to reckless so that the desired outcome would be achieved. Instead of classifying the incident according to the table they work out the result they want and grade it accordingly. Pathetic really.

 

[Zondor]

Dunno might need to stop asking Ginger and Mrs Howell for advice

 

[naturally north]

View attachment 55365

With that intelligent look on his face maybe Gilligan is the professor...

 

[King Hansen]

The only annoying thing about this is everyone seems to have forgotten Ziebells bump on that Carlton player (who's name I dont give a shit). Playing the ball also and got 4 weeks was it? and no broken bones either! Lingy should tweet something.

 

[Horace]

You have to wonder how Henwood could actually come to the conclusion that Viney was guilty. From my (fading) memory I recall that he was not afraid to hand it out from time to time

 

[Comebackmick]

Or, if they do, they know Jack Shit.

That was the Jack I had in mind.

 

[Higgins2Waite]

It's beyond a joke. How was Viney to know the ranga was beginning to fall. I got belted most games but thrived on it, it's apart of the game for christ sake...well it was once upon a time. Too much protection going on. If I didn't bounce straight back up my mum would heckle me from the sidelines. Nowadays the players are coddled beyond belief.

where has our game gone?!

 

[Phillyroo]

The only annoying thing about this is everyone seems to have forgotten Ziebells bump on that Carlton player (who's name I dont give a shit). Playing the ball also and got 4 weeks was it? and no broken bones either! Lingy should tweet something.

Joseph

 

[LT Smash]

Schimma continues to disappoint.

Just another example of NMFC being 20 years ahead of the AFL.

 

[archereleven]

 

[mighty mick]

i just want to know why jack viney is different to any one else give him weeks, having said that it all depends on the player whether you get weeks or not. saw a luke hodge and jeremy cameron incident where they got off, sack schimma.

 

[hcd199]

Falls under the Ziebell ruling, had another option other than playing football.

Pretty much this. When they said Ziebell had another option, they never really explained what his option was, did they? Now that they've explained what they mean by "another option" in relation to Viney, I'm almost glad they didn't explain after the Joseph incident, it could only have enraged me more than I already was. Note to the MRP - a pirouette is not an option in the AFL, and it never should be.

Good luck to Viney and the Demons in their appeal, they deserve to succeed, and the game should be better for it if they do. The accidental head-clash rule should never have been changed, but even then this decision is insanely unreasonable.

 

[naturally north]

Need to get this shit sorted before all of Byron Pickett's boys get to our Club under the F/S rule.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Pretty much this. When they said Ziebell had another option, they never really explained what his option was, did they? Now that they've explained what they mean by "another option" in relation to Viney, I'm almost glad they didn't explain after the Joseph incident, it could only have enraged me more than I already was. Note to the MRP - a pirouette is not an option in the AFL, and it never should be.

Good luck to Viney and the Demons in their appeal, they deserve to succeed, and the game should be better for it if they do. The accidental head-clash rule should never have been changed, but even then this decision is insanely unreasonable.

The sheer fact that that penis of an AFL prosecutor offered 'pirouetting out of the way' as a realistic alternative makes me wonder if a lobotomy needs to be performed?