Im in disbelief that people honestly think that the Douglas and Viney incidents are in any way similar.
Ironically we constantly complain about Victorian bias.
Ironically we constantly complain about Victorian bias.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. Douglas suspended for 2 games (With subsequent discussion on Viney bump)
- Thread starter Hank93
- Start date
- Tagged users None
jackster83
Killing with a smile
Agree with that.
With the current rules, I'm waiting to see what will happen if a player lines another player up and lays a solid bump only to execute it poorly and receive a head knock/concussion himself. Will the player being bumped be wiped out?
lol, should have tackled, but he put his body into a situation where a collision was going to occur through his negligence. Sorry but Viney was just reckless and Lynch is hurt. I understand your offended over losing a star player to rules the player didn't understand but they are the rules, they are well established with precedents shown and viney should have done a shitload better.
Viney would have looked like a squib if he had stepped out of the way. But if he had bumped properly (ie shoulder to shoulder) there would not have been a report. He chose to bump so the onus on him was to do it correctly. He should actually have been punished more severely because that sure as hell wasn't medium impact.
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Look pal as Leigh Matthews put it on the Neil Mitchell show this morning once Viney DROPPED his shoulder whether it be bracing for contact or bumping under the current rule once head contact was made Viney by the letter of the law was a goner.
The same rule that has seen Douglas, Fyfe and Cornes, Zeibell cop suspensions, simple really until the rule/definition is changed all 5 are guilty!!
Look - he was found guilty and the tribunal got it right according to the rules. The appeal will be dismissed.
If you don't like it take it up with the rules commitee. You can post on here 1000 times it will not change those facts
No. Lynch got the football, Viney didn't. He was late to the contest. Viney had to decide, knowing he wasn't going to make the contest, whether he would collide with Lynch or not. He chose to collide. He could have avoided contact. Like it or not, the AFL want players to change their instinctive actions in these situations. Most players would have instinctively chosen to collide, its what I would have done, but now they need to change that instinctive action to avoid the contact instead or they will cop games.
No one is denying the difference that Douglas intentionally bumped as Viney arguably didn't. Viney got a much less severe suspension due to the differences. Everyone I think is saying its similar to the point neither should get suspended because its argued Viney's was an accident and Douglas didn't even hit Ward in the head, he just hit is head on the ground.
Lol, if you cant look beyond your hurt then go. If you look at this boards posts prior to the Douglas suspension we all said he will get games on the back of the Fyfe suspension and we accepted it. Vic team supporters seem to not be able to cope to the point of almost arguing the rule should be changed. Its truly pathetic. Accept it and move on.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 16,378
- 42,201
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
That is the crux of it in my book. The law for this is stupid ( kind of like that one that says even though my car has a speedo that goes up to 240k and premium tires that are capable of control at 220k...I have to drive 25 k through a school zone) but if that is the law they are applying and until it is changed, stupid guilty verdicts will come one after the other.
lol of all the examples you chose driving through a school zone, possibly the most important. but the point is correct though. the law is the law.
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Adrian Anderson on 3AW just then explaining not just necessarily a 'bump' but 'forceful contact'..... Lawyers pffffttt!
- Apr 10, 2010
- 13,850
- 10,102
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I understand where you're coming from but I think you are confusing the difference between posters saying Viney deserved to get suspended and that he should under the current rules..
Under the current set up, he's going to get suspended.. Fighting the rule needs to happen on it's own, that's a whole other story.. You can't change the rule after the Viney incident and back date it.. I would happily agree with the fighting of the rule while still protecting the head as it is very important, but the rule is there at the moment..
It's nothing about justice because of Douglas, I like many others said straight away Douglas will go so even if there could be some ill feeling over it, there isn't.. And there wouldn't be, every incident is on it's own..
- May 20, 2013
- 1,480
- 1,420
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Central Districts,Tottenham Hotspur
Some might argue that is Watts normal outfitHere you are boys. Melbourne training today introducing the pirouette into their routine to avoid contact.
Photo by Gingy
I strongly doubt that, off the top of my head I'm certain Jack Dyer was rubbed out for whacking a bloke when he had the ball once from what I recall of his biography, and there was a Hawthorn player of the same era who missed more games than he played including a goal square incident where he had the ball and belted a full back.
It would be irrelevant even if it was, as the rule hasn't been in place for all 100+ years of SANFL/VFL/WAFL football, only this year and arguably last.
- Apr 10, 2010
- 13,850
- 10,102
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
It wasn't sanctioned MFC training uniform but he showed initiative, which is rare, so Roos let it slip.Some might argue that is Watts normal outfit
Roo Lives Again
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 22, 2012
- 6,349
- 6,065
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood
- Banned
- #1,368
Roo has come out and called for AFL players to boycott games if Viney isn't let off. Now putting aside the is he guilty or not stuff, can any other Crows supporters see the absurdity of one of our club legends coming out in defence of a Non Crows player and yet he isn't willing to tell everyone or even our supporters or even our players to boycott Crows games because of what Trigg did??? I'm sick to my stomach at our club and our supposed club greats
Yeah, I think this whole Viney thing has gone way over. Viney is possibly the straw that broke the camels back. I however think its more productive to pressure for a rule change then take extreme courses of action.
Roo Lives Again
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 22, 2012
- 6,349
- 6,065
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Norwood
- Banned
- #1,370
Yes but my point is that Roo should be taking care of his own club in regards to helping get rid of Trigg
DD#23
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 31, 2013
- 9,127
- 12,400
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
no they don't, they just need to make safe (i.e. not in the face) contact
Not right now! too much disruption and will only increase unnecessary pressure on the club. Plus we have a lets sack trigg board. lets keep the hate to that board.
Yeh, no problem. But if they choose to make contact and it ends up being unsafe, they will pay the price.
- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,379
- 69,785
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
One was obviously a shepherd and the other wasn't, but the point is, ten years ago (or five, or maybe even last year) they were both legal.
If the result of the Viney incident is that bumping a guy with the ball is legal, but shepherding is illegal...well, how does that make any sense?
The two incidents are linked in the greater scheme. For mine, they're either both illegal or they're both legal. I don't buy this bullshit that Douglas "picked Ward off." Douglas enacted a shepherd within five meters of the footy (close enough anyway). What Douglas did, in the old money, was just as legal as what Viney did.
Why is shepherding all of a sudden "picking a bloke off?"
Similar threads
