MRP / Trib. Douglas suspended for 2 games (With subsequent discussion on Viney bump)

[PureFooty]

If Fyfe and Douglas get games, Viney has to. It really is as simple as that.

Regardless of what you think of the rule, anything different is flagrant inconsistency.

Douglas went out of his way to hit Ward who wasn't within 5 metres of the ball... Viney hit a player under different circumstances. I'm not saying he didn't hit Lynch's head, but I'm saying there was no genuine other option. He didn't pick off Lynch.

 

[MattyB_76]

Another hypothetical for you ... Viney gets slightly lower, shoulder to shoulder, no head clash with Viney and Lynch, but Georgiou and Lynch have head clash. All other variables the same. (I don't know how you'd explain the broken jaw, perhaps it's just severe concussion, or broken jaw on the other side)

Does Viney get off, or is he responsible for the same reason that Dougie was responsible?

 

[Glenno23]

Douglas went out of his way to hit Ward who wasn't within 5 metres of the ball... Viney hit a player under different circumstances. I'm not saying he didn't hit Lynch's head, but I'm saying there was no genuine other option. He didn't pick off Lynch.

It was not far off being 5 metres.... maybe we should give our players measuring tape?

None of the players suspended this year for "head bumps" should've been suspended. But they did and the tribunal always uses previous cases....

 

[Bicks]

Says it all really, we may not like it but that is the World we live in today....get used to it!!



http://m.theage.com.au/afl/melbourn...ays-leading-sports-lawyer-20140507-zr6cf.html


The lawyer who defended Brett Deledio on Tuesday night in the tribunal case that immediately followed the landmark Jack Viney decision believes that the AFL's rule changes in recent seasons have likely shielded it from a major payout to footballers who suffer serious head injuries.
Horvath, who acts as Richmond's legal counsel at the tribunal, and is the principal of leading sports law firm Sportslawyer, contends that the AFL was wise to implement a number of recent rule changes aimed at stemming the damage from major issues that were identified in their annual medical reports.
"The AFL is a sophisticated organisation to state the bleeding obvious," Horvath said.
"The outcomes of that research and reporting provides them with clear information about where risks of injury arise in the game of AFL football and particularly where there are patterns and trends and particularly matters that could lead to long-term injries beyond simply physical injuries.
"From a legal point of view, once you're aware of something that can lead to serious injury and risk and so on, and particularly long-term head injury, and I'm particularly thinking of concussive injury and related matters, the AFL has an obligation to act on the information."
Horvath cited the heavily publicised respective plights of dual Brownlow Medalist Greg Williams, former Demon Daniel Bell and Eagles champion Dean Kemp as cases which likely heightened the AFL's sense of urgency.
He was confident that the league's prompt action in dealing with its increased knowledge about the risk of repeated concussions has likely saved it from a potential NFL-style class action.
A US $765 million settlement has been proposed to compensate the more than 4000 NFL players who are suing the league for not acting on the knowledge it had obtained about the possible damage caused by on-field head injuries.
"From a legal point of view, you've got to show that you were taking positive action to remove and reduce risks," Horvath said.
While refusing to comment on the specifics of the Viney incident due to its ongoing nature, Horvath argued that the league's general approach to the bump, which has seen it undergo a monumental change in interpretation over the past two decades, likely put the AFL in the clear.
"The AFL is acting in a manner which I would suggest legally they must to minimise their chances of being sued in the future on the basis that they didn't act on a significant risk that they were aware of to players in the game."
While conceding that elements of the game had changed, Horvath described the alterations more as "fine-tuning," and indicated there was little risk that football would ever deviate totally from being a contact sport.
"You read in the papers on a weekly, monthly basis that a player's received a broken neck or something in country football.
"Some of these things are probably going to happen from time to time and unless you remove most of the rules from the sport and change it to a completely different game all together ... that risk is always going to be there, and people probably accept some of those risks when they go in to play the sport, but the rule makers have a responsibility to change some of those rules."

 

[ltdamn]

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.

They don't need to be. The AFL and the MRP can't legislate for every specific scenario, so instead they have a blanket set of rules which attempt to cover all scenarios, so you can compare a Douglas or Fyfe hit to a Viney hit. That's why they now grade each charge and allocate points against that grading, high, reckless, severe etc, and then the penalties should theoretically be structured - rather than the old system which everyone hated, where it was down to media coverage and how good your advocate was as to what the tribunal gave you, and no precedent was taken from previous decisions.

Where the new system falls down is when the public expect every case to be adjudged individually and separate from the panels previous determinations, like the old system was, despite the fact that the previous system was widely decried as flawed beyond repair due to it's lack of consistency, for exactly the reasons described above.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Another hypothetical for you ... Viney gets slightly lower, shoulder to shoulder, no head clash with Viney and Lynch, but Georgiou and Lynch have head clash. All other variables the same. (I don't know how you'd explain the broken jaw, perhaps it's just severe concussion, or broken jaw on the other side)

Does Viney get off, or is he responsible for the same reason that Dougie was responsible?

Very good question. By the letter of the rules he probably is which shows how ridiculous it is.

It's as though bad luck or wrong-place-wrong-time don't exist anymore

 

[PureFooty]

It was not far off being 5 metres.... maybe we should give our players measuring tape?

None of the players suspended this year for "head bumps" should've been suspended. But they did and the tribunal always uses previous cases....

Do you think the 2 incidents are the same?

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Douglas went out of his way to hit Ward who wasn't within 5 metres of the ball... Viney hit a player under different circumstances. I'm not saying he didn't hit Lynch's head, but I'm saying there was no genuine other option. He didn't pick off Lynch.

Seriously don't kid yourself.
Viney had every intent to hit Lynch, the end result is he hit Lynch high resulting in a a broken jaw....Viney is lucky to only be missing 2 matches.
It really baffles me why everyone is bitching about the Viney incident.

Viney got less than he deserved.

 

[Bicks]

Do you think the 2 incidents are the same?

You get off on running back to your board "rubbishing" Adelaide supporters because they do not necessarily agree with your version of the event???

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

All the rage this decision has generated got me thinking how much of a role bloodlust plays when past players, commentators and fans discuss these new rule changes.

Go to the F1's and the crashes are the best bits. Boxing, UFC. In AFL the big hits and injuries are what gets the blood boiling and brings passion and emotion to the forefront. The 1989 grand final is held up as everyone's favourite grand final - excellent football yes but a gladiatorial contest as well with plenty of blood spilled.

Do the rules changes take away something that is primal? Deep down do we secretly like seeing people getting hurt? If the risk of injury gets taken away, does that reduce the inherent tension in the game?

 

[MattyB_76]

Ok, here's 4.45 of Cyril Rioli doing what Jack Viney appparently is unable to do, avoid colliding with another player.

If this link doesn't work, you should see the amazing pirouette he does at 1:19.

 

[Glenno23]

Do you think the 2 incidents are the same?

Not exactly, but there was more of a head collision with JV on Lynch than Dougie on Ward

 

[cmndstab]

The two incidents, in their entirety, don't need to be the same. The part that the tribunal is punishing was. That is, there was rough conduct that resulted in a head clash.

The circumstances leading up to it are inconsequential according to the tribunal.

Which is, of course, complete bullshit.

 

[JP Sauce]

I rest my case.

Suddenly chants hour doesn't look quite so bad...

 

[ltdamn]

What is fascinating about this whole event is how quickly everyone's recollection of the actual, physical event has morphed into something that suits their individual POV on the topic. There is a study to be done I'm sure about how the truth and accuracy of the recollection stretches the further out from the incident you get. JFKs assassination didn't get this level of forensic analysis.

I will leave the 'back, and to the left' line for someone more deserving.....

 

[Vader]

Another hypothetical for you ... Viney gets slightly lower, shoulder to shoulder, no head clash with Viney and Lynch, but Georgiou and Lynch have head clash. All other variables the same. (I don't know how you'd explain the broken jaw, perhaps it's just severe concussion, or broken jaw on the other side)

Does Viney get off, or is he responsible for the same reason that Dougie was responsible?

Viney would still be just as guilty, even if the damage was caused by Lynch & Georgiou clashing heads. The reason for that clash is the contact which Viney instigated, so he would be the one who was liable.

 

[skoobydoo]

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.

Exactly. Just the same way that players have learned to still attack the contest without diving/sliding into the legs. It can be done.

 

[Harris Pilton]

The hit on Lynch seems to be clearly outside the rules, but I'm not sure how to analyse it. Lynch was being tackled and so had very little capability of protecting himself. Viney came in very hard, causing Lynch to be squashed between two players and his head rattling back and forth between the two Melbourne players' heads. Result - concussion and broken jaw. Is this within the rules? I would hope not. Georgiou was blameless. He was just laying a tackle. Lynch had no control over the situation whatsoever. Viney had all the options. He chose the collision which left Lynch with a broken jaw. To my simplistic view, rough conduct at the very least, and IMO Viney was lucky to get away with two.

 

[Crow-eater]

The appeal tonight will be interesting. I can't see Melbourne's " The tribunal was wrong therefore we're appealing because it was wrong" getting very far with the appeals board. It opens up a very large can of worms.

Fact of the matter is, the Tribunal ****ed up. He's either not guilty and gets nothing, or he's guilty and gets 4 (severe impact etc). IMO he shouldn't have been cited.

The "this great game is dead" calls are getting extremely tiresome and stupid now though. Really Roo, a player strike?

 

[PKnox]

No you don't. You just think it justice because your boy got done in a similar incident.

What would be nice is be some consistency from Adelaide fans.

You are extremely ignorant about this whole issue, no doubt swept up by (a) the fact that it's your player involved and (b) the laughable media whirlwind which has inexplicably selected THIS incident as being worthy of a maelstrom of huff and bluff.

The AFL has to be tough on these incidents because it doesn't want to face litigation from retired players in 10-30 years amounting to well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, as has happened recently with the NFL. The AFL can't afford to take a hit like that.

This issue goes beyond what you think is fair and what you think affects the spectacle of footy, insomuch as it detracts from the 'glory days' when thumping players off the ball and taking players out of the game was commonplace. The fact that Dermott Brereton is the ring-leader of this latest protest speaks volumes.

This issue is all about player protection. To value the 'toughness' of football over the safety of players is selfish and barbaric, and you should be ashamed of your pathetic whinging of late.

 

[PKnox]

The appeal tonight will be interesting. I can't see Melbourne's " The tribunal was wrong therefore we're appealing because it was wrong" getting very far with the appeals board. It opens up a very large can of worms.

Fact of the matter is, the Tribunal ****** up. He's either not guilty and gets nothing, or he's guilty and gets 4 (severe impact etc). IMO he shouldn't have been cited.

The "this great game is dead" calls are getting extremely tiresome and stupid now though. Really Roo, a player strike?

The thing is, if the tribunal agree that Viney bumped Lynch, he is actually facing a 4-5 week penalty if the tribunal rate the impact of the bump correctly. Hugh risk taken by Viney, no doubt spurred on my the sad media beat up.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

The thing is, if the tribunal agree that Viney bumped Lynch, he is actually facing a 4-5 week penalty if the tribunal rate the impact of the bump correctly. Hugh risk taken by Viney, no doubt spurred on my the sad media beat up.

Lol. And you call me ignorant.

 

[PKnox]

Lol. And you call me ignorant.

Pfft do you know how the MRP/tribunal scale works? Rating the impact as 'medium', as the tribunal did, was ridiculous. The impact should have been rated as 'high', and not even Dermott has disputed that. With that rating, Viney is looking at way more than two games out.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

You are extremely ignorant about this whole issue, no doubt swept up by (a) the fact that it's your player involved and (b) the laughable media whirlwind which has inexplicably selected THIS incident as being worthy of a maelstrom of huff and bluff.

The AFL has to be tough on these incidents because it doesn't want to face litigation from retired players in 10-30 years amounting to well into the hundreds of millions of dollars, as has happened recently with the NFL. The AFL can't afford to take a hit like that.

This issue goes beyond what you think is fair and what you think affects the spectacle of footy, insomuch as it detracts from the 'glory days' when thumping players off the ball and taking players out of the game was commonplace. The fact that Dermott Brereton is the ring-leader of this latest protest speaks volumes.

This issue is all about player protection. To value the 'toughness' of football over the safety of players is selfish and barbaric, and you should be ashamed of your pathetic whinging of late.

I understand why the AFL is doing this. I revile dirty tactics, dangerous play and thumping someone off the ball. I'd love for you to indicate where I say otherwise. I believe the head should be protected but AFL is a contact sport. To punish someone purely based on injuries sustained is unfair and only workable in the long run if we play touch footy.

This incident was an accident. It was unavoidable unless Viney chose not to contest a loose ball. If lynch hadn't been dragged down in a tackle and the resulting collision broke Vineys jaw then Lynch would be liable by current rules.

From your post it seems you want afl to evolve into a non contact sport.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Pfft do you know how the MRP/tribunal scale works? Rating the impact as 'medium', as the tribunal did, was ridiculous. The impact should have been rated as 'high', and not even Dermott has disputed that. With that rating, Viney is looking at way more than two games out.

Keep going...