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

[PKnox]

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 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.

Lynch's injuries had nothing to do with the tribunal's assessment that Viney chose to bump so your argument collapses instantly.

 

[PKnox]

Keep going...

Just because the Dees are appealing Viney's ban doesn't mean the appeal judiciary can't increase Viney's penalty. Viney is challenging the tribunal's assessment that he chose to bump Lynch. But like any appellate body, the judiciary handling this matter have 'merits review' power in that they can make a completely fresh decision based on the facts and evidence led at the initial hearing. Whether new evidence can be tendered tonight is not certain, it's been a while since an appeal has happened so I can't remember.

But either way, if Melbourne are challenging the validity of the tribunal's decision to classify Viney's actions as a bump, the appeal judiciary can also rectify the blatant mistake by the tribunal in assessing the impact of the incident as 'medium'. If they correctly apply the rules, it was a 'high' impact and Viney is looking at even more games on the sidelines.

That is why he is taking a big risk, and I'm concerned that he is only doing it because Dermott and Co have turned this decision into an "Us V Them" situation which doesn't help either side of the debate.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Lynch's injuries had nothing to do with the tribunal's assessment that Viney chose to bump so your argument collapses instantly.

If he hadnt been injured there would be no charge. How can you not see that.

 

[Mattrox]

If he hadnt been injured there would be no charge. How can you not see that.

That would be the case with Douglas and Fyfe too. Ziebell as well. When harm is caused by a high impact the player gets suspended.

The rule is too confusing for players and I don't like it. BUT

Viney chose to enter a contest where 2 players were coming directly at him. Bar bailing out, the options left to him are tackling (and breaking his own neck) or bracing into a bump. The tribunal will rule that by chosing to engage in the contest where heavy impact was inevitable Viney was negligent.

If they overturn Viney's appeal it opens up a bigger can of worms.

It is far better to ammend the rule so the negligent part is removed, where rough conduct is only judged when a player intends to harm or is reckless....

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Just because the Dees are appealing Viney's ban doesn't mean the appeal judiciary can't increase Viney's penalty. Viney is challenging the tribunal's assessment that he chose to bump Lynch. But like any appellate body, the judiciary handling this matter have 'merits review' power in that they can make a completely fresh decision based on the facts and evidence led at the initial hearing. Whether new evidence can be tendered tonight is not certain, it's been a while since an appeal has happened so I can't remember.

But either way, if Melbourne are challenging the validity of the tribunal's decision to classify Viney's actions as a bump, the appeal judiciary can also rectify the blatant mistake by the tribunal in assessing the impact of the incident as 'medium'. If they correctly apply the rules, it was a 'high' impact and Viney is looking at even more games on the sidelines.

That is why he is taking a big risk, and I'm concerned that he is only doing it because Dermott and Co have turned this decision into an "Us V Them" situation which doesn't help either side of the debate.

Dermott is one of many. Hes a mouthy bogan from Frankston and makes a lot of noise but hes no ringleader and hes not alone. Roo has kicked up more of a stink.

Former players, current players, coaches, administrators, football media, even Andrew Demetriou all disagree with the result. Its just you and a handful of Adelaide supporters. But im sure youre right.

 

[beartoo]

Keep going...

I thought you pissed off several pages ago. You know where the door is. Use it.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Who assessed the impact as medium?

 

[PKnox]

Dermott is one of many. Hes a mouthy bogan from Frankston and makes a lot of noise but hes no ringleader and hes not alone. Roo has kicked up more of a stink.

Former players, current players, coaches, administrators, football media, even Andrew Demetriou all disagree with the result. Its just you and a handful of Adelaide supporters. But im sure youre right.

Well the tribunal and I are right, yes.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Well the tribunal and I are right, yes.

Because a tribunal has never been wrong before. Nor have you, im sure.

 

[PKnox]

Because a tribunal has never been wrong before. Nor have you, im sure.

I hope we can at least agree that it'd be a tragedy if the Appeal Board let Viney off simply because of the aimless and brainless furore led by Dermott and yourself over the last few days. Like the AFL tribunal, they are meant to be completely independent and impartial, and to let the bleating and ranting from a pack of ignorant sheep affect their judgement would be the greatest tragedy of all.

The MRP/tribunal/appeal board are not in place to make popular decisions, they are in place to make the right decision for the good of the game, and the good of the players. If they apply the law consistent with how it's been applied over the last year or so, Viney's appeal will fail.

 

[Skippy231]

The rule is now if you choose to bump then you MUST ensure the bump does not make contact with an opponents head or you will be suspended. It is the players duty of care to ensure the bump is safe and if they CHOOSE to bump then they are walking a very fine line. I don't see what the confusion is... The only confusion is how it wasn't rated at high or severe impact. Hey Boosh What would be your feeling if Lynch had not broken his jaw and broken his neck and become a paraplegic instead?

 

[huludicidal]

It was an unfortunate incident in which a player was injured.

There was contact between Viney's shoulder and Lynch's head, which resulted in an injury.

Anyone who has played the sport will tell you that Viney had no intention of causing this injury, and that he simply braced for impact.

Was the act of bracing negligent or reckless? Not in my opinion. If he pulls out, he's labelled soft by his coach and fans, and if he goes in front on he risks both he and Lynch breaking their jaws.

The tribunal were caught in a difficult spot, as they have been told on one hand that the head is sacrosanct, and on the other hand that footy involves unavoidable collisions that sometimes result in injuries.

Where they ****ed this up royally in my opinion, is not taking into account the sheer lack of time that Viney had to 'avoid' hitting Lynch inthe head. The KEY FACTOR that appears thave been ignored is that Lynch was CLEARLY propelled forward by Georgiou, which worsened the impact severely. Lynch's head is, as a direct result of the contact from Georgiou a few milliseconds prior to the collision with Viney, lower to the ground than it otherwise would have been, and I'm baffled at how the tribunal have not considered this as significant. I'd argue that if Georgiou wasn't in the play, there's no injury here. Was that Georgiou's fault? Absolutely not. It's purely an unfortunate set of circmstances.

With that fact clearly ignored, the tribunal have come to this decison. It's a shit decision, but it certainly isn't the first time the judicial system in the AFL have gotten it wrong and it won't be the last.



Remember Luke Hodge's hit on Marc Murphy last year? You know, the one where Murphy's jaw got broken and Hodge got off? Yeah, that was totes different to this and precedent is irrelevant.

Luv, the AFL.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

I hope we can at least agree that it'd be a tragedy if the Appeal Board let Viney off simply because of the aimless and brainless furore led by Dermott and yourself over the last few days. Like the AFL tribunal, they are meant to be completely independent and impartial, and to let the bleating and ranting from a pack of ignorant sheep affect their judgement would be the greatest tragedy of all.

The MRP/tribunal/appeal board are not in place to make popular decisions, they are in place to make the right decision for the good of the game, and the good of the players. If they apply the law consistent with how it's been applied over the last year or so, Viney's appeal will fail.

"furore led by Dermott and yourself" wow... talk about hyperbole. I'll point out again, third time, perhaps it will sink in, Dermott (and I) are not leaders of any furore we are representative of the vast majority. Your club champion Roo has called for a player strike.

Andy D has said the decision is disappointing and admitted that they have gone overboard trying to protect the head and need to wind it back a little for the good of the game.

It would be tragic for the game if we allow this to become the norm. Where players are encouraged to shirk contests.

 

[huludicidal]

The rule is now if you choose to bump then you MUST ensure the bump does not make contact with an opponents head or you will be suspended. It is the players duty of care to ensure the bump is safe and if they CHOOSE to bump then they are walking a very fine line. I don't see what the confusion is... The only confusion is how it wasn't rated at high or severe impact. Hey Boosh What would be your feeling if Lynch had not broken his jaw and broken his neck and become a paraplegic instead?

I think the key here is "if you choose to bump".

I don't think anyone can convince me that Viney chose to bump. He braced for impact. There's a difference. The same difference that the MRP decided was important when Luke Hodge escaped penalty for breaking Marc Murphy's jaw last year.

EDIT: Not to mention Jeremy Cameron mowing down a bulldogs player (name escapes me) and ending his season last year. No penalty there either because apparently there was no other option.

Anyone who sees the Viney incident and thinks it was 'worse' than the J Cameron one needs help.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Remember Luke Hodge's hit on Marc Murphy last year? You know, the one where Murphy's jaw got broken and Hodge got off? Yeah, that was totes different to this and precedent is irrelevant.

Luv, the AFL.

Great post. The tribunal ruled in the Hodge case that "he had no other option to contest the ball" and now they seem to be saying that players should shirk rather than contest the ball.

For Viney they expect him to "pirouette" away form the contest. Last year in Ziebells case they said he had the option to wait, allow the opposition to take the ball and then apply a tackle.

Is this really the way you guys want AFL played?

 

[Mattrox]

"furore led by Dermott and yourself" wow... talk about hyperbole. I'll point out again, third time, perhaps it will sink in, Dermott (and I) are not leaders of any furore we are representative of the vast majority. Your club champion Roo has called for a player strike.

Andy D has said the decision is disappointing and admitted that they have gone overboard trying to protect the head and need to wind it back a little for the good of the game.

It would be tragic for the game if we allow this to become the norm. Where players are encouraged to shirk contests.

If you actually listen to him he says words but actually says nothing. "One can see how it COULD be argued"

Then goes onto say that rules which protect the head are important.

At best he had a foot on each side of the fence. At worst he is being diplomatic. He never implies the decision was wrong.

Viney is unlucky, not because the tribunal got it wrong, but because he finds himself embroiled in a media driven circus.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[Vader]

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.

High = 3 games
Severe = 4 games

The impact should clearly have been rated as "severe", given the precedents set by previous "high" impact incidents.

 

[Vader]

"furore led by Dermott and yourself" wow... talk about hyperbole. I'll point out again, third time, perhaps it will sink in, Dermott (and I) are not leaders of any furore we are representative of the vast majority. Your club champion Roo has called for a player strike.

Andy D has said the decision is disappointing and admitted that they have gone overboard trying to protect the head and need to wind it back a little for the good of the game.

It would be tragic for the game if we allow this to become the norm. Where players are encouraged to shirk contests.

I think most supporters - including Adelaide supporters - would agree with the bolded bit. The problem is that the Tribunal has to operate under the rules as they currently stand and the precedents that have been previously set. That means that Viney is guilty. Everyone agrees that the rules need to be changed, but doing so won't make Viney innocent retrospectively.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Great post. The tribunal ruled in the Hodge case that "he had no other option to contest the ball" and now they seem to be saying that players should shirk rather than contest the ball.

For Viney they expect him to "pirouette" away form the contest. Last year in Ziebells case they said he had the option to wait, allow the opposition to take the ball and then apply a tackle.

Is this really the way you guys want AFL played?

It's the way the AFL wants it played. The players sign a contract to play according to those rules. Viney has agreed to play according to those rules.

It would have been close to ten years ago now that the AFL brought in that a player must have a "duty of care" toward an opponent. The calls this week about how the bump is dead, the game isn't the same as 'when we played/what we used to watch'. Of course it isn't. This evolve, and things change. The game changed massively as soon as the AFL brought in that stipulation about a duty of care, but not one mention in the media about how this would irrevocably change the way the game then. I knew then that it was a vastly different game moving forward purely from the AFL covering themselves from litigation.

Viney according to that rule didn't show a duty of care to Lynch. We might morally think it is incorrect, but the laws of the game as they stand, he was guilty of showing a lack of it.

 

[cmndstab]

I'm not sure the impact should have been rated as severe. The AFL uses the severity of injury incurred as an indicator, rather than a definitive measure.

In this case they have rightly assumed that the severity of Lynch's injury is not entire attributable to Viney's actions, so they have rightly lowered the impact rating.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Viney is absolved of responsibility for the bump (going by the precedent set), just that the injury is not a sufficiently good indicator of impact in this case.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

I understand the rules but what options did he legitimately have besides pulling out of the contest early before the ball was won?

This is the reason Melbourne are contesting. He didn't bump he braced for impact. He didn't add force to the collision or raise his body/shoulder upon impact to try to bump. He merely did what was necessary to protect himself and allow himself the chance to win the ball.

If he had a reasonable alternative, if it was off the ball and he made the choice to bump, if he had added force to the collision then it falls into the rules as stated. But if he had no reasonable alternative in the quarter second between Lynch taking the ball and the collision then it is an unfortunate accident and a collision and the tribune has in their discretion the power to overturn the decision.

The option to pirouette away from the collision put forward by the AFL prosecution is ridiculous. And they offered no other option. This is Melbournes case.

 

[Vader]

I'm not sure the impact should have been rated as severe. The AFL uses the severity of injury incurred as an indicator, rather than a definitive measure.

Unlike Contact and Intent, there is no meaningful definition for "Impact". The difference between low, medium, high and severe is almost completely arbitrary and up to the MRP/Tribunal to determine.

In this case they have rightly assumed that the severity of Lynch's injury is not entire attributable to Viney's actions, so they have rightly lowered the impact rating.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Viney is absolved of responsibility for the bump (going by the precedent set), just that the injury is not a sufficiently good indicator of impact in this case.

If Viney hadn't taken the actions he did then there would be no injury - Lynch wouldn't have suffered a broken jaw and (probably) a concussion. Georgiou wouldn't have been "dazed". The Tribunal Booklet doesn't leave room for the half-arsed conclusion they came to - under the laws, as stated in the tribunal handbook, Viney is entirely responsible.

Given the precedents set previously, most notably with Ward's concussion being graded as "high" impact, there is no way known that they could have judged Lynch's injury as anything less than severe.

 

[Hinkstuff]

High = 3 games
Severe = 4 games

The impact should clearly have been rated as "severe", given the precedents set by previous "high" impact incidents.

This is only speculation but... perhaps the AFL grades concussion higher than fractures now.

There is an amount of certainty about the damage of a fracture, infact straight after the game the figure of 6 weeks out was floated, and is very likely to make a full recovery.
There is a lot of uncertainty about concussion, with no real way of assessing the damage if any. You may not find any damage for years after the fact, and that damage will probably be irreparable.

So it may boil down to short to mid-term injury and recovery vs long term and permanent injury.

---

To appease both football fans and insurance companies I think the AFL will need to

• Introduce a new charge with lower gradings than rough conduct for accidental head clashes; or
• Introduce a lower grading for intent than Negligent (ie incidental/accidental) and rejig the rough conduct formula to give out a reprimand in such a case.

 

[Jars458]

It's
Viney according to that rule didn't show a duty of care to Lynch. We might morally think it is incorrect, but the laws of the game as they stand, he was guilty of showing a lack of it.

Entirely debateable. Its a grey area here as I and many others think he had no reasonable alternative. Having said that it certainly isnt' the end of the world as we know it as some people are making out. The footy industry has a penchant for going completely overboard.

 

[Jars458]

I think most supporters - including Adelaide supporters - would agree with the bolded bit. The problem is that the Tribunal has to operate under the rules as they currently stand and the precedents that have been previously set. That means that Viney is guilty. Everyone agrees that the rules need to be changed, but doing so won't make Viney innocent retrospectively.

I don't, I think the rule is fine, I just vary in my interpretation of it in these circumstances.