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

[The Mighty Boosh]

Thats right, because Douglas IMO didnt hit Ward high at all. Viney collided with Lynch's jaw.

He chose to bump so under the new laws of the game is responsible for the outcome regardless of whether it was head high or not. Viney didn't choose to bump.

Sorry about Lynch.

 

[PureFooty]

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

Yeh man I get off on that sh*t.

 

[Tex200]

He chose to bump so under the new laws of the game is responsible for the outcome regardless of whether it was head high or not. Viney didn't choose to bump.

Sorry about Lynch.

Oh for FS - you've posted the same line for about 1000 posts now - either add something new or do what you said you would about 500 posts ago

 

[6BTS]

I've had a little bit more time to think about this and a few things have occurred to me from reading a lot of the posts here and listening to other view points.

These points seem to be unquestionable as far as the support Viney movement is concerned. 1) He had NO other option. They are arguing that he couldn't avoid the contact that was about to occur because as a footballer, you have to be courageous and attack where the ball is going. 2) He protected himself on instinct and didn't have time to think. 3) If Viney is guilty then it is destroying the game because it's no longer tough. 4) Accidents happen and shouldn't be penalized.

I've heard other things said, but I wanted to focus on what appear to be the main sticking points. Based on the arguments above my question is why didn't he try to tackle Lynch? If you're talking about what is expected of you as a footballer then if the ball carrier is coming your way, you are expected to tackle him. If you're talking about the game being tough, why didn't Viney choose the course of action which required him to be tough and courageous rather then to protect himself? If he protected himself on instinct, doesn't the footballers instinct tell you to tackle the ball carrier? I thought this was a tough AFL footballer we are talking about, not someone who is concerned he might get hurt on the football field. Why is everyone whinging about the toughness of the game when they should be whinging about the fact that Viney chose self preservation ahead of doing what was best for the Melbourne Football Club in that instance.

 

[JP Sauce]

Melbourne's QC.

That doesn't seem like great QC-ing, arguing that your player should've got a harsher penalty?

Unless he's arguing that the whole ruling was a shambles and should be thrown out.

 

[Tex200]

That doesn't seem like great QC-ing, arguing that your player should've got a harsher penalty?

Unless he's arguing that the whole ruling was a shambles and should be thrown out.

Option 2

 

[cmndstab]

There are plenty of situations on a footy field where it is better to bump than to tackle.

It's not about being "tough" in the physical pain sense. It's about being willing to put your body on the line when it will help your team win the match.

 

[cmndstab]

That doesn't seem like great QC-ing, arguing that your player should've got a harsher penalty?

Unless he's arguing that the whole ruling was a shambles and should be thrown out.

Obviously the latter. He'll be using the argument that the tribunal chose a populist compromise rather than actually come down one side or another (and then follow it up by saying that if the tribunal is not willing to state he's guilty of the broken jaw, he should be let off).

I doubt it will get up.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

I've had a little bit more time to think about this and a few things have occurred to me from reading a lot of the posts here and listening to other view points.

These points seem to be unquestionable as far as the support Viney movement is concerned. 1) He had NO other option. They are arguing that he couldn't avoid the contact that was about to occur because as a footballer, you have to be courageous and attack where the ball is going. 2) He protected himself on instinct and didn't have time to think. 3) If Viney is guilty then it is destroying the game because it's no longer tough. 4) Accidents happen and shouldn't be penalized.

I've heard other things said, but I wanted to focus on what appear to be the main sticking points. Based on the arguments above my question is why didn't he try to tackle Lynch? If you're talking about what is expected of you as a footballer then if the ball carrier is coming your way, you are expected to tackle him. If you're talking about the game being tough, why didn't Viney choose the course of action which required him to be tough and courageous rather then to protect himself? If he protected himself on instinct, doesn't the footballers instinct tell you to tackle the ball carrier? I thought this was a tough AFL footballer we are talking about, not someone who is concerned he might get hurt on the football field. Why is everyone whinging about the toughness of the game when they should be whinging about the fact that Viney chose self preservation ahead of doing what was best for the Melbourne Football Club in that instance.

Ok, firstly I would say it's 'he had no other choice to contest the ball' which is what we expect of a footballer and the reason the tribunal let Hodge off after breaking Murphy's jaw was that very reason. He had no other way of contesting the ball. ONce players stop contesting the ball it's not really football as we know it.

As to the tackle. Firstly, Viney had no way of knowing that by protecting himself he would break Lynch's jaw. He was moving at high speed into a collision with two bigger heavy bodies the combined weight of which would have smashed him. No footballer tackles in that circumstance it is unrealistic and would result in injury to Viney at the least - possibly to Lynch and Georgiou too. Even the prosecution didn't offer that up as an option.

So he had the coice between bracing for impact or opening himself up to further injury. As Roos has stated, Viney has already suffered a broken jaw and three concussions himself. To use the "he's supposed to be tough" line is silly.

 

[Hinkstuff]

That doesn't seem like great QC-ing, arguing that your player should've got a harsher penalty?

Unless he's arguing that the whole ruling was a shambles and should be thrown out.

That's exactly what he's hoping for.

Will likely backfire though causing that grading to increase.

 

[Crow-eater]

The grading cannot be increased. Viney either gets 0 or 2 games.

 

[Tex200]

Ok, firstly I would say it's 'he had no other choice to contest the ball' which is what we expect of a footballer and the reason the tribunal let Hodge off after breaking Murphy's jaw was that very reason. He had no other way of contesting the ball. ONce players stop contesting the ball it's not really football as we know it.

As to the tackle. Firstly, Viney had no way of knowing that by protecting himself he would break Lynch's jaw. He was moving at high speed into a collision with two bigger heavy bodies the combined weight of which would have smashed him. No footballer tackles in that circumstance it is unrealistic and would result in injury to Viney at the least - possibly to Lynch and Georgiou too. Even the prosecution didn't offer that up as an option.

So he had the coice between bracing for impact or opening himself up to further injury. As Roos has stated, Viney has already suffered a broken jaw and three concussions himself. To use the "he's supposed to be tough" line is silly.

OMG - seriously????

You made your point like 1000 times. Sell it somewhere else

 

[JP Sauce]

Option 2

Obviously the latter. He'll be using the argument that the tribunal chose a populist compromise rather than actually come down one side or another (and then follow it up by saying that if the tribunal is not willing to state he's guilty of the broken jaw, he should be let off).

Grace: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed tribunal, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

AFL: Damn it! He's using the Chewbacca defense!

Grace: Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a professional footballer, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that back room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the points system, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed tribunal, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

 

[dav3]

I've had a little bit more time to think about this and a few things have occurred to me from reading a lot of the posts here and listening to other view points.

These points seem to be unquestionable as far as the support Viney movement is concerned. 1) He had NO other option. They are arguing that he couldn't avoid the contact that was about to occur because as a footballer, you have to be courageous and attack where the ball is going. 2) He protected himself on instinct and didn't have time to think. 3) If Viney is guilty then it is destroying the game because it's no longer tough. 4) Accidents happen and shouldn't be penalized.

I've heard other things said, but I wanted to focus on what appear to be the main sticking points. Based on the arguments above my question is why didn't he try to tackle Lynch? If you're talking about what is expected of you as a footballer then if the ball carrier is coming your way, you are expected to tackle him. If you're talking about the game being tough, why didn't Viney choose the course of action which required him to be tough and courageous rather then to protect himself? If he protected himself on instinct, doesn't the footballers instinct tell you to tackle the ball carrier? I thought this was a tough AFL footballer we are talking about, not someone who is concerned he might get hurt on the football field. Why is everyone whinging about the toughness of the game when they should be whinging about the fact that Viney chose self preservation ahead of doing what was best for the Melbourne Football Club in that instance.

Another way you could look at it is that Viney has done for himself exactly what the AFL is trying to achieve, protect the player from injury. If he'd attempted to tackle two players going at full speed in the opposite direction we would have had two players with broken jaws (or worse), who gets punished then?

 

[6BTS]

Ok, firstly I would say it's 'he had no other choice to contest the ball' which is what we expect of a footballer and the reason the tribunal let Hodge off after breaking Murphy's jaw was that very reason. He had no other way of contesting the ball. ONce players stop contesting the ball it's not really football as we know it.

As to the tackle. Firstly, Viney had no way of knowing that by protecting himself he would break Lynch's jaw. He was moving at high speed into a collision with two bigger heavy bodies the combined weight of which would have smashed him. No footballer tackles in that circumstance it is unrealistic and would result in injury to Viney at the least - possibly to Lynch and Georgiou too. Even the prosecution didn't offer that up as an option.

So he had the choice between bracing for impact or opening himself up to further injury. As Roos has stated, Viney has already suffered a broken jaw and three concussions himself. To use the "he's supposed to be tough" line is silly.

I thought it was all about staying true to what the game was all about, which is why everyone is up in arms about Viney being suspended. Yet if Viney is allowed to take the soft option, then that's not being true to what the game was all about. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either It's okay to be soft, or it's not. Which is why the argument that he avoid the contest in the first place is valid. Or is your argument "As long as you give the appearance of being tough, you may then choose an option which is soft". Imagine trying to coach in the eighties that way...

 

[6BTS]

Another way you could look at it is that Viney has done for himself exactly what the AFL is trying to achieve, protect the player from injury. If he'd attempted to tackle two players going at full speed in the opposite direction we would have had two players with broken jaws (or worse), who gets punished then?

So you're okay with the soft option then? I thought we were all up in arms about how soft the game was becoming because of this incident and subsequent suspension?

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

I thought it was all about staying true to what the game was all about, which is why everyone is up in arms about Viney being suspended. Yet if Viney is allowed to take the soft option, then that's not being true to what the game was all about. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Either It's okay to be soft, or it's not. Which is why the argument that he avoid the contest in the first place is valid. Or is your argument "As long as you give the appearance of being tough, you may then choose an option which is soft". Imagine trying to coach in the eighties that way...

The soft option is to squibb the contest. The footage shows that at half a second before the collision the ball was in dispute. It bounced well for Lynch and he was running on to it. A tough player tries to win the ball regardless of oncoming contact. They still brace for impact - it's human nature. A soft player would have slowed up well before then.

Again, if Lynch hadn't been injured Viney would have been heralded for his courageous play winning the ball and running against the flight into two bigger opponents. Turning to brace doesn't make him cowardly and it's disingenuous to suggest it does.

 

[dav3]

So you're okay with the soft option then? I thought we were all up in arms about how soft the game was becoming because of this incident and subsequent suspension?

You can call it what you like, he contested the ball the way every footballer should, when it suddenly became clear he couldn't get there in time once the ball hit the deck he's braced for impact and due to outside influences (the tackle from the other Dees player) he's got him high.

I'm not sure how you can argue that this is just hard football AND expect him to get suspended

 

[6BTS]

The soft option is to squibb the contest. The footage shows that at half a second before the collision the ball was in dispute. It bounced well for Lynch and he was running on to it. A tough player tries to win the ball regardless of oncoming contact. They still brace for impact - it's human nature. A soft player would have slowed up well before then.

Again, if Lynch hadn't been injured Viney would have been heralded for his courageous play winning the ball and running against the flight into two bigger opponents. Turning to brace doesn't make him cowardly and it's ingenious to suggest it does.

Bollocks, he had two clear choices. Tackle or self preservation. Tough option or soft option. If I'm a coach and my player has chosen the soft option, I'd be pissed. But we're all conveniently ignoring this fact because someone who didn't intend to cause an injury actually did cause an injury and because of a new rule he got suspended for it. And the reason he caused the injury was because he chose the soft option. Or is it tough to clean up an unsuspecting opposition player? I can think of many footballers of the past who would have gone for the ball or tackle the ball carrier, unconcerned for their health and well being and receiving pocket money for their efforts, not a full time wage that puts them in the upper class of society.

 

[The Mighty Boosh]

Viney off. Good decision.

 

[Bicks]

Viney off. Good decision.

Good, hope that means we don't have to read anymore of your bleating!!

 

[PKnox]

Viney off. Good decision.

A completely impartial decision, and made without a shred of influence from dermott and his merry band of meat heads?

 

[dav3]

Time to make this a ***CROWS ONLY*** thread?

Mod comment: clear disrespect for a recent board decision. Infraction given.

 

[6BTS]

You can call it what you like, he contested the ball the way every footballer should, when it suddenly became clear he couldn't get there in time once the ball hit the deck he's braced for impact and due to outside influences (the tackle from the other Dees player) he's got him high.

I'm not sure how you can argue that this is just hard football AND expect him to get suspended

So you're saying that when you see your opponent who is coming at you take possession of the ball before you can, every footballer should brace for impact rather then attempt to tackle?

 

[dav3]

So you're saying that when you see your opponent who is coming at you take possession of the ball before you can, every footballer should brace for impact rather then attempt to tackle?

I'm saying this should be able commonsense, he made it a contest while trying to minimize damage to himself and other players. It was unfortunate that Lynch got hurt but punishing a guy for trying to protect himself while the AFL is pushing to protect players is just silly