Jack Viney

[PKnox]

To those who are saying Viney has no case to answer, it's not 2004. The rules have changed. You are making arguments that might have worked ten years ago, but those arguments are now completely redundant. If the tribunal takes stock of the punishments handed out over the last two years, Viney has to get games, simple as that.

For so long everyone has been arguing for consistency. Now you'd like to circumvent that consistency just to get Viney off because 'otherwise AFL is becoming Netball' (which is a pathetic and childish argument by the way).

Every week a new club is whinging about how hard-done by their player is. Melbourne fans are just taking this to a whole new level of whinge.

 

[MattyB_76]

Sorry Matty B - I don't see your details on the Adelaide Football Club website as an employee? Maybe there is a '******' section I haven't seen yet?

I will say that the Adelaide Football Club provided evidence saying that Dangerfield would not play the following week. Funnily enough he did, and was BOG the next week kicking 6 goals.

And you have proof of this 'evidence' how? Surely you can find a link in a news article, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

To those who are saying Viney has no case to answer, it's not 2004. The rules have changed. You are making arguments that might have worked ten years ago, but those arguments are now completely redundant. If the tribunal takes stock of the punishments handed out over the last two years, Viney has to get games, simple as that.

For so long everyone has been arguing for consistency. Now you'd like to circumvent that consistency just to get Viney off because 'otherwise AFL is becoming Netball' (which is a pathetic and childish argument by the way).

Every week a new club is whinging about how hard-done by their player is. Melbourne fans are just taking this to a whole new level of whinge.

Viney didn't bump the guy. He too evasive action to protect himself.

And that is where every bleeding heart Adelaide supporter's argument falls away like a house of cards.

 

[smasha]

Don't worry Viney will get off as soon as the AFL see that the Demons are playing Richmond the next round.

All is safe opposition fans.

Viney will be safe to play in the Richmond game.
That's what this thread is really all about right?

I know.

Lids got suspended for a little tickle to Stokes but we'll let Viney off.

AFL all gearing up for a Dees win.
I can see it now.

AFL ,what a joke.

 

[PKnox]

Viney didn't bump the guy. He too evasive action to protect himself.

And that is where every bleeding heart Adelaide supporter's argument falls away like a house of cards.

You say that like it's an irrefutable fact.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Viney could've side stepped the contact or put his hands out to cushion the blow.

Unfortunately the arsehats running the show have reduced the game to this.

Given their muppetry earlier this year they must carry on.

No coach, fan or teammate would tolerate a player avoiing contact or cushioning the blow.

 

[MattyB_76]

Oh, so you have decided on an arbitrary cut-off date for which all clubs should be treated the way Adelaide would like?

Please let us know what that date is, for future reference and to save us reading such crap in the future.

Well, it first came up in February 2009, when Maxwell shepherded McGinnity, it's been building steam since then. Yes Kennedy probably should have been suspended for the hit on Sylvia in 2010 less than 12 months later, and most news articles I have seen say agree with this. Fast forward 4 years, and in 7 games we've seen a handful of similar if not comparable hits. It's safe to say all players and supporters are aware of the league's stance on head high contact. The consistent response is for Viney to get games, or do you want every conceivable slight against your club evened up years after the event?

 

[ptrg]

Question to Adelaide fans:

IF (and when) Viney is found not guilty, would you want your club to challenge the finding, or as the REST of the competition would, praise the finding and hope it becomes the standard..?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You say that like it's an irrefutable fact.

And you clowns state that he bumped Lynch like it is an irrefutable fact.

People in glass houses and all that......

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Well, it first came up in February 2009, when Maxwell shepherded McGinnity, it's been building steam since then. Yes Kennedy probably should have been suspended for the hit on Sylvia in 2010 less than 12 months later, and most news articles I have seen say agree with this. Fast forward 4 years, and in 7 games we've seen a handful of similar if not comparable hits. It's safe to say all players and supporters are aware of the league's stance on head high contact. The consistent response is for Viney to get games, or do you want every conceivable slight against your club evened up years after the event?

Ahhh, now we have it don't we.

This is all about revenge for you people and has nothing to do with the rules, motive or common sense? Your guy got hurt and by God somebody MUST pay. It doesn't matter if the kid was trying to protect himself from being absolutely smashed, he MUST pay.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

You are completely right, no one who watches football regularly thought Fyfe, Hunt or Zeibell should have been suspended. But the fact is they were, and we all know the rules and the MRP/Tribunal are royally ****** right now.

But I would rather have a bad rule consistently applied, than a good rule inconsistently applied. That is all we want (technically, I would rather have both a good rule, and consistency, but one step at a time).

You say the Crows supporters are whinging because we lost, well maybe we are. You know how it feels, we're angry at our own team, it's got nothing to do with revenge on Viney. Have you also considered that maybe we just want our players treated the same as every other club's? Just before Trengrove got suspended for the tackle on Danger, Tex Walker got suspended for a similar tackle on someone from Richmond. The guy (name escapes me) got up, remonstrated with Tex, played the game out fine, and played the next week. Tex got a few games (compunded by the stupid sliding rule and carry over points).

You keep saying that Viney had no other option. Many discussions on here have estimated the time he had to react, showed examples of reaction times in professional sportsmen, and also highlighted that Viney is an elite inside midfielder, who is able to dodge a tackle or 3 if he wants to. He clearly had other options, as unpalatable as they may be to you as a supporter (i.e. tackling front on, or squibbing the hit), this is the way the game has been headed for long enough, and we are all aware of it.

The Tribunal tonight will offer him, Negligent, High contact, and High or Severe, which I think works out as 4 or 5 depending on the severity. Despite him claiming he'll plead not guilty, they will still let him, and I expect it to go down to 2 or 3 with lots of carry over points.

I then expect cats to start sleeping with dogs, and mass resignations of footy memberships and BigFooty accounts, and the world to end. Luckily we'll have an extra 30 minutes before the world ends over in SA, so I'll have a last drink and think of you, DA.

What a rambling bunch of nonsense.

1) As previously demonstrated the incidents referred to (Fyfe, Hunt, Douglas) are in no way comparable to this one as in none of those incidents were the suspended players "playing the ball"
2) I never said you were whinging cause you lost
3) It is fine to want your players treated the same, but none of the examples offered (the Douglas one even moreso than the others) are comparable to this one
4) Anyone who has played the game at any level above under 13's would know that if you are running for a loose ball with a player coming from the opposite direction and that player takes possession just before you you don't have time to sit there and contemplate what course of action you should take, it is a reactive decision to brace for the contact unless you want your face/ribs caved in. Doesn't matter how slow you make the replay or how many FPS screen shots you grab, anyone playing the game at a frenetic pace knows in real time that Viney was not looking to flatten Lynch with a bump he was looking to win the footy (which he did I might add). He did not have time to avoid contact so he braced for contact, it's pretty simple.

I agree that if the Tribunal finds he elected to bump he will be suspended because of their ridiculous application of the rules, what I dispute is that he elected to bump as he was chasing a loose ball and braced for oncoming contact at the last millisecond when the other player took possession and cannoned into him. If anything it was the Lynch/Georgiou momentum/tackle which caused the collision, not Viney who had come to a near stop and was in fact knocked backwards after the contact which would be unlikely to have occurred had he kept running through the ball/Lynch and taken him out with a Byron Pickett-style shirtfront.

 

[MattyB_76]

Viney didn't bump the guy. He too evasive action to protect himself.

You know what the word evasive means, don't you?

 

[caitsith01]

It's all pretty simple.

The AFL has seen what has been happening in the US with evidence about the long term effects of head injuries. It is sh*tscared about a major law suit or even class action by ex-players against it. It is therefore prepared to ruin the game with a massively silly over-reaction rather than stand up for the idea that when guys play a contact sport there is an inherent risk of injury.

Winners: the AFL in terms of exposure to silly lawsuits

Losers: the AFL in terms of the quality and history of the game; players; fans

 

[Demonic Ascent]

And you have proof of this 'evidence' how? Surely you can find a link in a news article, otherwise you're just making stuff up.

It happened.

You say that like it's an irrefutable fact.

It is.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

You know what the word evasive means, don't you?

As per below, from the online dictionary. Viney falls under the second catagorical definition of the word evasive:

— adj
1. tending or seeking to evade; avoiding the issue; not straightforward
2. avoiding or seeking to avoid trouble or difficulties: to take evasive action
3. hard to catch or obtain; elusive

Anything else professor?

 

[andypie]

A couple of things really annoying me about this case.
1. I dont think this can be classified as a bump. Their is a difference between choosing to bump and an unavoidable collision where you brace yourself for contact. This in my opinion was an unavoidable incident. Their was no other option available in my mind.
2. comparing it to the Lindsay Thomas/Ben Reid incident where the rule was changed. The Viney incident is nothing like the Lindsay Thomas bump. Lindsay Thomas lined someone up off the ball with no intention of going for the ball, Jack Viney had the ball as his object. Not the same type of incidents in my mind.
Unfortunate accident and I hope the tribunal see it that way.

 

[MattyB_76]

As per below, from the online dictionary. Viney falls under the second catagorical definition of the word evasive:

— adj
1. tending or seeking to evade; avoiding the issue; not straightforward
2. avoiding or seeking to avoid trouble or difficulties: to take evasive action
3. hard to catch or obtain; elusive

Anything else professor?

Good, so tell me how bumping into someone is evasive? How did he avoid that contact?

"Captain, take evasive action ..."
"Ok, I'll crash right into him."

 

[masai]

I'd like to congratulate the AFL Administration for strangling their own game and shooting themselves in the foot at the same time.

 

[Wood_Duck]

This thread is a poor reflection on Adelaide fans.

Some

 

[MattyB_76]

This thread is a poor reflection on Adelaide fans.

And you guys are covering yourself in ... glory.

 

[Armadeo]

Does anyone know what time the Tribunal starts tonight?

Viney could've side stepped the contact or put his hands out to cushion the blow.

Unfortunately the arsehats running the show have reduced the game to this.

Given their muppetry earlier this year they must carry on.

I fear you are right. I'm not really subscribing to bump vs brace argument as I think they are the same thing. Viney never really stopped, he slowed down and changed direction towards Lynch and Georgiou and at some point realised that he could not contest the ball and turned and braced with his shoulder. Unfortunately for Lynch his momentum from Georgiou and pinned arm caused him and Viney to collide and Lynch ending up second best with Georgiou shortly behind.

The questions is who is at fault and who has to make the decision of what is a safe and not reportable course of action. I know when I play sport it is 95% instinct and muscle memory at all times and very rarely do I have time to access things with logic. The AFL are obviously trying to make players a lot more accountable without taking this into account and drive the game into a safer place whilst somehow keeping the physicality.

Either players need to learn to adapt and change their play style or the AFL need to tweak their rules. At the moment if you bump and someone gets caught high or heads clash you are in trouble. The question in this case is did Viney elect to bump (definition pending)? If so, could he have reasonably foreseen that high actions would have caused this. I would not want to be the Tribunal tonight that is for sure.

For the record I have kept my personal preference for the direction of the game and its rules out of this as I find it irrelevant when discussing the facts of what information we have.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

2. comparing it to the Lindsay Thomas/Ben Reid incident where the rule was changed. The Viney incident is nothing like the Lindsay Thomas bump. Lindsay Thomas lined someone up off the ball with no intention of going for the ball, Jack Viney had the ball as his object. Not the same type of incidents in my mind.
Unfortunate accident and I hope the tribunal see it that way.

Exactly and Scott is an idiot for whinging about this at every opportunity (is at least the second time I have heard him bring this up and say "haha told ya so"). Similarly the Viney incident is nothing like the Douglas one most (not all) Crows supporters seem to have their panties in a twist about.

 

[Armadeo]

This thread is a poor reflection on Adelaide fans.

I find the opinion of Adelaide and Melbourne supporters in this thread close to irrelevant.

 

[ptrg]

And you guys are covering yourself in ....

champaign. after our great win last weekend where we beat a team at their home ground, resulting in a 100% win ratio there. Yay.

 

[butters88]

To those who are saying Viney has no case to answer, it's not 2004. The rules have changed. You are making arguments that might have worked ten years ago, but those arguments are now completely redundant. If the tribunal takes stock of the punishments handed out over the last two years, Viney has to get games, simple as that.

For so long everyone has been arguing for consistency. Now you'd like to circumvent that consistency just to get Viney off because 'otherwise AFL is becoming Netball' (which is a pathetic and childish argument by the way).

Every week a new club is whinging about how hard-done by their player is. Melbourne fans are just taking this to a whole new level of whinge.

I've seen a shed load more whinging coming from Camry Crows fans, every second post from Crows fans has been "But, but, but Douglas g g g got f f f four weeks f f f for his h h h hit which w w w was the same. AFL only l l loo looks after Vic clubs"