RIP Australian Rules Football

[Bob Sugar]

Blame the clubs, they asked for it.

[Dave The Man]

[David]

Pretty much the whole point of most of these types of rules in football is to prevent injury, so that kind of makes sense in principle. But I can't see how Viney's suspension is supposed to do a thing to achieve that. I'm not sure what he was supposed to have done to avoid impact. Are players going to be instructed to pull out of contests now and not go in hard? Will this apply for all such collisions, or just when a player happens to get hurt?

[Albert Parker]

Farcical.
Victoria has become a nanny state and now its football code is fitting the role.
Removing scoring from junior games too is yet more evidence of the overbearing AFL going too far in its effort to stop any injury and risking any child's feelings gets hurt.

[Brenny]

I agree wholeheartedly with everyone when they say he should not have been suspended. I don't think he should have ben either.

I'm actually more confused with the tribunal, not for suspending him, but for their line of questioning. Asking whether he was suspended as a junior and at times agreeing with him about preparing for contact.

Under their apparent guidelines, I actually never once thought he was going to be suspended, the fact it was graded as medium impact (weird seeing he broke his jaw), I actually don't believe they wanted to suspend him, but if they had to, then it had to be as minimal as possible.

Usually a broken jaw would be high impact or something.

As I said, I NEVER ONCE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO BE SUSPENDED, I WAS CONFIDENT HE WAS GOING TO GET OFF. If anybody say 360 tonight and heard Bucks talk about a play with Beams and somebody from Carlton, then this ruling causes more confusion that anything else.

However, I disagree when everybody says the game is dead. You, like me, will all be there in R10 supporting the pies.

[watt price tully]

* OMG
* Its the end of modern civilisation as we know it
* It's just not cricket
* You can't even bump anymore
* It's the end of footy
* It's become netball


What a bunch of histrionic drama queens - & Dermie is the leader. Precious.

You break someone's jaw you pay.

His intent was not to cause that but shit the rules have changed & the onus is on the person choosing to bump when other options might have been available.

Big deal. The game continues to be tough & demanding.

I'm looking forward to game against Adelaide.

If he gets off on appeal good luck to him, if he doesn't it reinforces the notion that ones ferociousness needs to be tempered with a responsibility not to have head high contact or contact that results in a serious injury to another player to the extent that there is a choice.

End of footy - bullshit.

[Brenny]

What would this bump be worth now.

Lets talk about what the tribunal would give it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6jpckvuuE

[Steve86]

he didn't choose to bump. he chose to protect him self from being smashed by the two other guys coming straight at him...I'm livid over this.

[Ian]

what Viney should have done

[AN_Inkling]

Eh, this sort of ruling really doesn't bother me. I never liked "hard" footy anyway. It never was actually hard. I haven't forensically analysed the footage, but the question would be: once Viney realised he couldn't get the ball, did he have another option than to brace in the way he did? It seems the tribunal think he did. I haven't viewed it closely enough to say.

[Brenny]

^ The tribunal said he should have stepped out of the way... by either stepping or twisting.

In one word: Make no contact and move out of the way!

Viney actually slowed once the ball bounced away from him, and when he realised that two people were coming direct for him, he braced for impact.

[MJ23]

What a crock of shit.
This has changed footy.
There is now no accidents in a contact sport.
If the afl was serious about protecting players from head injuries they would mandate helmets for all players. ( soft not hard ). I'd hate this but would rather see players in helmets than have a kid like viney suspended for that.

He did not choose to bump and until the ball bounced the other way he was a chance to be first to it. When the ball went the other way with a player running as hard at it as he was he braced for contact.

This crap scott is on about with Lindsay Thomas on Reid was totally different. It's not that fricken hard and this crap about the injury dictating the outcome is just rubbish. Clubs did not ask for this.

Buckley was interesting. Can't go too low at the ball or you take the legs, can't duck your head into contact and can't turn side on. So hit front on and you and the other player both are injured or just don't contest the ball.

Lets watch soccer.

[Skids]

One of the worst decisions ever.

Let �m play for fu88s sake!

[Brown26]

I don't see how you can argue that he did or did not choose to bump. He HAD to make contact. By the time he realised he was not going to be first to the ball (he wasn't far off it btw) he could not escape the contact. He either makes contact like he did, drops his shoulder and really cleans the guy up, or puts both arms out and lets the Adelaide guy (and his Melbourne team mate) clean him up.

There is NO option to step out of the way, that's just rubbish. He's going fast in a straight line and doesn't have one step worth of time to change his direction or decision.

I disagree with the ideology of the person bumping being responsible for the consequences anyway, but this is quite ridiculous. A little bit of movement each way and perhaps it would have been Viney who had his jaw broken - would Lynch then be given 2 weeks suspension? He did the same thing - his eyes were not on the ball when the collision occured, he was bracing for impact as well!!

This is usually the stuff they reserve to pay against Collingwood on preliminary final eve - is the AFL really that worried about Melbourne after 2 wins?!?

- Ben

[AN_Inkling]