| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The only question here was whether the contact was aptly described as "negligent" (in which case, the penalty should have been 4 weeks plus) or whether it should have been treated as an "accident" (in which case, the charge should have been dismissed).
The actual problem was obvious the previous week, when Young was given a reprimand for his contact (deemed "reckless" - which was, frankly, crazy) with Chapman and the Essendon player was also given a reprimand for "reckless" high contact on Maxwell. I don't think either of those incidents even attracted a free kick. Once again, the media gets up in arms when a non-Collingwood player appears to get the rough end of the pineapple. I'll say it again - if the MRP had been applying consistent logic to this, Viney should have received a minimum of 4 weeks. |
|
|
|
 |
derkd
Joined: 29 May 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
might as well add my voice......garbage decision ...utter utter utter filth.
For the sake of the other 17 clubs in the comp and for all players I hope the Dee's appeal that decision. Because we cannot let that decision stand as "precedent" moving forward. Or else we shall find players getting suspended every week.
Hope someone can bring some sanity to the AFL soon. |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I agree with P4S here. From one of the angles it looked like Vineyard was lining the Melbourne player up for a deliberate hit. |
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I despise melbourne deeply as a club, but he should be in the clear it is a contact sport and that is footy. We have all given it and all recieved it regardless of the level. Pathetic decision but not unsuprising !
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Ian wrote: | | what Viney should have done |
That's a tough gig.
You know many serious injuries ballet dancers sustain?
I mean one set of battlement tendu followed by a battlement frappe, an arabesque & you're cactus let alone a pirouette between the forwards & the backs coming hard on your heels.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Not that many. |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm going get flamed here.... but having watched the incident multiple times I actually think he should have been cited. Why? I'm not talking about slowing it down at all. Watch it in real time. Viney had a decision... he could have accelerated and tried to get the ball before the other two players reached him. He didn't. You watch it closely and he actually pulls up - then he turns and, I'm sorry, but it's a bump. He puts force into it.
No it wasn't malicious, no he didn't intend to hurt and the fact that there was another Demons player tackling didn't help the situation. In one sense they got this right because as others have stated, if they take into account the injury then we're talking a minimum 4 week holiday - which seems way excessive.
I haven't played the game at AFL level (who on here has??) but I have played the game competitively. In my mind he had an alternative. He didn't choose to take it and has paid the price. Forget all this crap about pivoting and turning and jumping out of the way crap... that's just a load of BS.
Yep it's chook lotto ... I actually don't think it fundamentally changes the game at all. Make the ball your objective and 95% of the time you'll be OK. Viney's objective wasn't the ball... he pulled up prior to contact.
In this situation I imagine Sidey.... you know what he would have tried to do... get a tap on that ball before the other players got there... don't know why but he came to mind when watching the incident.
So... flame away. Even though I have no time for the Demons I think the uproar is ridiculous. Hit em in the head and you're in trouble, simple as that. Worse if you had an alternative.
Next....
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
mandy 
Joined: 03 Jun 2001
Location: Glen Iris
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| derkd wrote: | | Or else we shall find players getting suspended every week. |
Or worse - have all 18 teams running around too scared to tackle or be tackled.
Can you imagine watching 18 Carltonlike sides playing each other every week?
_________________
#TEAMBUCKS
#TEAMEDDIE
#TEAMCOLLINGWOOD
#SIDEBYSIDE |
|
|
|
|
ANNODAM 
Rebel Heart Tour - The Forum, Los Angeles 27/10/2015.
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Location: Eltham, VIC.
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm glad Viney got suspended, he broke the players jaw, tough titties sunshine enjoy your time watching from the sideline...
_________________
WE WERE ROBBED, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, RIGHT IN FRONT OF MEEE!
N.Y METS, N.Y GIANTS, PENRITH PANTHERS & HOBART HURRICANES FAN.
WE ALL LOOK GOOD AT TRAINING, IT'S THE MATCHES THAT COUNT! |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ANNODAM wrote: | | I'm glad Viney got suspended, he broke the players jaw, tough titties sunshine enjoy your time watching from the sideline... |
SO you are happy with this?
I think its terrible a Suspension only matters on the Medical report and that is all
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
woodys_world69
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The problem is, if he went to tackle and Lynch broke his jaw on vineys chest bone...does he get off or does he still get suspended? |
|
|
|
|
mattys123
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Location: Narre Warren, VIC
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The thing that has been lost in all the hysteria is that the tribunal actually made the right decision last night.
The problem is with the rule, even Andy D stated today that the rule will be changed soon, just like it was after Lindsay Thomas smashed Ben Reid last year.
It's Demetriou's last legacy that the tribunal has to suspend a player for doing nothing other than what every play is taught to do.
What was he supposed to do? Run past the pack? NO, he would have been dropped the next week for what most consider a cowardly non football act. |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mattys123 wrote: | The thing that has been lost in all the hysteria is that the tribunal actually made the right decision last night.
The problem is with the rule, even Andy D stated today that the rule will be changed soon, just like it was after Lindsay Thomas smashed Ben Reid last year.
It's Demetriou's last legacy that the tribunal has to suspend a player for doing nothing other than what every play is taught to do.
What was he supposed to do? Run past the pack? NO, he would have been dropped the next week for what most consider a cowardly non football act. |
But watch the replay Matty... he pulls up... for mine that's the same as running past it or trying to avoid contact altogether. I think the problem here is that there is zero consideration for what his "other options were" or the amount of time you have to decide. The way the rule is written if you had "another option" apart from bumping then you're in trouble. And I'm sorry... but he had at least one, if not two, other options - therefore the tribunal got it right - according to the way the law is written.
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| partypie wrote: | | I agree with P4S here. From one of the angles it looked like Vineyard was lining the Melbourne player up for a deliberate hit. |
Rubbish. Watch the replay at full speed, none of this slow motion crap. The guy braced for impact at the last possible moment to protect himself. Unfortunate result was a broken jaw to the other player, but that's footy. If it had been a sniper incident off the ball like Thomas to Reid, he would deserve a holiday, but the stupid system doesn't seem to take circumstances and common sense into account.
Christ, they deemed it medium impact for a broken jaw. The tribunal knew the punishment was a farce and even tried to lessen the penalty themselves... |
|
|
|
|
mattys123
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Location: Narre Warren, VIC
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| GoWoodsmen wrote: | | mattys123 wrote: | The thing that has been lost in all the hysteria is that the tribunal actually made the right decision last night.
The problem is with the rule, even Andy D stated today that the rule will be changed soon, just like it was after Lindsay Thomas smashed Ben Reid last year.
It's Demetriou's last legacy that the tribunal has to suspend a player for doing nothing other than what every play is taught to do.
What was he supposed to do? Run past the pack? NO, he would have been dropped the next week for what most consider a cowardly non football act. |
But watch the replay Matty... he pulls up... for mine that's the same as running past it or trying to avoid contact altogether. I think the problem here is that there is zero consideration for what his "other options were" or the amount of time you have to decide. The way the rule is written if you had "another option" apart from bumping then you're in trouble. And I'm sorry... but he had at least one, if not two, other options - therefore the tribunal got it right - according to the way the law is written. |
And that's the problem, the rule that is being considered here. The rule will be lessened because of this incident but it will be too late for Viney.
It's just another case of the afl taking one of their policies too far past what is good for the game. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
