Where does the Viney decision leave us?

[Enrico_Misso]

If you were Richardson, or any AFL coach for that matter, what advice would you give your players on bumping?

The only rational interpretation of this irrational decision seems to be - DO NOT BUMP?

[gringo]

I think the way the decision is assessed depends on the injury. The AFL have said all along that you can bump but if anyone gets injured you are liable. Every bump is a gamble.

[Cairnsman]

This may be controversial to say but this all stems from the original decision to not want to upset mothers so they let their sons play AFL.

Tongue, cheek, firmly planted...

[kosifantutti]

It's only news because it happened to a big name player like Viney. If it happened to some obscure player nobody would remember it.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6104244849

[perfectionist]

It leaves us exactly where we have been for the last five years at least. If a player chooses to contact another player, especially via a bump, which causes significant injury to that opponent, then he can look forward to a holiday. Back in 2006, Daniel Giansiracusa decided to bump Justin Koschitzke rather than tackle him. In my opinion, it not only sent Kosi off the ground and out of football for 12 weeks, but it also adversely affected him for the remainder of his career. Giansiracusa wasn't even cited, with "greats" of football saying that it was just "part of the game". Well, it shouldn't be.

In my opinion, Jack Viney had the option of bumping or not. He chose to bump. He bumped high. He broke his opponent's jaw. I would have given him 4 weeks, not 2. He should count himself lucky that he will be back on the field at least 2 weeks before Tom Lynch.

[Jacks Back]

I don't know what everyone is going on about.

You can clearly see that Viney is going in for the good old fashioned sandwich bump (making Lynch the meat in the sandwich with his Melbourne teammate on the other side of Lynch). He therefore intentionally bumped, unfortunately got Lynch high, and because he got him high and caused damage, he should get weeks. Probably 4 but for a first offence then maybe lessened.

[gringo]

It leaves us exactly where we have been for the last five years at least. If a player chooses to contact another player, especially via a bump, which causes significant injury to that opponent, then he can look forward to a holiday. Back in 2006, Daniel Giansiracusa decided to bump Justin Koschitzke rather than tackle him. In my opinion, it not only sent Kosi off the ground and out of football for 12 weeks, but it also adversely affected him for the remainder of his career. Giansiracusa wasn't even cited, with "greats" of football saying that it was just "part of the game". Well, it shouldn't be.

In my opinion, Jack Viney had the option of bumping or not. He chose to bump. He bumped high. He broke his opponent's jaw. I would have given him 4 weeks, not 2. He should count himself lucky that he will be back on the field at least 2 weeks before Tom Lynch.

Good to see Gia still sniped someone this year but was lucky he didn't concuss him. Still a sniping dog.

[bergholt]

It leaves us exactly where we have been for the last five years at least. If a player chooses to contact another player, especially via a bump, which causes significant injury to that opponent, then he can look forward to a holiday. Back in 2006, Daniel Giansiracusa decided to bump Justin Koschitzke rather than tackle him. In my opinion, it not only sent Kosi off the ground and out of football for 12 weeks, but it also adversely affected him for the remainder of his career. Giansiracusa wasn't even cited, with "greats" of football saying that it was just "part of the game". Well, it shouldn't be.

Kosi didn't have the ball, did he? My memory of the contest is that they were both chasing a loose ball and that Kosi was about to pick it up when Gia bumped him, so a tackle wasn't really an option.

[CarlD]

Gia came in to shepherd for Nathan Eagleton.

[Mr Magic]

Gia came in to shepherd for Nathan Eagleton.

In the 'good old days' a 'shepherd' was quite different to what is called a 'shepherd' today.
Somewhere along the way it changed from being a way of protecting your teammate to an opportunity to 'inflict pain/damage' to an opponent.

[Cairnsman]

It leaves us exactly where we have been for the last five years at least. If a player chooses to contact another player, especially via a bump, which causes significant injury to that opponent, then he can look forward to a holiday. Back in 2006, Daniel Giansiracusa decided to bump Justin Koschitzke rather than tackle him. In my opinion, it not only sent Kosi off the ground and out of football for 12 weeks, but it also adversely affected him for the remainder of his career. Giansiracusa wasn't even cited, with "greats" of football saying that it was just "part of the game". Well, it shouldn't be.

In my opinion, Jack Viney had the option of bumping or not. He chose to bump. He bumped high. He broke his opponent's jaw. I would have given him 4 weeks, not 2. He should count himself lucky that he will be back on the field at least 2 weeks before Tom Lynch.

He didn't choose to bump, he was competing for the ball at significant pace realised he was going to collide and braced for the collision.

This argument will go on forever and get nowhere but IMO it is a contact sport and the AFL are modifying a big part of the game that has been one of its greatest appeals for nearly 150 years and why, so women think it's a safe game...protecting their brand and hip pockets.

Obviously the other reason has to do with risk mitigation and law suits but I think the day is not too far away where the AFL is defending a law suit because somebody was injured or killed because the AFL recognised there were hazards with high risks but didn't take adequate steps to control or remove the hazards in a timely manner. This could potentially be a greater fear for the AFL more than the game not being appealing to women.

And by timely manner I mean we are really seeing an acceleration in the modification of the game with regards to trying mitigate risk of personal safety, but if the unthinkable happens before all risk is reduced to the AFLs desired levels then what happens if a player is injured or killed in the mean time because they weren't trained adequately enough to protect themselves in a contact sport. The lines of intent are so blurred and inconsistent that players are at greater risk until the AFL are transitioning the game to a non-contact sport.

Where will they draw the line, I can see so many other ways to get seriously injured or even possibly killed so there is more changes to come so everybody better start thinking unisex Netball.

[CURLY]

It leaves us exactly where we have been for the last five years at least. If a player chooses to contact another player, especially via a bump, which causes significant injury to that opponent, then he can look forward to a holiday. Back in 2006, Daniel Giansiracusa decided to bump Justin Koschitzke rather than tackle him. In my opinion, it not only sent Kosi off the ground and out of football for 12 weeks, but it also adversely affected him for the remainder of his career. Giansiracusa wasn't even cited, with "greats" of football saying that it was just "part of the game". Well, it shouldn't be.

In my opinion, Jack Viney had the option of bumping or not. He chose to bump. He bumped high. He broke his opponent's jaw. I would have given him 4 weeks, not 2. He should count himself lucky that he will be back on the field at least 2 weeks before Tom Lynch.

This attitude is what is wrong with football at present. Tell me and try not to make me laugh what the hell Viney should have done remember he won the ball.

[BackFromUSA]

I think Riewoldt got a week a year or 2 ago - for a similar bump that he couldn't avoid - total accident.

[saint75]

I think I am immune to incorrect decisions by the AFL Tribunal. This one doesn't bother me in the least. Schneider got a week for winding someone a couple of weeks ago. Now I know it was made worse by a bad record, but my argument is that it should not have been even viewed by the match review panel. Steven Baker's attempting to strike years ago and the list goes on. Josh Gibson got off a week ago for a charge that should have been cited so really, this is no surprise. The inconsistency and the results from the tribunal have always been farcical. Just glad it was not us for a change.......

Just wish Brereton would take his stance on not appearing at the AFL hall of fame dinner further to a complete football and radio ban........

[gringo]

You can almost guarantee that if someone gets any kind of head injury out of contact that it will result in a ban. It is better for the game to take out the head contact as no one wants to see concussions. Some players will go down as sacrifices as a deterrent. At least we aren't the ones losing a player this time. Remember when Allesio jumped up and down on Bakers leg so he kicked him in the calf and got suspended. Sometimes the rules don't make sense but there is some kind of logical agenda according to the AFL usually.

[perfectionist]

...Just wish Brereton would take his stance on not appearing at the AFL hall of fame dinner further to a complete football and radio ban...

Agree. But I hardly ever listen to him anyway. He's there to keep the ratbags happy.

[Cairnsman]

...Just wish Brereton would take his stance on not appearing at the AFL hall of fame dinner further to a complete football and radio ban...

Agree. But I hardly ever listen to him anyway. He's there to keep the ratbags happy.

It's funny how nearly every person that has played the game at ANY level has come out today and agreed with Dermie. I reckon he's there for a lot more than ratbags, probably got most people covered when it comes to understanding the game.

[Cairnsman]

Decision has been appealed on the basis that no tribunal could have come to the conclusion they did based on the evidence before them...essentially accusing them of being influenced by outsiders is the way I'm reading that.

[CURLY]

What needs to happen is that a big name Collingwood player cops a s*** call like this then we will see the AFL get some heat up their arse.

[dragit]

I think Riewoldt got a week a year or 2 ago - for a similar bump that he couldn't avoid - total accident.

Was thinking the same, Adelaide player again - Brad Symes also got a broken jaw.

I thought that decision was even worse as Symes made most of the impact… Riewoldt went to tackle, Symes got rid of the ball, then Nick backed off and braced for impact… contact was absolutely unavoidable and the force came mainly from Symes momentum not Riewoldts.

Again I shake my head at Luke Hodge getting off after smashing someone's jaw with a raised elbow well past the play.

[gringo]

I think Riewoldt got a week a year or 2 ago - for a similar bump that he couldn't avoid - total accident.

Was thinking the same, Adelaide player again - Brad Symes also got a broken jaw.

I thought that decision was even worse as Symes made most of the impact… Riewoldt went to tackle, Symes got rid of the ball, then Nick backed off and braced for impact… contact was absolutely unavoidable and the force came mainly from Symes momentum not Riewoldts.

Again I shake my head at Luke Hodge getting off after smashing someone's jaw with a raised elbow well past the play.

I can't take you serious any more after getting monkey jesus as your avatar. The waffle was more classy.

[mr six o'clock]

Players now have three options
1 don't go for the ball
2 if you do , leave yourself open so you get hurt
3 if you do protect yourself and see you've hurt an opponent , feign injury yourself , so it appears accidental .

[Cairnsman]

Players now have three options
1 don't go for the ball
2 if you do , leave yourself open so you get hurt
3 if you do protect yourself and see you've hurt an opponent , feign injury yourself , so it appears accidental .

Four options, give the game away and play competition table tennis with their mothers.

[dragit]

I think Riewoldt got a week a year or 2 ago - for a similar bump that he couldn't avoid - total accident.

Was thinking the same, Adelaide player again - Brad Symes also got a broken jaw.

I thought that decision was even worse as Symes made most of the impact… Riewoldt went to tackle, Symes got rid of the ball, then Nick backed off and braced for impact… contact was absolutely unavoidable and the force came mainly from Symes momentum not Riewoldts.

Again I shake my head at Luke Hodge getting off after smashing someone's jaw with a raised elbow well past the play.

I can't take you serious any more after getting monkey jesus as your avatar. The waffle was more classy.

It's a nod to my all time favourite restoration work by Cecilia Gimenez = genius. Makes me laugh every time.

For anyone who missed it

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19349921

The waffle was really past it's "use by" with Watters gone.

Surely no-one ever took me seriously?

[gringo]

Players now have three options
1 don't go for the ball
2 if you do , leave yourself open so you get hurt
3 if you do protect yourself and see you've hurt an opponent , feign injury yourself , so it appears accidental .

Four options, give the game away and play competition table tennis with their mothers.

Or you can tackle. I remember Lenny tackling a Collingwood player in the finals and nearly breaking him in half. Incidental bumping is okay but Gia sniping is not a great thing. You can shepherd - stepping in the path of a player with out setting yourself it's still fine. I would say that they are trying to stop all head injuries and especially take the sniping style bumps out of the game. It still doesn't make it soft just doesn't permanently damage a players health. My kid plays under 9s and as he grows up I worry about people taking him out. A heap are dropping out to play soccer now as it is. Protecting players long term is going to help parents who worry about injury decide to keep their kids in footy.