Where does the Viney decision leave us?

[dragit]

Or you can tackle. I remember Lenny tackling a Collingwood player in the finals and nearly breaking him in half.

Lenny was just suspended for tackling… albeit a clumsy one.

[dragit]

How does this system work? This was only last year…

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/h ... 6664950294

[gringo]

How does this system work? This was only last year…

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/h ... 6664950294

I guess he was as prone as Murphy in that he used his own head and shoulder rather than setting himself to bump. He was bent over to retrieve the ball too. Still ugly but he was just as prone as the guys he hit would be my guess. They must have assessed him as being primarily after the ball and contact was there because they both were trying to get it.

[dragit]

How does this system work? This was only last year…

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/h ... 6664950294

I guess he was as prone as Murphy in that he used his own head and shoulder rather than setting himself to bump. He was bent over to retrieve the ball too. Still ugly but he was just as prone as the guys he hit would be my guess. They must have assessed him as being primarily after the ball and contact was there because they both were trying to get it.

I reckon the Henderson one is worse… the Murphy one was more 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.

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.

Can't argue it isn't soft but also argue that it doesn't permanently damage players health because there are a plethora of ways to be permanently damaged even if you take the bump issue out. One of the worst worst ways to injure yourself is to run backwards with the flight of the ball...if I do the risk assessment on that I see death...the game is a dangerous contact sport, it is a choice to play it, just like it is a choice to participate in other high risk activities.

Was always going to be a contact sport before today...Viva La Vixens!

[Viking3]

Guilty or Not Guilty.
Both will have their supporters.
Like usual it is the consistency that causes most angst.
Also very perplexing is that the broken jaw is deemed "medium" impact. I'd hate to see the result of high level impact! They'd be calling for the Undertaker (not the wrestler)!!

[MrCordz]

If Viney played for St. Kilda, he would have got 4 weeks and the media would've accepted it without question.
In my opinion, he slowed up before the contact, realised he wasn't going to get there first and had the option to tackle rather than bump. I don't see what all the fuss is about - he broke Lynches jaw with the point of his shoulder when Lynch had the ball - too bad Jack - I don't feel sorry for you at all.

[Con Gorozidis]

Guilty or Not Guilty.
Both will have their supporters.
Like usual it is the consistency that causes most angst.
Also very perplexing is that the broken jaw is deemed "medium" impact. I'd hate to see the result of high level impact! They'd be calling for the Undertaker (not the wrestler)!!

[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.

Blind Freddy could see it wasn't a bump.

[gringo]

If Viney played for St. Kilda, he would have got 4 weeks and the media would've accepted it without question.
In my opinion, he slowed up before the contact, realised he wasn't going to get there first and had the option to tackle rather than bump. I don't see what all the fuss is about - he broke Lynches jaw with the point of his shoulder when Lynch had the ball - too bad Jack - I don't feel sorry for you at all.

Like Delidio gets let off for striking behind play and they suspend Schnieds? Consistency isn't a strong suit.

[saintspremiers]

Overturned by the appeals board

[Enrico_Misso]

So back to the original question.
I'm more confused than ever.

Under what circumstances can you bump?
What advice would you give players?
Can anyone articulate the rule and how it will be interpreted?

[Con Gorozidis]

I dont understand the confusion.

The AFL have been saying the same line on this for about three years now.

You can bump anytime you like BUT the onus of care is on the bumper - so if you choose to bump and get a guy in the head you will be punished and held to be negligent.

Sounds pretty simple to me. This has been their clear message for three years.

Pathetic the AFL backed down because the 'bring back the biff brigade' all carried on with faux outrage.

As far as I am concerned Viney should have got 2 weeks for that every day of the week. Crystal clear.

[Enrico_Misso]

I dont understand the confusion.

The AFL have been saying the same line on this for about three years now.

You can bump anytime you like BUT the onus of care is on the bumper - so if you choose to bump and get a guy in the head you will be punished and held to be negligent.

Sounds pretty simple to me. This has been their clear message for three years.

You say you aren't confused!

On the one hand you say the rule is simple - "if you choose to bump and get a guy in the head you will be punished".
But he did choose to bump and Lynch did suffer a head injury.
Then you say the AFL caved in to pressure to let him off.

But such a decision cannot be a one-off.
They have just set a precedent which will be applied to future cases.

So what now applies - the "rule" or the precendent?
How can you not be confused?

[Con Gorozidis]

Yes sorry EM- my post was really a comment about the confusion BEFORE the appeal. Post appeal it is a little murkier.

I think the way they will wriggle out of the precedent is that they are now saying it wasnt a 'bump' but a 'brace', and they have now created a new category.

So the AFL's new position is:

Bump Category 1. You can 'bump but if you make contact with the head (even if it's an accident), you get weeks. Original decision.

Bump Category 2. (the "Brace"). If you 'brace' yourself and someone head-butts you in the shoulder you get off. Appeal decision.

They are now saying Viney fits into category 2 and not category 1. So they basically made up a new category and then put this incident in it. I would say to appease the media squealing.

But yes I concede it is getting a little silly... dare I say confusing . The new question then is when is a 'bump' a 'brace'?

On a side-note JV is listed as 178cm but he is built like a brick out-house.

[stevie]

Just saw the bump for the first time after wondering about the fuss over it.

The original charge is a joke right? Some has to be kidding, don't they? Would've been a worse decision than the one Roo got a couple of years back.

[saintspremiers]

Just saw the bump for the first time after wondering about the fuss over it.

The original charge is a joke right? Some has to be kidding, don't they? Would've been a worse decision than the one Roo got a couple of years back.

The issue was that the MRP incorrectly called the incident a bump when it was not.

A bump that causes injury above the shoulder is still illegal and results in a suspension often.

Very simple to understand. Ignore media hysteria.

[Cairnsman]

Yes sorry EM- my post was really a comment about the confusion BEFORE the appeal. Post appeal it is a little murkier.

I think the way they will wriggle out of the precedent is that they are now saying it wasnt a 'bump' but a 'brace', and they have now created a new category.

So the AFL's new position is:

Bump Category 1. You can 'bump but if you make contact with the head (even if it's an accident), you get weeks. Original decision.

Bump Category 2. (the "Brace"). If you 'brace' yourself and someone head-butts you in the shoulder you get off. Appeal decision.

They are now saying Viney fits into category 2 and not category 1. So they basically made up a new category and then put this incident in it. I would say to appease the media squealing.

But yes I concede it is getting a little silly... dare I say confusing . The new question then is when is a 'bump' a 'brace'?

On a side-note JV is listed as 178cm but he is built like a brick out-house.

Con the confusion is what happens when you try to control the "free radicals" in life. Things just don't move the way you expect them to. A Sherrin football is very unpredictable and sometimes you just need to let it be.
That's the only part of the game that isn't confusing.

[Dis Believer]

Yes sorry EM- my post was really a comment about the confusion BEFORE the appeal. Post appeal it is a little murkier.

I think the way they will wriggle out of the precedent is that they are now saying it wasnt a 'bump' but a 'brace', and they have now created a new category.

So the AFL's new position is:

Bump Category 1. You can 'bump but if you make contact with the head (even if it's an accident), you get weeks. Original decision.

Bump Category 2. (the "Brace"). If you 'brace' yourself and someone head-butts you in the shoulder you get off. Appeal decision.

They are now saying Viney fits into category 2 and not category 1. So they basically made up a new category and then put this incident in it. I would say to appease the media squealing.

But yes I concede it is getting a little silly... dare I say confusing . The new question then is when is a 'bump' a 'brace'?

On a side-note JV is listed as 178cm but he is built like a brick out-house.

So what are you saying Viney should have done Con? Should he have simply taken the hit unprotected and gone to hospital to avoid the possibility of being reported? Should he have done as the tribunal suggested and "pirouetted" out of the way? He was chasing the footy. At the last split second he realised that contact was about to be made with the opponent that was also chasing the ball. He braced himself for contact. If he had dropped out of the contest he would never get another game.

It is still football, it is still a contact sport. Accidents happen. Maybe you should follow curling..........

[Con Gorozidis]

Yes sorry EM- my post was really a comment about the confusion BEFORE the appeal. Post appeal it is a little murkier.

I think the way they will wriggle out of the precedent is that they are now saying it wasnt a 'bump' but a 'brace', and they have now created a new category.

So the AFL's new position is:

Bump Category 1. You can 'bump but if you make contact with the head (even if it's an accident), you get weeks. Original decision.

Bump Category 2. (the "Brace"). If you 'brace' yourself and someone head-butts you in the shoulder you get off. Appeal decision.

They are now saying Viney fits into category 2 and not category 1. So they basically made up a new category and then put this incident in it. I would say to appease the media squealing.

But yes I concede it is getting a little silly... dare I say confusing . The new question then is when is a 'bump' a 'brace'?

On a side-note JV is listed as 178cm but he is built like a brick out-house.

So what are you saying Viney should have done Con? Should he have simply taken the hit unprotected and gone to hospital to avoid the possibility of being reported? Should he have done as the tribunal suggested and "pirouetted" out of the way? He was chasing the footy. At the last split second he realised that contact was about to be made with the opponent that was also chasing the ball. He braced himself for contact. If he had dropped out of the contest he would never get another game.

It is still football, it is still a contact sport. Accidents happen. Maybe you should follow curling..........

I was just trying to clarify what the AFL is saying. I didn't have a personal view.

But now you are asking me what I think of it - I just had another look at it in freeze frame. My personal position is it is a category 1.
He certainly didnt aim for the head but TL dropped his head just at the last second to collect the ball. So to me if a guy collecting the ball gets a busted jaw in the act of getting the ball. Then I think thats 2 weeks. But there is actually just under one second for JV to make a decision. So I don't think Viney could have done anything different. Still 2 weeks though. Just what id call bad luck.

But it could also be seen as a "brace" and so just bad luck for TL. Right in the grey area I reckon. ( I think this is what the AFL said)

'never get another game' - you dont think you are exaggerating just a tad?

[saintspremiers]

They had Gomez on 3AW this morning who is complete waste of space in the media at the moment. He has 3 weeks to go and wants to disappear ASAP. Can't give a stuff. Let's hope Gillan shows proper leadership.

[Dis Believer]

Yes sorry EM- my post was really a comment about the confusion BEFORE the appeal. Post appeal it is a little murkier.

I think the way they will wriggle out of the precedent is that they are now saying it wasnt a 'bump' but a 'brace', and they have now created a new category.

So the AFL's new position is:

Bump Category 1. You can 'bump but if you make contact with the head (even if it's an accident), you get weeks. Original decision.

Bump Category 2. (the "Brace"). If you 'brace' yourself and someone head-butts you in the shoulder you get off. Appeal decision.

They are now saying Viney fits into category 2 and not category 1. So they basically made up a new category and then put this incident in it. I would say to appease the media squealing.

But yes I concede it is getting a little silly... dare I say confusing . The new question then is when is a 'bump' a 'brace'?

On a side-note JV is listed as 178cm but he is built like a brick out-house.

So what are you saying Viney should have done Con? Should he have simply taken the hit unprotected and gone to hospital to avoid the possibility of being reported? Should he have done as the tribunal suggested and "pirouetted" out of the way? He was chasing the footy. At the last split second he realised that contact was about to be made with the opponent that was also chasing the ball. He braced himself for contact. If he had dropped out of the contest he would never get another game.

It is still football, it is still a contact sport. Accidents happen. Maybe you should follow curling..........

I was just trying to clarify what the AFL is saying. I didn't have a personal view.

But now you are asking me what I think of it - I just had another look at it in freeze frame. My personal position is it is a category 1.
He certainly didnt aim for the head but TL dropped his head just at the last second to collect the ball. So to me if a guy collecting the ball gets a busted jaw in the act of getting the ball. Then I think thats 2 weeks. But there is actually just under one second for JV to make a decision. So I don't think Viney could have done anything different. Still 2 weeks though. Just what id call bad luck.

But it could also be seen as a "brace" and so just bad luck for TL. Right in the grey area I reckon. ( I think this is what the AFL said)

'never get another game' - you dont think you are exaggerating just a tad?

See right there is the problem - football is not played in slow motion or freeeze frame. This (and all other cases) need to be judged at the speed at which they occurred. Sure, use slo-mo to clarify a point, but the never ending slo-mo replay creates the impression in the mind of the viewer that these guys have time for a sandwich and a cuppa in the time between making the decision and collecting their opponent. The game at the elite level is played at very high speed and the primary objective is still the ball. The opponent is secondary unless he has possession of the ball.
I can honestly say that if that had been a Saints player Viney collected I would not have an issue with it, and I would be VERY annoyed if a Saint got rubbed out for it.

Answer this. If a Saint had been going for the ball in that scenario and pulled out to avoid contact - what would your reaction be? Because that was VIney's only other option and I doubt that even then he would have been able to avoid contact other than perhaps trying to take actual evasive action. Surely you're not advocating that for our game?

[Cairnsman]

If the dangerous physical toughness is removed from the game then it will die a horrible death, it's why basket ball doesn't get off the ground in this country, if people want to see women floating around in skirts they can watch netball.

I'm starting to wonder if the the twits that thought it would be a good idea to make F1 cars sound like 4 cylinder shopping trolleys are having long lunches with the execs at the AFL.

[BigMart]

Bump them.... But you must try not to hurt them?!

Haha

Funny stuff

[Dis Believer]

Bump them.... But you must try not to hurt them?!

Haha

Funny stuff

You and me can agreee on something.........