Viney suspension 'farcical in almost every way'

Melbourne's Jack Viney in action against the Suns earlier this season. Photo by Getty Images

Melbourne's Jack Viney in action against the Suns earlier this season. Photo by Getty Images

IMAGINE just for a moment that Jack Viney was able to ``pirouette'' out of the way to avoid his now-fateful collision with Tom Lynch.

(Remember that word collision).

Or for a better use of the term, pulled out of the contest.

Instead of going for the ball and trying to win possession for his team, he would have let Lynch lead Viney's teammate Alex Georgiou to the ball.

This would have most likely either led to a possession to Lynch, potentially starting an attacking chain of events for the Crows, or a stoppage, but the greater damage would have been to Viney's reputation.

The ridicule the young Demon would have received for not committing to the contest, for taking the softer option, would have been deafening.

Enough to haunt him for the remainder of his career.

But apparently that is what the authorities of our game are after.

Rather than make any contact in what is a contact sport, the message is now ``get out of the way''.

The counter-argument would be ``tackle first'', but tackling was not an option for Viney. 

What happened at the AFL tribunal last night was farcical in just about every way.

To firstly judge it as a bump is stretching things.

This was more of a case of bracing for impact after he had chased that funny oval shaped ball which had gone off course and into the path of Lynch and Georgiou.

Nat Fyfe and Richard Douglas, they were conscious decisions to bump, this was not, and were dealt with appropriately.

Football is a contact sport. Collisions between players will occur, injuries will be sustained.

A trigger point of Lynch breaking his jaw should not be the justification for a player being suspended.

The other point of intrigue is the classification of it being ``medium'' contact, despite the fact it was strong enough to break a jaw.

The again, this is the same tribunal that said Brett Deledio's strike to Matthew Stokes was reckless rather than intentional.

I would have thought that elbowing someone in the head was an intentional act, but that's just me.

To classify this bump in the same category as Daniel Merrett and Shaun McKernan's strikes of recent times (with a raised elbow to the head), which also drew two weeks, is also laughable.

If they are two week incidents, then this should not have even have been acknowledged by the MRP.

Either that or that duo are just extremely lucky, but who know with this set up?

The bump was all but dead before this round, but now just the simple concept of going hard into a contest has been put into question, and there is no way that thought process can be good for the game.

But apparently, that's the way those in power want it to be.

For the good of the game, this is a decision that must be appealed and common sense must prevail. 

Smartphone
Tablet - Narrow
Tablet - Wide
Desktop