Jack Viney faces the tribunal for his bump on Tom Lynch but should he be suspended?

WATCH AND VOTE: JACK Viney faces the tribunal tonight for his bump on Tom Lynch. Mark Robinson and Sam Edmund argue the case for and against.

JACK Viney’s trip to the tribunal for his bump on Tom Lynch is sure to divide opinion.

We run the rule over both sides of the argument before the Demons young gun pleads his case.

Do you believe Viney should be suspended or cleared? Vote and have your say below.

THE CASE FOR NOT GUILTY - MARK ROBINSON

JACK Viney has to be cleared by the AFL Tribunal.

Must be cleared.

The game deserves it. Rules and laws weren’t introduced to legislate on accidents.

MRP: STOKES OUT,, DELEDIO FIGHTS BAN

SICKENING BUMP ENDS FORMER CROW’S CAREER

Others might disagree, but from my viewing Viney did not hit Adelaide’s Tom Lynch in the head.

Viney had less than a second to accept he would not get to the ball first and protected his body for the collision.

LISTEN TO THE LATEST EPISODE OF THE SUPERFOOTY PODCAST BELOW OR CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE IN ITUNES

Tom Lynch is taken off Adelaide Oval after the collision. Picture: SARAH REED.

The rule says: “A player electing to bump will be cited for rough conduct if contact comes via a head clash, and players will be instructed a head clash should be reasonably foreseen when bumping.”

Clear for the first part, and absolutely should be clear for the second part, because if Viney had time to assess the situation, and compute the chances of a head clash between Lynch and Melbourne teammate Alex Georgiou, then Viney’s football response time is off the charts.

How could be have foreseen that when, at a guess, all he was thinking of was protecting himself.

Instinct won him over. Not malice.

It was a rare situation where Lynch found himself in a sandwich and the contact by the oncoming player meant the two other players clashed heads.

There really isn’t an argument because Viney did not hit the head.

It is intriguing, though.

The MRP, just as it did in the Richard Douglas case, believes all evidence should be heard because a player does have a busted jaw after all.

It didn’t wimp the decision. It thought it best Viney had his say.

Jack Viney (right) connects with Tom Lynch.

Already, the commentariat is angry.

Said Cameron Mooney on twitter: “Our game will forever change if Viney gets weeks for his clean bump ... Can’t believe it’s gone this far ... AFL please have common sense on this.”

Said Dermott Brereton on SEN: “If we do (find him guilty) what we’re now saying is we don’t want any injuries, regardless of the scenario”

Brereton said it would be a “monumental” and “landmark decision” if he was found guilty.

You have to agree.

THE CASE FOR GUILTY - SAM EDMUND

LIKE Jack Viney, the tribunal has nowhere to go.

Viney has been charged with rough conduct for a hit that left Adelaide’s Tom Lynch with a broken jaw. The young Demon has been referred directly to the tribunal, outraging many.

Lynch found himself the meat in a forceful sandwich between Viney and Alex Georgiou and there is some debate as to whether it was Viney or Georgiou who actually broke the Crow’s jaw.

But here’s the thing - it doesn’t matter.

If the tribunal is to apply the law before them, it can come up with nothing other than a guilty verdict.

The rule is clear: “A player electing to bump will be cited for rough conduct if contact comes via a head clash, and players will be instructed a head clash should be reasonably foreseen when bumping.”

Note the wording “a head clash”, not “the head clash”. Viney, either directly or indirectly, caused a major injury with his bump and now Lynch won’t be playing for a while.

Tom Lynch and Alex Georgiou are helped off the ground by trainers. Picture: SARAH REED.

Yes, it is unfortunate, and there has to be sympathy for Viney given he was caught in a very awkward position at very high speed.

If anyone understands the unpleasantness of a broken jaw it’s Viney after he suffered one at the hands of David Wojcinski two years ago, albeit in very different circumstances.

But at Adelaide Oval he chose to go and he got there second. As unlucky as Viney was, we know all too well that if you bump and you injure someone you wear the consequences.

Heck, blame the law, not the ruling.

In a whitewash of opinion yesterday, it was Gerard Healy who summed it up best when he said: “There will be more confusion if he gets off”.

Originally published as Jack Viney faces the tribunal for his bump on Tom Lynch but should he be suspended?