As much as I shudder at the impact of May's hit on once our own Stefan Martin, I ask a simple question: how does May's hit differ from Mumford's hit on the Geelong player? We won't mention Merrett's scott free slug on Pedersen.

Mumford hit his man front-on in a tackling action.  Impact was mainly with his chest. 

May hit Martin with his shoulder in a bumping action.  He jumped into the hit which has traditionally been considered a big no-no by the tribunal. 

MRP guidelines would regard the Mumford hit as a more or less legitimate tackle, possibly a free kick given that he took the guy high, but that's for the umps to call at the time.  He didn't pin the arms or sling the player, so they don't care.

The guidelines for a bump are very different and May ticked pretty much every box.  He ignored the ball and instead chose to hit the player.  He clearly hit him high.  As I said before, he jumped into the hit.  HE also has a bad record, so not only will he not be able to take an early guilty plea (assuming it goes directly to the tribunal), he gets no discount for a good record and may in fact get a penalty for a bad one. 

I'm just looking through the MRP guidelines from 2015 and I see that High impact and high contact is an automatic referral to the tribunal.  Also, if the player has been suspended for two weeks during the last two years he automatically gets an extra week added to the penalty, which I think May has.  A high impact shot to the body is a three week ban and the medium impact shot to the head is a week more than for the body, so I would guess he's looking at 5 weeks.  That's four as a base for his High impact head-high bump, then an extra week for his bad record. 

 

Edit:  Here's the info I was looking at - http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

Edited April 17, 20169 yr by RalphiusMaximus

1 minute ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Mumford hit his man front-on in a tackling action.  Impact was mainly with his chest. 

May hit Martin with his shoulder in a bumping action.  He jumped into the hit which has traditionally been considered a big no-no by the tribunal. 

MRP guidelines would regard the Mumford hit as a more or less legitimate tackle, possibly a free kick given that he took the guy high, but that's for the umps to call at the time.  He didn't pin the arms or sling the player, so they don't care.

The guidelines for a bump are very different and May ticked pretty much every box.  He ignored the ball and instead chose to hit the player.  He clearly hit him high.  As I said before, he jumped into the hit.  HE also has a bad record, so not only will he not be able to take an early guilty plea (assuming it goes directly to the tribunal), he gets no discount for a good record and may in fact get a penalty for a bad one. 

I'm just looking through the MRP guidelines from 2015 and I see that High impact and high contact is an automatic referral to the tribunal.  Also, if the player has been suspended for two weeks during the last two years he automatically gets an extra week added to the penalty, which I think May has.  A high impact shot to the body is a three week ban and the medium impact shot to the head is a week more than for the body, so I would guess he's looking at 5 weeks.  That's four as a base for his High impact head-high bump, then an extra week for his bad record. 

Not defending May at all. Ablett, however did make it worse by pushing Martin into the oncoming May. 4 weeks minimum I would guess.

5 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Not defending May at all. Ablett, however did make it worse by pushing Martin into the oncoming May. 4 weeks minimum I would guess.

Totally agree, it was a nasty sniping act from a guy who couldn't handle being beaten to the ball by a ruck. 

Incidentally, I just did a quick search, and May was suspended for three weeks last year for a head-high hit on Rockliff.  That activates the extra week clause.  Looking at the footage, that was a far less severe impact than this one.  I doubt if they'll go that lightly on him this time. 

YouTube

54 minutes ago, dieter said:

As much as I shudder at the impact of May's hit on once our own Stefan Martin, I ask a simple question: how does May's hit differ from Mumford's hit on the Geelong player? We won't mention Merrett's scott free slug on Pedersen.

Not sure if serious. Mumford tackled. He didn't hit or bump anyone.

A front on tackle is one of the bravest acts in footy, no matter how big you are.

6 weeks imo, it was totally out of line, the players know not to leave the grand and bumping head high will cause them to miss weeks, May had other options and he went full pelt at Martin and took him out, i can't see there being much sympathy

17 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie said:

Not defending May at all. Ablett, however did make it worse by pushing Martin into the oncoming May. 4 weeks minimum I would guess.

Whether Ablett jr deliberately pushed Martin into it hasn't been spoken about at all, but it was the first thing I thought of when I watched the incident live, and I say that as a very big G.Ablett fan. The momentum of the push gave Martin little time to brace for impact, or even be aware of incoming Steven May. The thing that won't help May out is that his intention seemed pretty clear - to hip and shoulder Martin. May could've went the ball, he chose to go the man. 1-2 weeks in the recent past, 5-6 weeks in today's game.

A low act. Could have taken possession of the ball, left the ground - absolutely cowardly.

he won't play round 7

6 weeks for May.

Deserves six, reminded me lot of Long's hit on Simmons.

And I hate the way everyone circle jerks about Ablett, when he is such a dirty sniper. He knew full well what was coming and sold Martin right into it. 

Hodge and Mitchell are the same. Their dirtiness is celebrated as toughness, when everybody else gets weeks.

18 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Not sure if serious. Mumford tackled. He didn't hit or bump anyone.

A front on tackle is one of the bravest acts in footy, no matter how big you are.

Fair enough, as they say.

Talking 6 weeks in the papers today.

May is a real mongrel and deserves what he gets from the tribunal; hope they nail him.

While I'm not infatuated with GAJ, I think people are making a bit much of his role in this.  Is the theory that May was going to somehow miss him until GAJ redirected him?  For mine, the fault is May's and May's alone; hope he gets five weeks.

Saying this bump wasn't "intentional" is yet another MRP blunder to add to the list.

Hahhaha ridiculous! 

9 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

And I hate the way everyone circle jerks about Ablett, when he is such a dirty sniper. He knew full well what was coming and sold Martin right into it. 

Hodge and Mitchell are the same. Their dirtiness is celebrated as toughness, when everybody else gets weeks.

Hodgey also managed to do his car ticket before the finals and still gets no bad press.

Worked with a Hawks deadshyte today who laughed at the prospect of Watts being considered "elite".

I replied "not yet but he plays well against Richmond always so next week they will say so" ( mentioned Sen 1116-not my choice of entertainment).

The first comment I made to him about Hawthorn was that they should gracefully take a nosedive into Bass Strait in a small plane because nobody else cares.

19 hours ago, dieter said:

As much as I shudder at the impact of May's hit on once our own Stefan Martin, I ask a simple question: how does May's hit differ from Mumford's hit on the Geelong player? We won't mention Merrett's scott free slug on Pedersen.

(Byronesque) It reminded me of what football used to be like and why my mother didn't want me to play. I let her think she had eventually convinced me to give it away when I was approaching 40! Having been on both ends of a few of those during my time I can honestly say they rarely hurt...until the next day. Copping one was an exercise in "Oh Shite! - Good night." Delivering one properly was quite satisfying in a sick sort of way but I could never understand those blokes who gloated about their prowess. It doesn't take much courage to line someone up when they're not expecting it.

In times gone by it would have been a thing of beauty but now it is just a sickening collision. These type of bumps need to be removed but jeeze, Byron Picket would have loved it. Times have changed and we need to move on. Give him eight. 

Edited April 18, 20169 yr by The Reverend

Hit was an assassination. I used to love that aspect of the game 20 years ago but the game is so quick now that guys can't prepare for a hit like that. Head trauma is a real problem, the less hits like that the better!

He gets made an example of and goes for 6 weeks.

11 hours ago, Django said:

6 weeks for May.

Looks more like June.

20 hours ago, dieter said:

As much as I shudder at the impact of May's hit on once our own Stefan Martin, I ask a simple question: how does May's hit differ from Mumford's hit on the Geelong player? We won't mention Merrett's scott free slug on Pedersen.

Simple answer - 3 completely different types of incidents

1. May was a bump where both feet left the ground - 5-10 years ago absolutely fine - now it is clearly outlawed - he will get multiple weeks
2. Mumford - a front on tackle  - no problem
3. Merrett was a clumsy spoil that should have seen him rubbed out as well.

I can see maybe why you would query May vs Mumford but the Merrett incident has absolutely nothing similar to the other two  and is just sour grapes ( FYI - I still have the bad taste in my mouth from that one too)

I think you will find Mumford made "incidental" contact to the head during a tackle, and therefore was an accident.

May went out of his way to hit Martin, left the ground, ignored the ball, made head contact etc. Disgrace that the hit was called "careless" when Lycett was pinged with "intentional" for hitting Vickery. MRP is a complete joke when it gets to the serious stuff.

Should be 6 weeks like many people have said, but MRP are a bunch of wussbags.

6 weeks for me. Deliberate, left the ground, impact was huge, Martin looked in a bad way afterwards. 

I know they have concussion tests but I feel the Lions doctors should overrule match committee and make him have a week off. 

Also raises the question of whether there should be cards for clearly horrible bumps. Lions lost their no 1 ruckmen for the game but don't get any return benefit. I reckon it should be looked at even if it's just 5, 10, 15 minute penalties. 

I hate May for doing that. I hate Hodge; always been a sniper. I hate Long for assaulting Symonds. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate everyone. Just thugs and snipers.