May had no interest in the ball. Ran past it and lined up Martin all the way. Has history and was a cowardly act. 

I'd give him 8 for effort. 

Edited April 18, 20169 yr by Moonshadow

From an article I just read:

 

"The MRP has already determined the act was careless but not deliberate and have graded the contact as severe."

 

Not deliberate?

 

are they kidding? The AFL is just a joke. Bunch of clowns.

4 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

From an article I just read:

 

"The MRP has already determined the act was careless but not deliberate and have graded the contact as severe."

 

Not deliberate?

 

are they kidding? The AFL is just a joke. Bunch of clowns.

Disgusting. Only way they can justify not giving him 6-8.

Also on the tribunal:

 

"Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the body."

 

Adams, who has form with disgraceful behaviour in the past, belted Harmes from behind the ball(off camera, but can see lead up and aftermath of it, is no other explanation), Harmes was on the ground for over 45 seconds before having to come off.

 

Low impact?  Give me a break!

11 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

From an article I just read:

"The MRP has already determined the act was careless but not deliberate and have graded the contact as severe."

Not deliberate?

are they kidding? The AFL is just a joke. Bunch of clowns.

Patrick Smith on KB thinks the MRP's reluctance to call any tackle "deliberate" or "intentional" is because it may leave them open to a legal challenge from the offender. He thinks that "careless" is in fact a euphemism used to attract the same penalty while avoiding legal problems.

Hope he's right. It would be a tragedy if the Tribunal gave him 4 or less on the grounds that it was "careless rather than deliberate". 

13 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

From an article I just read:

 

"The MRP has already determined the act was careless but not deliberate and have graded the contact as severe."

 

Not deliberate?

 

are they kidding? The AFL is just a joke. Bunch of clowns.

yes, but i don't think the tribunal necessarily  have to accept that "judgement"

6 weeks down to 5 weeks for being remorseful (that's a new one)

Remorse isn't good enough. They just have to stamp this rubbish out - is players retiring at 22 not enough for them to take this seriously?

Should have been 6. Remorse doesn't change his conduct on the field on the weekend.

Also, the more I watch the replay the harder Ablett seems to be pushing Martin into May's path. He's always had a dirty streak.

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

6 weeks down to 5 weeks for being remorseful (that's a new one)

Remorseful.....because he knew he was going to cop a big suspension.

Does the suspension include the 'extra' week for his poor record?

4 minutes ago, Maple Demon said:

Remorseful.....because he knew he was going to cop a big suspension.

Does the suspension include the 'extra' week for his poor record?

apparently not (according to ch9)

If he played for Hawthorn we would have got off on the basis that Martin should not have been at that spot on the ground.

they also said it helped that stef passed a concussion test this week and will probably play next week fwiw

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

apparently not (according to ch9)

So effectively he got 2 weeks off of his suspension then.

Just now, Maple Demon said:

So effectively he got 2 weeks off of his suspension then.

maybe more because the bad record penalty is a % so it could have been 3 weeks more (2 +1)?

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

they also said it helped that stef passed a concussion test this week and will probably play next week fwiw

I've always been of the belief that the action and not its outcome should be punished. He's just lucky (and so is Martin, obviously) that Martin wasn't hurt worse than he was.

Just now, Maple Demon said:

I've always been of the belief that the action and not its outcome should be punished. He's just lucky (and so is Martin, obviously) that Martin wasn't hurt worse than he was.

i can see that both the action and outcome should be considered with a bit of common sense applied.......but who'd trust the mrp with common sense

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i can see that both the action and outcome should be considered with a bit of common sense applied.......but who'd trust the mrp with common sense

 

 

 

 

Comment of the day dc.

38 minutes ago, old dee said:

If he played for Hawthorn we would have got off on the basis that Martin should not have been at that spot on the ground.

If May played for Hawthorn he would've got off because Martin didn't run the required 15 meters. "Play on!"

They will obviously miss him in 3 weeks time when we play the suns....

After reading the above I understand I was wrong to equate May with the Mumford. 

It is though quite amazing that 10 years ago, or so, these assaults were a common part of Aussie Rules. Players like Brereton, Matthews, Dipper, Hall, Ditterich, Scott and all the multitude of nasty snipers would have been rubbed out for most of their playing careers. And it would have been a better sport for it.

Maybe the answer is that it isn't a sport any more, it's a business and because it's a business with all the Insurance liabilities attached....????

On 17/04/2016 at 0:11 AM, RalphiusMaximus said:

... 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.

Sorry, I just had to point that out.  The article on AFL.com doesn't say how they arrived at that penalty, but given that the MRP graded it as careless conduct with severe impact, it would be consistent with a four week penalty + 1 for bad behaviour.  I'd love to know for sure though. 

6 hours ago, dieter said:

After reading the above I understand I was wrong to equate May with the Mumford. 

It is though quite amazing that 10 years ago, or so, these assaults were a common part of Aussie Rules. Players like Brereton, Matthews, Dipper, Hall, Ditterich, Scott and all the multitude of nasty snipers would have been rubbed out for most of their playing careers. And it would have been a better sport for it.

Maybe the answer is that it isn't a sport any more, it's a business and because it's a business with all the Insurance liabilities attached....????

They have said repeatedly that the effort to drastically reduce injuries, and in particular injuries with long-term effects, is aimed at maintaining junior numbers.  With other sports growing in popularity, as well as a general push away from sports across the population, the AFL has identified this as a crucial part of their long-term strategy.  We've all seen reports of clubs being forced to close down because they can't field a team anymore.  They are trying to make the sport more attractive to parents by reducing the chances of their children being hurt at any stage in their footballing life.  It's sad in a way that the rationale is so sound, because it has been used to justify some stupendously bad decisions (see the poorly thought-out rule changes they keep coming up with).

10 hours ago, dieter said:

After reading the above I understand I was wrong to equate May with the Mumford. 

It is though quite amazing that 10 years ago, or so, these assaults were a common part of Aussie Rules. Players like Brereton, Matthews, Dipper, Hall, Ditterich, Scott and all the multitude of nasty snipers would have been rubbed out for most of their playing careers. And it would have been a better sport for it.

Maybe the answer is that it isn't a sport any more, it's a business and because it's a business with all the Insurance liabilities attached....????

It's the same as anything else health wise where thinking evolves over time. No different to saying 'everyone used to smoke'. 

Listening to May's 'remorseful' apology on the news this morning, he apologised first to Suns supporters for 'letting them down' and then to his teammates. No mention of Martin. Can they add the week back that the suspension was reduced by for showing remorse?  I would, but maybe I am just cranky because I haven't had my morning coffee yet.

On 18/04/2016 at 9:07 PM, Pates said:

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. 

 

21 hours ago, daisycutter said:

they also said it helped that stef passed a concussion test this week and will probably play next week fwiw

Martin should not be allowed to play this week. If he does, perhaps it's time for the AFL to look at implementing a rule that takes a post-concussion decision out of the hands of the clubs. It's tempting to suggest a mandatory week off for any player who is knocked unconscious, irrespective of the length of time. But I'm not a doctor and that might be too blunt an instrument.