WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - STEVEN MAY

[John Demonic 5,523]

6 hours ago, DV8 said:

2 knee reco's already, in under 22 yrs.

Lets not put all our eggs in that basket, justin case.   We need another stop-gap key back.  No saying what will be for Petty, Keilty, or Lever for that mater.

Just an idea, but maybe we could trade Garlett to North or any other club for one of their old age key backs like Scott Thompson, Grundy if they've got one or two years to give etc.  Clubs who may need a small forward, we need a defender. Or at least pick up a free agent key defender. Edit: Steven May seems like a really outside shot at coming here tbh

Edited July 30, 2018 by johndemonic

[Demonstone 21,788]

11 hours ago, Demons11 said:

So May is looking for a trade.  

O Mac hasn’t signed.  

Very interesting. 

Weren't you the bloke who repeatedly assured us that Brayshaw was GONE?  

[daisycutter 29,338]

12 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Has anyone else seen the MRP decision on May? Suspended a week because he it Curnow in the head with his shoulder.

What really is bizarre is that Michael Christian when giving his reason said May was allowed to bump because the ball was within 5 meters. Curnow had disposed of the ball and the hit was absolutely late yet according to Christian if the bump had been lower he was well within his rights and would not have been sanctioned.

Am I missing something here?

no you are not. he made up th 5 m rule, it doesn't exist for someone who has just kicked the ball

hit someone late after disposing of the ball is a free kick every day, and based on lateness, not 5m

now whether it is reportable is a different matter but got nothing to do with a mythical 5m

[Ethan Tremblay 30,027]

On 5/8/2018 at 6:58 PM, Demons11 said:

 Brayshaw not signing a contract

I have heard he is looking around.

 

On 5/9/2018 at 8:17 AM, Demons11 said:

There are people on here that know people in footy and therefore are happy to pass on some info that relates to our club.  

The fact you don't want it to be true and you have no idea whether it is, does not give you the right to call me a nuffie.

If you don't want to know the information, then I suggest you don't reply.  There are supporters on here that are happy to hear info that is not in the open market whether it be positive or negative.   

Most people don't just make things up.  

 

On 5/9/2018 at 9:42 AM, Demons11 said:

Because the person who told me holds a position within another club that it’s his job to know 

 

2 hours ago, demonstone said:

Weren't you the bloke who repeatedly assured us that Brayshaw was GONE?  

The old ‘I know someone at the club’ trick - Nek minnnit

Edited July 31, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Dr. Gonzo 23,714]

9 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

He said on Fox Footy last week he had no interest in looking around or seeking a trade when he still had another year to run on his contract. 

So he's gone

[deanox 9,663]

12 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

15.12 FREE KICKS AFTER DISPOSAL (a) Subject to Law 15.12(b), a Free Kick will be paid against a player who makes Prohibited Contact to a Player who has disposed of the football or Prohibited Contact to a Player who is Shepherding a Player who has disposed of the football. The Free Kick shall be taken by the nearest Player to the location where the football touches the ground, or crosses the Boundary Line, as the case may be. If taking the Free Kick at this location will penalise the Team awarded the Free Kick, the Free Kick shall be taken by the Player against whom and at the location where Prohibited Contact was made.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. Laws of Australian Football 2018 49 A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
(a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury; (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or (ii) below the knees.
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(c) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
(e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by the use of hand, arm, foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football;
(i) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(j) holds or throws an opposition Player after that Player has disposed of the football;
(k) engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable;
(l) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury; or
(m) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

15.4.4 Charge or Charging (a) A Charge means an act of a Player colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football. (b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player: (i) who is not within 5 metres of the football; (ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact; (iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick; (iv) after that Player has disposed of the football; (v) who is Shepherding another Player on their Team; or (vi) before the football is brought into play.

 

27 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

no you are not. he made up th 5 m rule, it doesn't exist for someone who has just kicked the ball

hit someone late after disposing of the ball is a free kick every day, and based on lateness, not 5m

now whether it is reportable is a different matter but got nothing to do with a mythical 5m

@daisycutter, did you check the rules before saying that? To be a free kick the contact must be "prohibited contact", which means more than 5m away,  overly rough or unexpected. 

"Lateness" has nothing to do with anything, and never has.

Once the ball has been disposed of, the player is now like any other on the field, who is subject to contact.

[daisycutter 29,338]

31 minutes ago, deanox said:

 

@daisycutter, did you check the rules before saying that? To be a free kick the contact must be "prohibited contact", which means more than 5m away,  overly rough or unexpected. 

"Lateness" has nothing to do with anything, and never has.

Once the ball has been disposed of, the player is now like any other on the field, who is subject to contact.

you can't tackle/bump a player after he has kicked the ball. it must be only while he is in the motion of kicking. you could probably give a bit of leniency for being a split second late but any more time and it is a free up the ground

are you saying i can tackle/bump a player after  he has kicked it as long as the ball is within 5m? how could you possibly measure 5m when it is a normal kick immediately after contact with foot? it has always been judged on time after disposal. late is late.

[sue 9,009]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you can't tackle/bump a player after he has kicked the ball. it must be only while he is in the motion of kicking. you could probably give a bit of leniency for being a split second late but any more time and it is a free up the ground

are you saying i can tackle/bump a player after  he has kicked it as long as the ball is within 5m? how could you possibly measure 5m when it is a normal kick immediately after contact with foot? it has always been judged on time after disposal. late is late.

Surely it is consistent  - a kicked ball travels 5m very quickly - probably it's beyond 5m when people judge that the hit was late.  Without a tape measure or stop watch measuring each hit maybe the AFL rule is sensible for once.

[Wiseblood 24,637]

2 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Talking Footy

Hopefully this information is slightly better than the Brayshaw info you spruiked on here, which turned out to be absolute rubbish.

[daisycutter 29,338]

13 minutes ago, sue said:

Surely it is consistent  - a kicked ball travels 5m very quickly - probably it's beyond 5m when people judge that the hit was late.  Without a tape measure or stop watch measuring each hit maybe the AFL rule is sensible for once.

i have never heard an umpire say a tackle after a kick was a free because the ball was > 5m away. They always say late tackle. i.e. a tackle after the ball was kicked.

now it may be true that in a split second the ball has travelled 5m but no-one uses 5m as a yardstick because it is impossible for an umpire to measure with the speed of a ball immediately off the foot

you might get away with a split second late tackle depending on force of tackle but there is certainly no guarantee. very hard for an umpire to determine a 'split second late'.

Edited July 31, 2018 by daisycutter

[DeeSpencer 24,768]

2 hours ago, johndemonic said:

Just an idea, but maybe we could trade Garlett to North or any other club for one of their old age key backs like Scott Thompson, Grundy if they've got one or two years to give etc.  Clubs who may need a small forward, we need a defender. Or at least pick up a free agent key defender. Edit: Steven May seems like a really outside shot at coming here tbh

We could always reanimate the corpse of Harry Taylor.

I've said for 18 months now there's a spot in Geelong's forward line that would be perfect for Cam Pedersen and we could certainly do with Harry Taylor at full back for the rest of the year. Unfortunately mid season trading didn't get up.

[dazzledavey36 52,828]

21 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Hopefully this information is slightly better than the Brayshaw info you spruiked on here, which turned out to be absolute rubbish.

Same bloke that said Hannabery is heading to the dees end of the year..

When i questioned where he got his information from, he told me it was none of my businesss.

Dont take him seriously...

[sue 9,009]

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i have never heard an umpire say a tackle after a kick was a free because the ball was > 5m away. They always say late tackle. i.e. a tackle after the ball was kicked.

now it may be true that in a split second the ball has travelled 5m but no-one uses 5m as a yardstick because it is impossible for an umpire to measure with the speed of a ball immediately off the foot

you might get away with a split second late tackle depending on force of tackle but there is certainly no guarantee. very hard for an umpire to determine a 'split second late'.

Just because the umps say 'late tackle', doesn't mean that is the rule, it's just short-hand.  It's quicker to say that than say 'the ball was more than 5m away when you tackled'.  It is 'late' because the ball was more than 5m away.  According to an earlier post the rule is expressed in terms of 5m, not a time delay.  I'm just saying that without accurate measuring equipment on every interaction (impossible), time or distance are effectively interchangeable.  In fact I think you can argue distance definition is better because it is more useful in cases where the disposal isn't a big fast moving kick.

[daisycutter 29,338]

4 minutes ago, sue said:

Just because the umps say 'late tackle', doesn't mean that is the rule, it's just short-hand.  It's quicker to say that than say 'the ball was more than 5m away when you tackled'.  It is 'late' because the ball was more than 5m away.  According to an earlier post the rule is expressed in terms of 5m, not a time delay.  I'm just saying that without accurate measuring equipment on every interaction (impossible), time or distance are effectively interchangeable.  In fact I think you can argue distance definition is better because it is more useful in cases where the disposal isn't a big fast moving kick.

i don't think you can determine it by metres or milliseconds, that is just too crazy

how is the tackler able to judge whether the ball being kicked has travelled 5m in a few milliseconds so it is ok to tackle. plainly he can't, nor can an umpire

it needs to be kept simple. late is late, and i think this is what umpires judge it on. there is then (sometimes) a little bit of common sense, if the tackle is a split second late and the impact is inconsequential the umpire could ignore it like they can with many other marginal free kick situations

the overriding rule though is you can't tackle a player after he has kicked the ball

[whatwhat say what 22,165]

may is a liability because he gets suspended at least once a year

5 weeks last year, from memory, and already a couple this year

he's a thug, yet a thug that will cost a team high picks:

moore - from pies to sydney for pick 10ish
may - from gc17 to pies for pick 10, second rounder
pick 2 - from gc17 to adelaide for a fringe player, pick 8 and whatever our pick ends up being (say pick 12-14ish)
lynch - to richmond as a free agent, gc17 get pick 2 as compo

carlton will pick walsh with pick 1 and crows will get lukosious with pick 2

gc17 will hold picks 2, 8, 10, and pick 12-14ish and be granted a compo at the end of their first round for being appalling (brisbane got previously; afl will always protect their northern states investments) as well as two second round picks - they already traded their own to freo as part of the weller trade

they're in complete re-build mode

[sue 9,009]

39 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't think you can determine it by metres or milliseconds, that is just too crazy

how is the tackler able to judge whether the ball being kicked has travelled 5m in a few milliseconds so it is ok to tackle. plainly he can't, nor can an umpire

it needs to be kept simple. late is late, and i think this is what umpires judge it on. there is then (sometimes) a little bit of common sense, if the tackle is a split second late and the impact is inconsequential the umpire could ignore it like they can with many other marginal free kick situations

the overriding rule though is you can't tackle a player after he has kicked the ball

Sure, that's how the rule is applied.  But it is apparently expressed in terms of distance which as I've argued makes sense.  How could they possibly express the rule in terms of time.  It would be laughable to have a rule expressed 'tackled after x milliseconds'.   And the 5m rule fits with the general 5m rule about interference, so it covers the case when the ball just dribbles away.

Anyway I don't think we are really in disagreement, and it has nothing to do with May.

Edited July 31, 2018 by sue

[daisycutter 29,338]

26 minutes ago, sue said:

Sure, that's how the rule is applied.  But it is apparently expressed in terms of distance which as I've argued makes sense.  How could they possibly express the rule in terms of time.  It would be laughable to have a rule expressed 'tackled after x milliseconds'.   And the 5m rule fits with the general 5m rule about interference, so it covers the case when the ball just dribbles away.

Anyway I don't think we are really in disagreement, and it has nothing to do with May.

no. just tackled after ball is kicked is just fine for the rule

agreed may is different because this was a handball situation and wasn't a tackle. it was a bump and it was high

you also can't tackle a player after a handball, but you can block or bump within 5m any player whether he has just disposed of it or not. the exception being if the player is attempting to mark the ball

[Neil Crompton 5,311]

6 hours ago, trout said:

Talking Footy reporting that GC will be asking him for a contract extension and if he can’t commit to the club they will put him on the trade table. 

I don’t think that’s correct. That was simply a Talking Footy opinion of what they thought GC should do. 

[Demons11 6,712]

4 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

 

 

 

The old ‘I know someone at the club’ trick - Nek minnnit

So you think he took to Round 18 to sign because he was only talking to Melbourne?  

 Melbourne had to up their offer to keep him.

My comment about May has nothing to do with any info, it was just wishful thinking that we would replace O Mac with May.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Demons11

[Demons11 6,712]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Same bloke that said Hannabery is heading to the dees end of the year..

When i questioned where he got his information from, he told me it was none of my businesss.

Dont take him seriously...

I won’t be taking you seriously that’s for sure. 

Channel 7 should get you on their commentary team after this beauty.

NFI!!!

Edited July 31, 2018 by Demons11

[Demons11 6,712]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Same bloke that said Hannabery is heading to the dees end of the year..

When i questioned where he got his information from, he told me it was none of my businesss.

Dont take him seriously...

Just wait and see...........

[old dee 23,497]

6 hours ago, Nasher said:

old dee, cast your mind back to the Melksham trade. He got rubbed out for the season a few short weeks after the trade was done. The outrage and frustration at trading a valuable second rounder for a player who couldn’t play was palpable.

Now nobody gives a toss, because he’s playing good footy again. When you recruit a player with a huge amount of footy ahead, the value plays out over their entire career, not just year 1. Lever will more than repay the cost. He had already started before the injury.

If short term success was the measure of success for a trade, Mitch Clark was the greatest trade in history.

All you say is correct Nasher however it is right now an expensive trade imo. Right now he has played 3-4 good games . What the future holds who knows.

[dazzledavey36 52,828]

1 hour ago, Demons11 said:

I won’t be taking you seriously that’s for sure. 

Channel 7 should get you on their commentary team after this beauty.

NFI!!!

That really hurt. I have no doubt i won't sleep tonight.

Btw is Gus still leaving??

Edited July 31, 2018 by dazzledavey36

[monoccular 17,321]

20 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Has anyone else seen the MRP decision on May? Suspended a week because he it Curnow in the head with his shoulder.

What really is bizarre is that Michael Christian when giving his reason said May was allowed to bump because the ball was within 5 meters. Curnow had disposed of the ball and the hit was absolutely late yet according to Christian if the bump had been lower he was well within his rights and would not have been sanctioned.

Am I missing something here?

It is very clear that either (or both) Michael Christian doesn't have a clue and /or is under instruction to look after the franchise(and  "power")  clubs.

[deanox 9,663]

55 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you can't tackle/bump a player after he has kicked the ball. it must be only while he is in the motion of kicking. you could probably give a bit of leniency for being a split second late but any more time and it is a free up the ground

are you saying i can tackle/bump a player after  he has kicked it as long as the ball is within 5m? how could you possibly measure 5m when it is a normal kick immediately after contact with foot? it has always been judged on time after disposal. late is late.

@daisycutter are you saying the quoted rule is not a real rule? As written you can bump a player after he kicked it. I promise you that 5m rule has been in place for at least 20 years (I can't confirm before hand but pretty sure 5m had been the Aussie rules standard forever). What has been added is the "not involved in the play" and "unexpected" or "unreasonable" force type clauses, which are intended to stop sniping. 

"Late" in your description may refer to "the ball was disposed of, the player is now no longer in the contest and therefore not reasonably expecting contact" ie he was expecting it but you were late to the contest and now it is unexpected. 

To clarify further, a kick is a method of disposal.  It may go 50 m or it may be a dinky dribble kick so that a player can run on and collect it. There aren't different contact rules for both cases. If the ball is within 5 m and the player is still in the play they should expect to be bumped off their line by an opposition player.