Jump to content

Featured Replies

 

This thread is further proof of something I learned very early in my legal career. Put 4 people on different corners of an intersection, to view an accident occurring in the intersection and you will get 4 different versions of what happened if you ask them what they saw.

As for the Tribunal,  given we are challenging the penalty, I would assume we have the Lions on side to explain why Berry didn’t come back on and to downgrade the medium impact by showing no injury. 

4 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

Is he supposed to move out of the way?

For Pete's sake am I watching the same footage as others. Or is there two versions. May dropped his shoulder and moved into him deliberately to drop him. Which he succeeded in doing. Which is why he got reported. Stupid

Yes he could have moved out the way. But that is not really an option. So instead he could have achieved the aim of blocking him by simply bracing and protecting himself. And he would not have been reported. Instead he made the decision to bump (A much smaller player) and therefore put himself in a situation where a report becomes possible. Stupid. And what did he gain? Nothing.

So now we face the chance of meeting a side loaded with tall forwards without our biggest and best kpd. Great. Good on him. Smart. Not.

Even if gets off the appeal is s palaver we don't need ahead of round one.

The club will say the right things but internally they will be fuming.

 
2 minutes ago, binman said:

 

The club will say the right things but internally they will be fuming.

I doubt it.

 

It was off the ball, and head high so he deserves a week.

Of course I’d love him to get off , but would be shocked if he did.


Clarifying two things: 

- Berry is taller than May while somewhat lighter. 

- May had an option:  he could have gone for the ball which is where Berry was heading instead of 'bracing' for Berry contact or at least gone for the ball after Berry fell instead of walking the other way.

Nonetheless, imv it is not 'medium' impact and the criteria applied to assess it are rubbish in this instance.

Very pleased the club has shown the mettle to appeal.  It shows we will start standing up for ourselves and our players.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

of course he can't step out of the way. he just needed to not catch him on the chin.

having said that I am glad we are appealing.  I reckon we are a good chance to downgrade the impact to low

It happens in a split second. If accidental connection is made to the chin - as it may have been the case in this instance - you need to establish intent. I believe May braced himself and that's where the collision impacted. It's not as though he set out to maim him...

The points of May having no other option are debatable but the fact of the matter is there's no way that should be medium impact

 
8 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

It was off the ball, and head high so he deserves a week.

Of course I’d love him to get off , but would be shocked if he did.

 

Then explain how Burton got off the Higgins hit...

Rules for some...

 

Edited by The Stigga

16 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

It was off the ball, and head high so he deserves a week.

Of course I’d love him to get off , but would be shocked if he did.

it wasn't off the ball at all. the ball was in the immediate area. Berry handpasses a split second before the bump/block.


1 hour ago, poita said:

May is a dummy, and clearly hasn't learned from his nine previous suspensions. I would much rather he took the week now and spent some time reflecting, rather than doing something equally stupid later in the year and costing the team when it matters more.

Was contact unavoidable? Possibly. Was it necessary to turn and collect a smaller player with hip and shoulder with first contact to the head? Clearly not. 

As much as there have been numerous other MRP decisions that are completely illogical, I don't have a problem with this one.

Just a typical garbage post by you.

4 minutes ago, DemonLad5 said:

The points of May having no other option are debatable but the fact of the matter is there's no way that should be medium impact

 

Agreed, the May decision has been tacitly described as an 'optics' issue

But then how many suspensions have been based on the 'result'

 

Edited by The Stigga

10 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

It was off the ball, and head high so he deserves a week.

Of course I’d love him to get off , but would be shocked if he did.

Garbage

11 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

It was off the ball, and head high so he deserves a week.

Of course I’d love him to get off , but would be shocked if he did.

Oh he'll get off.

18 hours ago, clark's kick said:

It's stupid play by May.

You can't deny he moves towards berry to make contact.

Yes, he wouldn't be suspend if he played for collingwood or essendon. Yes, he wouldn't be suspended if his name was dangerfield or selwood. And yes, it's horribly inconsistent, and will undoubtedly be inconsistent with other decisions from that moron christian this year.

But May stupidly put himself in the position to be judged by an inconsistent system.

Control what you can control.

It was dumb. I hope someone is privately tearing strips off him, especially if he is on $900k a year. It was a practice game ffs!

What do you propose he does? Move out of his way, so he then can receive a handball back.  You’re allowed to block someone to stop him moving to the next contest


28 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

I doubt it.

 

You're kidding right. 

5 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

What do you propose he does? Move out of his way, so he then can receive a handball back.  You’re allowed to block someone to stop him moving to the next contest

No you're not.

In fact it should have been a 50 metre penalty against May for doing exactly this.

18 minutes ago, dieter said:

It happens in a split second. If accidental connection is made to the chin - as it may have been the case in this instance - you need to establish intent. I believe May braced himself and that's where the collision impacted. It's not as though he set out to maim him...

Nup. He didn't set out to 'maim' him. he did try to hurt him. And succeeded.

He is very lucky he didn't get him more on the head, say flush on the nose, which easily could have happened if Berry had dropped even a couple of centimeters more. Something that is completely out of May's control.Then we would be talking high contact and 5-6 weeks. All for what? What did he achieve by bumping him?


3 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

Off course it was I am the President of Mensa Australia.

And you manage a spelling mistake in a sentence containing 11 words?

Standards at Mensa Oz must have slipped since i left. 

8 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

 

In fact it should have been a 50 metre penalty against May for doing exactly this.

Speaking of 50 metre penalties, the new rule is the invention of an idiot.

The umpires boss one week before the season starts has admitted that the umpires don’t know exactly how to set the mark and the player penalised basically has to let the infringed player run away or play in without any pressure. I am struggling to think of a worse rule.

Just now, binman said:

And you manage a spelling mistake in a sentence containing 11 words?

Standards at Mensa Oz must have slipped since i left. 

It Is based on intelligence, not spelling, any fool can spell correctli.

 
2 minutes ago, binman said:

Nup. He didn't set out to 'maim' him. he did try to hurt him. And succeeded.

He is very lucky he didn't get him more on the head, say flush on the nose, which easily could have happened if Berry had dropped even a couple of centimeters more. Something that is completely out of May's control.Then we would be talking high contact and 5-6 weeks. All for what? What did he achieve by bumping him?

congrats for trying binman...some on here just don't get the modern game and the all out effort to protect the head.

I hope we haven't got a perennial offender in May. With lists so finely balanced we cannot afford suspensions.This or at the latest next has to be our year.

14 minutes ago, binman said:

You're kidding right. 

No. Disappointed perhaps, for the situation they are in facing selection should he not play. But 'fuming', i think that's a bit of hyperbole.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 87 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies