4 hours ago, McQueen said:

Yeah because depending who you are and which club you play for you might get awarded a free kick and score a goal. 

 

You could argue the ball was in dispute in this instance and a contest, not handballed off and out of the contest

26 minutes ago, Pennant St Dee said:

First impression seeing it on Saturday was it was undisciplined and something they would look at to set a standard as they always do early in the season.

Stupid act and I hope Goody has torn strips off him in private.

As was the case with Lewis and Hogan in 2017, theres tough acts and theres going over the top costing your side

That's what this was

I pretty much agree with this, even though a bloke with concussion doesn't usually get up and look directly after his protagonist and start mouthing off obscenities at him, in this case May, if he's got concussion, from what i remember.... thanks Brissie Boys.

[censored] defence IMO, we should not have argues impact but that it was not careless, it was a case of May standing his ground and protecting himeself

4 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

[censored] defence IMO, we should not have argues impact but that it was not careless, it was a case of May standing his ground and protecting himeself

Absolutely, it's not like May actually lined him up or deviated to hit him.  Bloody Lions player has a duty of care to him self to watch the F where he is running.

Hate the suspension.

Love the reaction from May to the press after the tribunal hearing. 

Total proffesional and great leader.

While this is an absolute joke, I’m still very confident we can smash those mugs in Adelaide round 1 - they’ve got as many outs as we do..

Despite being total rubbish, the good news is that this decision becomes the basis for all future decisions on similar circumstances. 

i mean, how many times has claret copped unnecessary attention. It draws the line, a soft one yes, but one that the Dees need to consider before Rd1.

4 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

Oh well, so much for bringing in the so called Big Gun !  Not only did he fire a blank, he was disarmed at the Tribunal.

He did not contest  'the hit to the head', which did not happen...  the hit was to the chest and the throat.  Not to the head.

We went to the appeal, waving a wet lettuce leaf.  A token fight for fair, in appearance only.

just our luck 

Silly act for JLT but soft decision when you look at others. That has to hold up for the rest of the year now as the standard. 

Is what it is. 

6 hours ago, DeezNuts said:

Despite being total rubbish, the good news is that this decision becomes the basis for all future decisions on similar circumstances.

The bad news is that your prediction will not come true. The MRP/tribunal have failed every year to show any consistency whatsoever.

 

9 minutes ago, Pates said:

Silly act for JLT but soft decision when you look at others. That has to hold up for the rest of the year now as the standard.

You know that within 4 rounds of footy, there will be an identical (or worse!) incident where the perpetrator will either not be charged, will cop only a fine, or will be let off at the tribunal, and "the look" will not enter into it.

Funny Christian is interested in "the look" of May's incident, but not concerned about "the look" of random and inconsistent decisions by the MRP.

 

(Just wondering where the words "the look" appear in the MRP guidelines? ... he asked, knowing the answer already.)

12 hours ago, Jack son 5 said:

Why?

May did nothing wrong. After years of being called soft and bruise free, we now have hard hitters and snipers to enjoy. It's a contact sport. I would rather Melbourne play on or above the line than below it.    

I would rather the AFL and all clubs (and Demonland's posters) took a consistent line on concussion. 

Should May have been suspended under the current rules? I don't know. Should the rules be clear that a player should be suspended if he hits or bumps another player in an incident which is avoidable and might cause concussion (whether it did or not)? Absolutely.

It's not as if Frost and Oscar an incapable of doing a job for us in Round 1.  They handled the key defensive posts pretty well at the end of the season and during finals, so there is no reason to think they can't do it for us here, especially with Dixon not playing.

Bloody corrupt the Tribunal and the MRP.

GW$ key player rounders an opponent who gets helped off the field - no penalty.

MFC player braces for impact, contacts neck (at highest) of an opponent who then runs off the field - one week.

Consistency??

This club hasn't mastered hard ball yet.

Norm would understand

17 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

If breaking a team rule gets a player suspended, then there is something wrong with the team rule

Of course but the reality is THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THOSE WHO OFFICIALLY INTERPRET SUCH FOLLY AND AWARD A PENALTY FOR A FAKE OUTCOME.

I've just rewatched this 10 times. You need to watch it especially in real-time, not slo-mo. 

there really is not much in this, as shirt fronts go. under the rules the mrp are supposed to operate on, i can't agree that the contact can be graded as medium given there was no injury outcome

if the mrp is operating under new rules for contact grading they need to explain so but so far they haven't.

this is not a safe nor consistent ruling.........but not surprising based on the mrp's history of inconsistency

we got the rough end of the pineapple.... again

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

if the mrp is operating under new rules for contact grading

No, it's the same old rule ... 1. decide the outcome 2. work the high/low/medium/careless/negligent etc parameters and injury reports backwards to get the outcome you already decided

 

24 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

they need to explain so but so far they haven't.

It's Australia lore that you can't really explain "the vibe"

Though I'm sure I'll raise sniggers from the usual suspects , and to be honest not sure with exactly what was said,just evaluating the outcome; I would have thought the club missed an opportunity here.

Great clubs are built from the top down really. That is to say the hierarchy ought to define the style and fibre of the club. What often transpires on-field is a reflection of off-field.

I'm one of this that believe that the AFL ought be reminded at every opportunity it's there to administer the game on behalf of the club's...not meddle..and not impose the will of the overly ego centric such as Dill Mcflufffluff.

Here for all intents was a nothingness. That is even got to the MRP/tribunal is laughable and to be 'upheld' most lamentable

Imho the club needed to take a sledgehammer to a walnut. It should have left all and sundry with no Avenue of outcome save throwing it in the bin.

It needed to make a statement. Don't screw with us. Those days are gone.

We didn't. We still aren't in the same league as Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney, Essendon, Richmond

Despise them all you like. If May played for any of them do do think the outcome would be this ?? I don't.

You want to play hard..  be hard.

Want respect.. take no backward or sideways steps. Be firm.

It's nothing to do with money...it's about principle.

If you're going to do something Melbourne, do it properly.

We aren't there yet.

This actually says to me we aren't there on the field either.

Go Dees

Edited March 13, 20196 yr by beelzebub

32 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Though I'm sure I'll raise sniggers from the usual suspects , and to be honest not sure with exactly what was said,just evaluating the outcome; I would have thought the club missed an opportunity here.

Great clubs are built from the top down really. That is to say the hierarchy ought to define the style and fibre of the club. What often transpires on-field is a reflection of off-field.

I'm one of this that believe that the AFL ought be reminded at every opportunity it's there to administer the game on behalf of the club's...not meddle..and not impose the will of the overly ego centric such as Dill Mcflufffluff.

Here for all intents was a nothingness. That is even got to the MRP/tribunal is laughable and to be 'upheld' most lamentable

Imho the club needed to take a sledgehammer to a walnut. It should have left all and sundry with no Avenue of outcome save throwing it in the bin.

It needed to make a statement. Don't screw with us. Those days are gone.

We didn't. We still aren't in the same league as Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney, Essendon, Richmond

Despise them all you like. If May played for any of them do do think the outcome would be this ?? I don't.

You want to play hard..  be hard.

Want respect.. take no backward or sideways steps. Be firm.

It's nothing to do with money...it's about principle.

If you're going to do something Melbourne, do it properly.

We aren't there yet.

This actually says to me we aren't there on the field either.

Go Dees

bb I think the club did all it could with the options it had. 

It could not predict the Three wise monkeys Stooges of the Tribunal (Loveridge, Loewe and Wakelin) would be told by the AFL advocate to treat real evidence as 'irrelevant' and accept his waffle of: 'potential for injury', the 'look' of the vision, May positioned with 'significant momentum'.  None of these hypotheticals seemed to be backed up with evidence nor been raised at Tribuanls before; it is purely gut feel stuff which generates a gut feel outcome.  As you said earlier The Fix was in. 

I do think the club is beginning to play hard ball.  That they appealed was a good move - if nothing else sends a signal.  Also, our President recently took legal action against some WA reporter and extracted an apology. 

We are no longer beholden to the AFL - I doubt the new MFC will let many bad calls get past it - but we many not win them all. 

Respect comes slowly.  The MFC of the last 5 years is earning that back.  Yes, still some way to go but we are no longer the doormats of the AFL.

Edited March 13, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

34 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

bb I think the club did all it could with the options it had. 

It could not predict the Three wise monkeys Stooges of the Tribunal (Loveridge, Loewe and Wakelin) would be told by the AFL advocate to treat real evidence as 'irrelevant' and accept his waffle of: 'potential for injury', the 'look' of the vision, May positioned with 'significant momentum'.  None of these hypotheticals seemed to be backed up with evidence nor been raised at Tribuanls before; it is purely gut feel stuff which generates a gut feel outcome.  As you said earlier The Fix was in. 

I do think the club is beginning to play hard ball.  That they appealed was a good move - if nothing else sends a signal.  Also, our President recently took legal action against some WA reporter and extracted an apology. 

We are no longer beholden to the AFL - I doubt the new MFC will let many bad calls get past it - but we many not win them all. 

Respect comes slowly.  The MFC of the last 5 years is earning that back.  Yes, still some way to go but we are no longer the doormats of the AFL.

This post is so good I couldn't just click on a button to "Like" it. I need to add, "Excellent. Well stated."

May needs to save it up for the GF, and then go off (Dons 2000 style)...

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Respect comes slowly.  The MFC of the last 5 years is earning that back.  Yes, still some way to go but we are no longer the doormats of the AFL.

Agreed.

It takes time to transform an organisation from top to bottom. Probably the transformation began with Jackson and Roos, but as we have seen it takes time for that to become evident on and off the field.

Transformation is on-going and will be incomplete until the club has sustained success on the field over 5 to 10 years, continued membership growth, strong and stable leadership, and a strong financial position etc.  And you can also throw in the importance of having its own training base and infrastructure. 

We cannot be seen as a club that needs benefits or support from the AFL over that of any other club. 

All of the big clubs with influence have enjoyed sustained success over many years, even decades.  The big clubs all have had their bad times but unlike Melbourne they have had significantly more success over the past 20 to 50 years, and, as a result, more support.  It is easier for the big clubs to rebuild their membership base after lean years. 

Perts goal of 70,000 members has to be achievable.  We cannot become truly powerful without a big membership base.   

 

Edited March 13, 20196 yr by hemingway

Bet a Collingwood player wouldn't have even been cited! Christian is so biased it is ridiculous.

Binman is spot on. May clearly initiated contact and bumped berry. It amuses me that people think he had no other option but to brace. He literally side stepped left and went back into berry to lay the bump. 

I'll put everyone elses view down to the fact that they are just biased supporters that can't see the forest for the trees.

I can understand arguing medium impact down to light impact but arguing that May was simply standing his ground is laughable. And the tribunal agreed with Binman and I.

21 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

Binman is spot on. May clearly initiated contact and bumped berry. It amuses me that people think he had no other option but to brace. He literally side stepped left and went back into berry to lay the bump. 

I'll put everyone elses view down to the fact that they are just biased supporters that can't see the forest for the trees.

I can understand arguing medium impact down to light impact but arguing that May was simply standing his ground is laughable. And the tribunal agreed with Binman and I.

your  "I❤️love the MRP"  poster and lapel button are in the mail........