Jump to content

Featured Replies

35 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.

rubbish..if you pay very careful attention his right foot NEVER moves !!

Did he lean into the brace ? For sure..I would... Only a fool wouldnt.  Its what you might do if relative stationary against a someone moving into you

we're biased ???? pfffffffffft

 

This had NOTHING to do with what actually happened

It has everything to do with a FAKERY...an act of deliberate manipulation of the MRP by the AFL. a desire to see a particular outcome irrelevant of the facts.

Facts were submitted....and ignored

if this was a criminal or indeed civil case...youd take it to the next level

2 hours 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.

How many years now has 'The Anointed Donkey' been messing up the interpretations of onfield incidents with false allegations and the guilt of the guiltless? Oh, that's correct, I had forgotten as it feels so terribly standardised, already; it is two years. OK, so that means a third is underweigh. What a disrespectful move by the AFL to the general public. Hair of dog and eye of newt being boiled and stirred in the pot of mediocrity. 

 
4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

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

For once we entirely agree, Joyce...

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

rubbish..if you pay very careful attention his right foot NEVER moves !!

Did he lean into the brace ? For sure..I would... Only a fool wouldnt.  Its what you might do if relative stationary against a someone moving into you

we're biased ???? pfffffffffft

You call it a brace. it's a bump. May  knows that berry is running straight at him. once the ball is hand passed May moves to his left and leans back to his right to hit berry. What do you call the difference between leaning forward to brace and a bump?  it's the same thing. no-one is arguing it wasnt a bump except for you and some demons fans.


4 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

You call it a brace. it's a bump. May  knows that berry is running straight at him. once the ball is hand passed May moves to his left and leans back to his right to hit berry. What do you call the difference between leaning forward to brace and a bump?  it's the same thing. no-one is arguing it wasnt a bump except for you and some demons fans.

Listen to your own description

Berry is running towards May

But it's May numbing Berry

See the problem with logic there ??

Bet most here can 

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Listen to your own description

Berry is running towards May

But it's May numbing Berry

See the problem with logic there ??

Bet most here can 

For those who can take off their red and blue glasses or their desire for self-flagellation, it looks like a bit of both.    Nevertheless, the 'logic' of the AFL and its Tribunal is unfathomable and the only thing we can be sure of is that they will be inconsistent as usual.

 
6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

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

Agree Daisy and that is what I am upset about 

Michael Christian who is the MRP says it is Medium Impact BECAUSE the victim was hurt and couldn’t as a result come back on the ground.

We then appealed only the impact level arguing for low impact. The Lions agreed Berry was not concussed or injured and that the reason he didn’t return was purely based on minutes played in a practice game. 

That should have been it. Grading reduced to low and a fine but no,

For some  inexplicable reason the Tribunal substitutes the phrase “ it could have been worse “ to somehow mean it was medium impact. 

The appeal is then denied. 

This to me smacks of a pre determined outcome and is a disgrace.

The rest of the discussion about bracing, bumping, record etc is totally irrelevant.

If this was a final at stake we would be in Court and would win.  This process has been an absolute disgrace. 

Lastly if Berry was injured/ concussed I would happily accept the week. That is not the case and to my mind has been a disgraceful attempt at obtaining a result no matter what. 

The AFL Tribunal has acted shamefully IMO.

Edited by Redleg


3 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This had NOTHING to do with what actually happened

It has everything to do with a FAKERY...an act of deliberate manipulation of the MRP by the AFL. a desire to see a particular outcome irrelevant of the facts.

Facts were submitted....and ignored

if this was a criminal or indeed civil case...youd take it to the next level

Agree.

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Agree Daisy and that is what I am upset about 

Michael Christian who is the MRP says it is Medium Impact BECAUSE the victim was hurt and couldn’t as a result come back on the ground.

We then appealed only the impact level arguing for low impact. The Lions agreed Berry was not concussed or injured and that the reason he didn’t return was purely based on minutes played in a practice game. 

That should have been it. Grading reduced to low and a fine but no,

For some  inexplicable reason the Tribunal substitutes the phrase “ it could have been worse “ to somehow mean it was medium impact. 

The appeal is then denied. 

This to me smacks of a pre determined outcome and is a disgrace.

The rest of the discussion about bracing, bumping, record etc is totally irrelevant.

If this was a final at stake we would be in Court and would win.  This process has been an absolute disgrace. 

Lastly if Berry was injured/ concussed I would happily accept the week. That is not the case and to my mind has been a disgraceful attempt at obtaining a result no matter what. 

The AFL Tribunal has acted shamefully IMO.

you forgot the bit about it not being a good look - lol

but apparently mummies round arm to the head wasn't......go figure

Edited by daisycutter

Michael Christian is not the smartest guy on the block. 

I think that part of the reason for incompetency is often that the person/s are not very smart.  Causes confusion, poor logic and reasoning. If they were smart they would not be sitting on a footy tribunal. 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Listen to your own description

Berry is running towards May

But it's May numbing Berry

See the problem with logic there ??

Bet most here can 

You can still bump despite not running into it. He had literally 1 step into the bump. maybe even half a step. it wasnt malicious but he chose to bump and got him high. 

this was an easy one for the mrp. 

Put yourself in Berry's position. He is running along gives the handball off and gets hit high. Yes he didnt have awareness but the moment May turned sideways and leant into him it was far more than a brace and the onus shifted to May to not get Berry high.

If you think it was a brace then we'll probably never agree. 

 

9 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.

No.

Intent to maim, only.


28 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

You can still bump despite not running into it. He had literally 1 step into the bump. maybe even half a step. it wasnt malicious but he chose to bump and got him high. 

this was an easy one for the mrp. 

Put yourself in Berry's position. He is running along gives the handball off and gets hit high. Yes he didnt have awareness but the moment May turned sideways and leant into him it was far more than a brace and the onus shifted to May to not get Berry high.

If you think it was a brace then we'll probably never agree. 

 

The onus is on the offensive acting player, to not get the recipient player high.   And not leave the ground.  True

But the did not contact the head.  Chest and throat was all it was.  Which stunned the recipient.   Did not cause any loss of consciousness, and he did not hit head on the ground.

You have to brace for a hit/shirtfront...   Bracing is not the problem here.

 

How much of this is payback from the Lions Doc...  for Mays hit on Steph Martin,  years back.?

The recipient player wanted to keep playing,  but the Doc didn't allow it...  and took him from the field.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

i wonder what May is feeling right now?

 

I hope he is feeling gutted but most of all disappointed he has let the club down. A club that has spent big coin and a high draft pick to get him to our club.

It was always going to get reviewed. High impact was a tough call and I thought there was a 50-50 chance we would get it downgraded to low impact and a fine (note: there seems to be confusion - some seem to think we were arguing he was innocent. We accepted his guilt).

I understand people being frustrated with the system, particularly in regard to the inconsistencies. I share that frustration. Though I have laugh at suggestions it's somehow orchestrated by the AFL and the dees are victims of a conspiracy (if it was gws blah blah). I mean come on. 

But personally I'm [censored] off at may. None of the tribunal palaver comes into play if he engages his brain. It's of course not a hanging offence but we got him for precisely the sort of big forward line we come up against in round one. And it is a game of very small margins as the dees no full well. A loss might have huge ramifications.

I hope those that give him a pass for his stupidity don't bag omac if he gets out muscled by one of their bigs.

Edited by binman

1 hour ago, Dr.D said:

You can still bump despite not running into it. He had literally 1 step into the bump. maybe even half a step. it wasnt malicious but he chose to bump and got him high. 

this was an easy one for the mrp. 

Put yourself in Berry's position. He is running along gives the handball off and gets hit high. Yes he didnt have awareness but the moment May turned sideways and leant into him it was far more than a brace and the onus shifted to May to not get Berry high.

If you think it was a brace then we'll probably never agree. 

 

It still begs the f.....g question: wtf was May supposed to do?????Look at it again in real time.


28 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

May would eat Watts

Pity he put himself in a situation where he won't get the chance.

9 minutes ago, dieter said:

It still begs the f.....g question: wtf was May supposed to do?????Look at it again in real time.

C'mon deiter you can't be serious. He bumped him. He could have simply braced and protected himself and the result would have been almost exactly the same. With one small difference.

He. Would. Not. Have. Been. Reported.

Someone (apologies I can't remember who) made the excellent analogy that it was like a hard screen in basketball- the type that leads to a foul - where you lean into it and give the player a sold bump. As opposed to bracing and standing your ground - which is legal if you are not moving.

May put a very hard and deliberate block on berry. And unfortunately for all concerned hit his chin. As soon as he did so he was gonski. Again the club acknowledged that. If he didn't put the extra in they would have argued he was innocent.

Edited by binman

Binman, I'm sure May now does feel remorse for what has happened, despite my previous light hearted comment. 

But what's done is done, and all the chat in the world won't change the outcome unfortunately.

Personally, if that's the worst thing that happens to Melbourne this year i'll be a happy man.

As Wiseblood said earlier "Round 1 can't get here quickly enough"

 
41 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

May would eat Watts

And Watts would inhale icing sugar off May's norks. Good times. But we're talking about on the field.


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?

      • Sad
      • Like
    • 200 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.

      • Like
    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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? 

      • Like
    • 4 replies