1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

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.

Again why did Burton not got suspended for his hit on Higgins?

14 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

Again why did Burton not got suspended for his hit on Higgins?

I believe Christian deemed it to be 'in the course of play'. 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I'm always fascinated by how people perceive something like this, especially with one of our own players.

I'd like to think that May could have knocked him out and we, as a supporter group, could still find a loop hole to get him out of it, but to each their own.  (I'm not condoning violence by the way, just an example.)

12 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

Again why did Burton not got suspended for his hit on Higgins?

shoulder to chest and then a clash of heads...not exactly the same.

Perhaps he should have gone but it was different

 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Diamond_Jim

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

shoulder to chest and then a clash of heads...not exactly the same.

Perhaps he should have gone but it was different

 

 

Yeah but the result was far worse. Also Burton didn't need to do what he did, hence he should have got rubbed out for the damage he caused.

51 minutes ago, Demon Dude said:

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

It was well after he disposed of the ball.

There was no need for it

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by DeeZee

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I'm always fascinated by how people perceive something like this, especially with one of our own players.

I'd like to think that May could have knocked him out and we, as a supporter group, could still find a loop hole to get him out of it, but to each their own.  (I'm not condoning violence by the way, just an example.)

If May knocked him out, caused damage, then yes he should be rubbed out, but he didn't.

Clearly over the past few years suspensions have been based not on the action of the player, but on the result of his actions.

 

8 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

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.

The club will be absolutely furious. As they should be. If you don't think so i respectfully suggest you may not have a sense of how a fully professional, elite football club operates. Its not 1974 and big carl getting pats on the back for giving someone a shirtfront.

It is instructive the club isn't appealing on the grounds he is innocent but is instead are arguing to downgrade the impact of the bump so he doesn't get a week. Why? Because May deliberately bumped him. And as such accepted the risk he might hit him high. Which is what happened. The club will be fuming he made that decision. Because it was stupid. And completely avoidable.

If we lose next week because their tall forwards towel us up you might reconsider your opinion. Who knows such a loss to Port might cost us a top 4 position. Might be the difference between a flag and no flag. Of course it may not but we wouldn't be having this discussion if May, a player with a shocking tribunal record (something the club would have discussed with him prior to signing no doubt) had engaged his  brain in what was a meaningless practice game.

1 minute ago, binman said:

The club will be absolutely furious. As they should be. If you don't think so i respectfully suggest you may not have a sense of how a fully professional, elite football club operates. Its not 1974 and big carl getting pats on the back for giving someone a shirtfront.

It is instructive the club isn't appealing on the grounds he is innocent but is instead are arguing to downgrade the impact of the bump so he doesn't get a week. Why? Because May deliberately bumped him. And as such accepted the risk he might hit him high. Which is what happened. The club will be fuming he made that decision. Because it was stupid. And completely avoidable.

If we lose next week because their tall forwards towel us up you might reconsider your opinion. Who knows such a loss to Port might cost us a top 4 position. Might be the difference between a flag and no flag. Of course it may not but we wouldn't be having this discussion if May, a player with a shocking tribunal record (something the club would have discussed with him prior to signing no doubt) had engaged his  brain in what was a meaningless practice game.

'Furious', 'fuming' I'd like to think the club has a far more objective, sensible and calm way of dealing with these matters as they arise.

4 minutes ago, The Stigga said:

'Furious', 'fuming' I'd like to think the club has a far more objective, sensible and calm way of dealing with these matters as they arise.

They're not mutually exclusive experiences @The Stigga... but perhaps @binman for the sake of semantics could have used 'disappointed'...

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Engorged Onion

I’m still angry from Brent Moloney getting suspended when he missed the bloke who dived out of his way and landed on his head.

We seem to get a terrible run at the tribunal / MRP

For those saying it was a foolish act by May I don’t think you understand the culture we are building. Jeff Garlett is a magician near the goals but he doesn’t thump the opposition at every opportunity.   He can’t get a game for a reason.

42 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

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

E = MC2   (ie: Execution = May Crucified)

Quote

From one of your good mates: Einstein

 

44 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?

I normally agree with you but I can't see what alternative May had.

44 minutes ago, binman said:

 

 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by dieter

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No you're not.

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

Mate please.  So what’s his option? 

42 minutes ago, dieter said:

I normally agree with you but I can't see what alternative May had.

 

Simple. Brace a for contact (and perhaps turn his body a bit) to protect himself. Don't bump.

As soon as you choose to bump you risk a report - and if you accidentally make even slight contact to the head you are sure to be reported. If you make heavy contact you get weeks.

1 hour ago, The Stigga said:

'Furious', 'fuming' I'd like to think the club has a far more objective, sensible and calm way of dealing with these matters as they arise.

Of course they will deal with things sensibly and calmly. They are professionals. So is May for that matter.Thankfully they will have more discipline than May.

They will still be fuming. But because they are professionals they will have the skills to  deal with it properly and not allow their anger to dictate their response. As i said its not 1974. 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by binman

57 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I’m still angry from Brent Moloney getting suspended when he missed the bloke who dived out of his way and landed on his head.

We seem to get a terrible run at the tribunal / MRP

For those saying it was a foolish act by May I don’t think you understand the culture we are building. Jeff Garlett is a magician near the goals but he doesn’t thump the opposition at every opportunity.   He can’t get a game for a reason.

I think that is more do to with lack of goals and maybe lack of pressure.  Not doing enough thumping of people off the ball is not why he is not in the team.

 

2 hours ago, binman said:

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.

There's continuum between bracing for contact when you're about to get run over by a guy with momentum and lining up a guy and dropping him and May is certainly somewhere between the 2.

I'd argue Berry draws him before handballing and May realises contact is his best option and instead of absorbing Berry hitting him he does make an active movement to get low and put his momentum through Berry. He's pretty much delivered a strong moving basketball screen. It's saying if you want contact I'm going to put some force in to it to protect himself as much as to clean the guy up. If his intentions were to clean him up he would've turned side on and ran in to him not stayed mostly front on and held his ground.

I think the club will take his side that his intentions were genuine and not malicious. Coach him up to do even better in staying low and avoiding force. If I were a coach I'd want May making contact and stopping the guy getting to the next contest and I'd want May on the winning side of that contact. I'd be annoyed he was reported but it would be more a focus on technique than a dressing down.

That said it's irrelevant how valid his actions were to him getting off. That comes down to was it high and how heavy was the impact?  We need to win 1 or both of those arguments.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

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. 

There is a difference here. An accident is over in a second without video replays.  Here people see the same video replay yet still can't agree.   Hopefully he'll get off on the level of impact and the nonsense about not returning to the ground. 

In my view, he was clearly not totally innocent however you spin it.  May be a worry.  (pun intended)

I dont see the point. Everyone knows the Tribunal will justify weird decisions. Its like blaming Jane Bunn for the weather arguing whether he is guilty or not.  I thought May would be in trouble, but Im rapt we are contesting it. The big clubs seem to contest all the decisions. This is a positive move.

 

10 minutes ago, sue said:

........

In my view, he was clearly not totally innocent however you spin it.  May be a worry.  (pun intended)

correct.......but he is not guilty of medium impact........in which case he will be fined but not suspended

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

correct.......but he is not guilty of medium impact........in which case he will be fined but not suspended

agree, except knowing the AFL 'will' should read 'should'.

You can see from this image May has stopped. He is not moving forward, ready to anticipate whether Berry is going to handball, or even bulk and take him on. Since Berry has chosen to handball all May has done from here is turn his shoulder bracing for impact. The side on view shows May falling back after contact indicating his body weight or momentum has stopped. If May was running or had momentum forward, then the outcome would’ve been a lot worse. If May hadn’t of turned his body, there probably would’ve been a head clash, with both players either having a broken nose of both knocked out.

May had 1 of three options.

1. Step aside and not impact the contest at all which probably breaks a team rule.

2. Stand there at the risk of both getting injured.

3. Turn and brace for contact, which is the option he took.

In the past this incident wouldn’t have warranted a suspension however the AFL want to clamp down on hits off the ball. Therefore I feel the suspension will stand and May will be made an example of. 

The thing that slightly annoys me though is the criteria that Christiansen used to grade the incident as being worthy of a one week suspension, it’s completely amateurish.

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Ethan Tremblay

4 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

In the past this incident wouldn’t have warranted a suspension however the AFL want to clamp down on hits off the ball. Therefore I feel the suspension will stand and May will be made an example of. 

The thing that slightly annoys me though is the criteria that Christiansen used to grade the incident as being worthy of a one week suspension, it’s completely amateurish.

but christian never claimed it was "off the ball"