6 minutes ago, rolling fog said:

Is there an avenue to appeal?

yes. and i have no doubt we will appeal

I just read the reasons given by the Tribunal and to me they are a pile of fanciful BS.

12 minutes ago, jaydenh10 said:

not one agrees with this but this isn’t a good look….

The decision isn’t a good look

players calling it out in a reasonable way is a very good look

It was always going to be three weeks

now to appeal and for it to be increased to five

5 minutes ago, Random Task said:

Check out this horse**** reasoning

Reasons:

The football was handballed over the head of Francis Evans and towards the Carlton goal.

Evans turned and accelerated quickly to retrieve the ball. When he did so, he was several meters in the clear. Steven May had been running back towards the goal, and appears from the vision to have been approximately 20 meters away from Evans when he first saw that the handball had gone over the head of Evans.

May changed direction and ran at speed towards the ball. We find that at the moment that May changed direction and ran towards the ball, a reasonable player would have realised that it was highly likely that Evans would reach the ball before May did.

There was, of course, the possibility that, if everything went right, from May's perspective, he may reach the ball at about the same time as Evans, but only if the ball only bounced low and fast on every bounce away from Evans and towards May.

We find that when May changed direction, a reasonable player would have realised that there was little, if any, chance that May would reach the ball first.

The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans, and as we have said, it was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans.

May then accelerated towards the ball. He appears to have made no allowance for the likelihood that Evans would reach the ball first. In the circumstances, he should have done so.

Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the last of the four times that the ball bounced, it did so in a more upright manner, and that brought the ball closer to Evans than to May and that May could not have foreseen this.

May said that the ground was wet and that therefore the ball tended to skid through.

He acknowledged, however, that even in the wet, it is possible the ball will bounce up.

Here the vision shows that the second last bounce also bounces in an upright manner, so May could and should have observed that the next bounce may well also sit up.

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first. By the second last bounce he could, and should have realised that Evans would reach the ball first and likely take possession of the ball.

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other. As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May.

This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact to Evans.

May had his arms out to gather the ball, he had sufficient time to retract them noticeably, indicating that he had some reaction time.

May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest.

As a result, the effect was that he ran through Evans at high speed. A reasonable player would not have done so.

May did not have a lot of time to do so, but he had sufficient time to avoid or minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball.

The collision involving Alex Pearce was used by way of comparison. In that matter, the players arrived at the contest almost simultaneously, and yet Pearce had time to drop his arm in an attempt to minimise contact.

Evidence from the biomechanist states that may had only 0.56 seconds from the time that the ball landed for its final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react, noting that this is the reaction time in controlled laboratory environments.

We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball. Even if, contrary to our view, May could and should not have reacted until the final bounce of the ball, we find that he had sufficient time to position his body so that he was no longer attempting to gather the ball.

It's important to note in this regard that May had a relatively long period of time to sum up the key features of the contest.

This was not a situation where May had a split second in which to assess what might happen in the contest and to consider what he might do if the ball did not bounce in an entirely favourable way for him.

May ran a sufficient distance and had sufficient time with an unimpeded view of what was before him to determine what he could and should do in the likely event that he did not reach the ball either first or at the same time.

We find that May engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances.

As we said in the Pearce matter, an outcome of concussion does not inevitably result in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.

Here, the collision resulted in a concussion to a player, and that collision was caused or contributed to by a failure by May to take reasonable care.

A reasonable player in today's game would not have collided with Evans in the manner that occurred here.

So basically May should have predicted the likelihood of him getting to the ball first - an oval ball that’s bounces all over the place - and if higher than 50% of being late he should slow down and divert off course

WTF!!!!!

Sh * ts f * cked!

So [censored]. I hate the AFL

I'm done

Reality is May was never getting off

Anderson was never winning.

No One would have won.

It was unwinnable.

That was a charade to frame a predetermination

Well , Maynard watched the ball go over his head before he hit Gus which is MORE REACTION time than May had a.................. nd he got Off !!!! Where is the justice, because it is a contact game. Neither player defended themselves (which may intimate something).

With all the "Legal Brainery" present at the hearing they could not work how either player could stop . The system has gone into recess. So... to transpose this into the real world , who is reponsible for getting hit on the head in Cricket where the reactionary time is more than this case ????

If either player had shortened their step they would have been nearly hounded out of the game by the Heroes such a Tom the ambulance chaser , Caaaaain etc

3 minutes ago, dimmy said:

Well , Maynard watched the ball go over his head before he hit Gus which is MORE REACTION time than May had a.................. nd he got Off !!!! Where is the justice, because it is a contact game. Neither player defended themselves (which may intimate something).

With all the "Legal Brainery" present at the hearing they could not work how either player could stop . The system has gone into recess. So... to transpose this into the real world , who is reponsible for getting hit on the head in Cricket where the reactionary time is more than this case ????

If either player had shortened their step they would have been nearly hounded out of the game by the Heroes such a Tom the ambulance chaser , Caaaaain etc

Maynard and Cripps getting off was just plain nonsense. If this doesnt get up on appeal its a disgrace.

28 minutes ago, Macbush said:

Mystifying

Nothing mystifying about Magpies Gleeson and Christian screwing us.

1 minute ago, Bay Riffin said:

Maynard and Cripps getting off was just plain nonsense. If this doesnt get up on appeal its a disgrace.

Who runs our appeal (if it happens)?

Anyone half competent this time?

What an awfully run competition we have.

As others have said, many used to watch multiple games a weekend but now watch only Dees games. FFS I used to often go the 2 or 3 MCG games a weekend (MCC member) but cannot stand the corruption and now don’t even follow scores of most games.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by monoccular

Couldn’t have Maynard also changed his approach to the ball?

Exactly the same judge in Gleeson.

Go figure

It’s everything thats wrong with the logic of suspending May.

17 minutes ago, Tom Dyson said:

Personally, I love that from Riv, this is beyond a joke and I'm glad our boys have the guts to speak up/stick up for mayzy.

The people with the most power to challenge the corruption are current players.

you do realise we are going to get f’d even more by the umps now, they will see this and target him cause they are a bunch of soft ….. and don’t like to be criticised even by their own bosses. the senior figures in this club have let us get thrown about by the league and media for many years, hopefully it will change soon. this is a job for them and not the players, will all know nothing in this league will never change at least for the mfc

Note to Melbourne You can’t fly like an eagle if you’re surrounded by galahs.

38 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Melbourne gets screwed on and off the field..

The system in this comic relief organisation is broken.

I also am very angry with the Club for allowing us to be the continual punch bag of the AFL with the Season Draw with Draft Selection, with tonight's and other Tribunal decision and many other, what seems to be slanted, aspects to the AFL framework.

This

The club is useless

21 minutes ago, Random Task said:

Check out this horse**** reasoning

Reasons:

The football was handballed over the head of Francis Evans and towards the Carlton goal.

Evans turned and accelerated quickly to retrieve the ball. When he did so, he was several meters in the clear. Steven May had been running back towards the goal, and appears from the vision to have been approximately 20 meters away from Evans when he first saw that the handball had gone over the head of Evans.

May changed direction and ran at speed towards the ball. We find that at the moment that May changed direction and ran towards the ball, a reasonable player would have realised that it was highly likely that Evans would reach the ball before May did.

There was, of course, the possibility that, if everything went right, from May's perspective, he may reach the ball at about the same time as Evans, but only if the ball only bounced low and fast on every bounce away from Evans and towards May.

We find that when May changed direction, a reasonable player would have realised that there was little, if any, chance that May would reach the ball first.

The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans, and as we have said, it was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans.

May then accelerated towards the ball. He appears to have made no allowance for the likelihood that Evans would reach the ball first. In the circumstances, he should have done so.

Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the last of the four times that the ball bounced, it did so in a more upright manner, and that brought the ball closer to Evans than to May and that May could not have foreseen this.

May said that the ground was wet and that therefore the ball tended to skid through.

He acknowledged, however, that even in the wet, it is possible the ball will bounce up.

Here the vision shows that the second last bounce also bounces in an upright manner, so May could and should have observed that the next bounce may well also sit up.

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first. By the second last bounce he could, and should have realised that Evans would reach the ball first and likely take possession of the ball.

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other. As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May.

This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact to Evans.

May had his arms out to gather the ball, he had sufficient time to retract them noticeably, indicating that he had some reaction time.

May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest.

As a result, the effect was that he ran through Evans at high speed. A reasonable player would not have done so.

May did not have a lot of time to do so, but he had sufficient time to avoid or minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball.

The collision involving Alex Pearce was used by way of comparison. In that matter, the players arrived at the contest almost simultaneously, and yet Pearce had time to drop his arm in an attempt to minimise contact.

Evidence from the biomechanist states that may had only 0.56 seconds from the time that the ball landed for its final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react, noting that this is the reaction time in controlled laboratory environments.

We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball. Even if, contrary to our view, May could and should not have reacted until the final bounce of the ball, we find that he had sufficient time to position his body so that he was no longer attempting to gather the ball.

It's important to note in this regard that May had a relatively long period of time to sum up the key features of the contest.

This was not a situation where May had a split second in which to assess what might happen in the contest and to consider what he might do if the ball did not bounce in an entirely favourable way for him.

May ran a sufficient distance and had sufficient time with an unimpeded view of what was before him to determine what he could and should do in the likely event that he did not reach the ball either first or at the same time.

We find that May engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances.

As we said in the Pearce matter, an outcome of concussion does not inevitably result in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.

Here, the collision resulted in a concussion to a player, and that collision was caused or contributed to by a failure by May to take reasonable care.

A reasonable player in today's game would not have collided with Evans in the manner that occurred here.

"We find that there was little, if any, chance, that the MFC player would get a fair hearing." It is hard to read this balderdash with a straight face ....

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

So basically May should have predicted the likelihood of him getting to the ball first - an oval ball that’s bounces all over the place - and if higher than 50% of being late he should slow down and divert off course

WTF!!!!!

Yes, I presume the MRO thinks May has a phd in both physics and mathematics and can solve complex equations taking into account mass, acceleration, angles of both himself and his opponent as well as the ball and its own individual physics, likelihood of bounce base off visualised rotation, plus factoring in weather elements that may effect outcome of both himself, his opponent and the ball. Apparently he should know each opponents max speed and acceleration capacity as well as intent at each contest.

Apparently it was reasonable for May to factor all of this in less than three seconds and foresee he was likely to be 2/10ths of a second late to the contest.

A hospital handpass that sets his teammate on a collision course. It was bound to be a collision. The ball was coming towards May, as the Carlton player was running with it. In marking contests, May has the advantage as he cannot get front-on impact. When a groundball, he is not protected. Facts says that he has duty of care. The ball was heading towards him, and a fast player was able to put his body on the line. The Maynard defence with Brayshaw was, he didn’t have time in that split second to change body position, though May did.

Poor optics, blood and tooth of a person who took no duty of care to self, and had concussion. Don't run at the big fellas.

May was attacking the ball and not straight lining the player, unlike Maynard.

23 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I just read the reasons given by the Tribunal and to me they are a pile of fanciful BS.

That is an insult to BS 😀

No doubt we will appeal, but absolutely gutted for May. He’s been a champion of our club and doesn’t deserve this right now.

From now if you go to the footy pack a lunch box.

[censored] the [censored].

Edited July 23Jul 23 by Dee Zephyr

We must appeal

To quote Step Brothers.

THIS HOUSE (AFL) IS A [censored] PRISON. ON PLANET [censored]. IN THE GALAXY OF THIS SUCKS CAMEL [censored]!

Likely appealed and if upheld the AFL may have to clarify via rule change. Eg, first to the ball has right of way or no front on tackles or bumps.

The problem is the AFL have to seen to do something about head injuries and front on bumps even if contesting the ball could cause concussion.

The other option is a 'no defense' rule. Accident or not minimum 3 weeks and work up from there. That would be easier for the AFL.

Unfair for some , yes but eventually it will reduce player risk taking.

Or just leave it and hope it does not happen very often.

21 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Nothing mystifying about Magpies Gleeson and Christian screwing us.

Agree. Gleeson is a biased 35 year Magpies member.