1 minute ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I want our players to be smarter than that. Anyway, et's hope nothing comes of it.....

I want our players to be passionate and to stick up for one another.

So Riv might cop a fine and if that’s the worst result for him I reckon he’d be ok with it

AFL website

May's case was sent directly to the Tribunal on Wednesday night, with the rough conduct charge graded as careless, severe impact and high contact.

Tribunal counsel Andrew Woods pushed for a three-match ban to be imposed, declaring May should have slowed down or changed direction to either avoid or lessen the collision.

The premiership defender had pleaded not guilty, with his lawyer Adrian Anderson arguing his client's actions weren't unreasonable.

May and Evans clashed at speed while attacking a loose ball in the Blues' eight-point win at the MCG on Saturday night.

Given the rolling ball popped up during its final bounce, Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, with a charging May making contact after continuing his trajectory.

During his evidence, he reiterated the fact he thought he would arrive at the bouncing ball first.

"I definitely thought it was my ball given how the previous bounces reacted," May said.

"Then it took an unusual bounce given the conditions. It actually bounced up and towards Evans, which I didn't anticipate."

May's hands were still in front of him in a collect-the-ball type pose when his shoulder made contact with Evans' head.

"I thought it was going to be in my hands. I just can't believe I didn't take possession," May said.

"I thought I did everything right. I was shocked."

In his findings, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said the evidence from the biomechanics expert showed May had 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react.

"We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball," Gleeson said.

"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.

"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 he did not reach the ball first or at the same time."
———————————————-

He expected to win the football. It pops up and he is a nano second too late and has a nano second to brace for impact. His eyes are always on the ball. He did not bump. He was not careless. It was accidental. The Tribunal is WRONG.

@Demonland @binman @george_on_the_outer

WE MUST APPEAL THIS

THEIR CHARGE WAS CARELESS , IT WAS NOT CARELESS, IT WAS CONTACT

IT WAS A REASONABLE ACT TO EXPECT TO WIN THE FOOTBALL

HE KEEPS HIS EYES ON THE FOOTBALL

HE DID NOT BUMP

HE KEEPS HIS LINE

THE FOOTBALL POPS UP AT THE LAST NANO SECOND

WE MUST APPEAL THIS

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

There was an obvious 10th ground.

May is not running at Evans, he running to the ball and it is only when Evan’s comes from the side in the last split second, that there could be any knowledge or chance of a collision.

For good measure here is another.

If May was concussed and Evan’s wasn’t in this collision, would Evans be up before the Tribunal, as he would have done exactly what May is being accused o

12 minutes ago, Redleg said:

There was an obvious 10th ground.

May is not running at Evans, he running to the ball and it is only when Evan’s comes from the side in the last split second, that there could be any knowledge or chance of a collision.

For good measure here is another.

If May was concussed and Evan’s wasn’t in this collision, would Evans be up before the Tribunal, as he would have done exactly what May is being accused

I just want to know how they sleep at night knowing that they are being ridiculous

We got the wrong Anderson...

12 hours ago, At Least I Saw a Flag said:

3 weeks. Lock it in.

Never in doubt !!

21 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

"We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball," Gleeson said

This line is so ludicrously stupid that it doesn’t make sense.

Could have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball:

It was a contest to get to the ball, these are professional athletes playing a professional sport and any player at anytime ‘COULD’ do anything to mitigate injury, but then that’s compromising what sport is about… COMPETING.

And ‘should’ have reacted before the last bounce… why should he? How does he make a determination on what a bounce is going to do before he gets there???? They’re saying that May ‘should’ have known before the last bounce of the ball, which way the ball was as going to bounce. WTAF?

Think about the logic of those two sentiments!!!

May didn’t do anything that wasn’t a part of the game. There is no point of the footage where you can point to and say ‘that isn’t allowed in AFL’.

You could also apply this level of ‘could’ and ‘should’ to any injury ever? Players could do a million things to stop injury, just don’t tackle, don’t run as hard, don’t pack mark etc. etc. etc. and if it results in an injury then you can just say ‘oh the player ‘should’ have foreseen an injury coming up’… like no [censored] chit, it’s a 360 degree contact (apparently semi now) sport.

34 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

AFL website

May's case was sent directly to the Tribunal on Wednesday night, with the rough conduct charge graded as careless, severe impact and high contact.

Tribunal counsel Andrew Woods pushed for a three-match ban to be imposed, declaring May should have slowed down or changed direction to either avoid or lessen the collision.

The premiership defender had pleaded not guilty, with his lawyer Adrian Anderson arguing his client's actions weren't unreasonable.

May and Evans clashed at speed while attacking a loose ball in the Blues' eight-point win at the MCG on Saturday night.

Given the rolling ball popped up during its final bounce, Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, with a charging May making contact after continuing his trajectory.

During his evidence, he reiterated the fact he thought he would arrive at the bouncing ball first.

"I definitely thought it was my ball given how the previous bounces reacted," May said.

"Then it took an unusual bounce given the conditions. It actually bounced up and towards Evans, which I didn't anticipate."

May's hands were still in front of him in a collect-the-ball type pose when his shoulder made contact with Evans' head.

"I thought it was going to be in my hands. I just can't believe I didn't take possession," May said.

"I thought I did everything right. I was shocked."

In his findings, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said the evidence from the biomechanics expert showed May had 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react.

"We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball," Gleeson said.

"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.

"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 he did not reach the ball first or at the same time."
———————————————-

He expected to win the football. It pops up and he is a nano second too late and has a nano second to brace for impact. His eyes are always on the ball. He did not bump. He was not careless. It was accidental. The Tribunal is WRONG.

@Demonland @binman @george_on_the_outer

WE MUST APPEAL THIS

THEIR CHARGE WAS CARELESS , IT WAS NOT CARELESS, IT WAS CONTACT

IT WAS A REASONABLE ACT TO EXPECT TO WIN THE FOOTBALL

HE KEEPS HIS EYES ON THE FOOTBALL

HE DID NOT BUMP

HE KEEPS HIS LINE

THE FOOTBALL POPS UP AT THE LAST NANO SECOND

WE MUST APPEAL THIS

So let's just reflect on this. The AFL tribunal took 3hrs to analyse and provide a ruling on something Steve had 0.5 seconds to process and act on perfectlly , all within the laws of physics, all whilst doing pretty much everything right that the AFL had previously said was within a players duty of care. My gosh these people are imbeciles.

There was a principle in cricket about giving the batsmen the benifit of the doubt and one in law about incenent until proven guilty that seem to have been violated here.

Edited Wednesday at 13:125 days by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

We need to appeal. I don't care if May misses another few weeks. We need to appeal for the sake of the game. You can't let that become the normal sentence for a normal football action.

I doubt many would argue if he received 1 week. 2 weeks would be harsh justice.

Tom Lynch got 5 weeks for an intentional punch to an opponent's head. How the [censored] is this 3?

If May had been playing for Collingwood we would no doubt have had a different decision.

AFL Duty of Care Edition

28 minutes ago, BAMF said:

We need to appeal. I don't care if May misses another few weeks. We need to appeal for the sake of the game. You can't let that become the normal sentence for a normal football action.

I doubt many would argue if he received 1 week. 2 weeks would be harsh justice.

Tom Lynch got 5 weeks for an intentional punch to an opponent's head. How the [censored] is this 3?

13 minutes ago, Dee-tonator said:

If May had been playing for Collingwood we would no doubt have had a different decision.

I don't care so much about appealing for the sake of the game, I think it should really be more about appealing for the sake of the MFC that we aren't the perennial soft target, scape goat for the AFL to make an example out of.

Can't tell me there isn't some serious favouritism going on here:

https://aflratings.com.au/afl-suspensions/

2024/25

MFC 10

Collingwood FC 3

MOST MATCHES MISSED THROUGH SUSPENSION SINCE 2010 ( till 2021, https://www.afl.com.au/news/568692/the-naughty-club-whos-been-banned-the-most-whose-players-behave )

62 Geelong

57 Richmond

56 Hawthorn

53 West Coast

52 St Kilda

51 Essendon

50 Melbourne

46 Fremantle

43 North Melbourne

40 Brisbane, Port Adelaide

36 Carlton

35 Gold Coast

29 Greater Western Sydney

28 Collingwood

26 Western Bulldogs

22 Adelaide

18 Sydney

Let's also just consider that several Collingwood players have caused career ending, life threatening, life changing injuries to opposition players within that time frame.

Yes, the AFL is an impartial, facts based ruling body.

Edited Wednesday at 14:124 days by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

3 hours ago, biggestred said:

This week's banner

MAY NOT MAYNARD

"MRO - 132 games for Collingwood

Tribunal chair - 30 year pies member

Can't fine you for stating facts

Fixed

Reasonable and unreasonable the only mention made, what happened to football acts?.

The football acts overlooked when Collingwood players cause impacts or injuries.

2 hours ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I want our players to be smarter than that. Anyway, let's hope nothing comes of it.....

What if All our players did this????? Caaaaryst im filthy on this terrible decision, stand by now for the maelstrom that will plague the AFL over every miniscule action. Except if its Collingwood, or Carlton! Terrible on every level, Paaaark me!

Edited Wednesday at 14:474 days by picket fence

59 minutes ago, rodney_g_resurrected said:

AFL Duty of Care Edition

As silly as this seems, we are already seeing this in games.

It happens where players will stop & look at each other.

21 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Reasonable and unreasonable the only mention made, what happened to football acts?.

The football acts overlooked when Collingwood players cause impacts or injuries.

Not exactly sure when this was first published, but rings very true today:

HAMISH BRAYSHAW'S OPEN LETTER TO THE AFL ON BACKCHAT PODCAST

Dear AFL,

I normally swear on here and act like an [censored], however there will be no profanity or hyperbole in this letter. These are my honest and bewildered thoughts as a current player and lifetime fan of the greatest game in the world.

The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you’re making it impossible to adjudicate and you’re not far off making it impossible to support.

Over the past 12 months, this is my interpretation of the rules of the game based on what I am hearing and seeing coming directly from the AFL;

Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn’t matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don’t forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn’t count, and it depends on the player, and the team they’re on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we’re seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn’t hard enough to hurt them.

I have grown up all my life surrounded by football. Playing football, watching football, my family has been engrossed in the AFL system for decades and I have absolutely no idea what is going on anymore.

My brother is never going to play football again in his whole life because of a jumping smother that turned into a bump that collided with his head. As much as it killed me to watch that, I can put my feelings for Angus aside and say that down to the nuts and bolts of it, Maynard was trying to smother the ball in a qualifying final so technically it was a football act.

You certainly didn’t care all for the outcome there and Brayden went on to win a premiership. That is precedence. That was as big a defining moment for the tribunal as I can remember, and you went with protecting the sanctity of the game over the protection of the player. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but it is breaking me that you are constantly backflipping on that stance.

Peter Wright and Toby Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference. Jeremy Finlayson got less than Peter Wright for a homophobic slur which once again highlights that nobody at the AFL really knows what’s happening at the tribunal, you just make it up as you see fit.

Matt Crouch has been given a week for picking the ball up the way every single kid playing football is taught to do it. There is goal square footage of Jesse Hogan punching his defender in the face, and he has admitted to swinging with force to try and push his opponent. The AFL’s response “We are not clearly satisfied that was anything more than negligible.” He was swung a fist at a bloke's face and because it didn’t hurt you haven’t given him a week. Punish the action, not the outcome unless the outcome is they’re okay. Ask my little brother Andrew if an intentional swing to the face has the potential to cause harm. Incredible.

We’ve heard enough about Charlie Cameron being let off for being a nice guy but Tom Barrass can’t escape a week for the same thing. The get-out-of-jail-free card only appears once in the deck apparently.

This is my last point and I am going to swear so beep this out if you want. Tom Barrass is staying in Perth and missing one game for a dangerous tackle. I don’t think there was much more he could’ve done differently. Walters played the game out and isn’t concussed but sure, still give Barrass a week if that’s the stance, protect the head at all costs. I can’t physically watch the Melbourne Demons play football anymore because my brother’s brain is going to be [censored]ed for the rest of his life and you didn’t think that was enough for a week off.

AFL you are the greatest game in the world, but right now you’re a joke. Your systems for protecting the player and maintaining the integrity of the game are broken and desperately need to be fixed. Before they can be fixed you need to actually understand the criteria you want to govern the game by. It needs to be understandable for the public and it needs to be followed. You can’t pick and choose when to dismiss certain things and when to change your views on others. It has to change otherwise this game is going to turn into something unrecognisable and it’s going to happen very quickly.

Yours Sincerely,

Hamish Brayshaw

4 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Not exactly sure when this was first published, but rings very true today:

HAMISH BRAYSHAW'S OPEN LETTER TO THE AFL ON BACKCHAT PODCAST

Dear AFL,

I normally swear on here and act like an [censored], however there will be no profanity or hyperbole in this letter. These are my honest and bewildered thoughts as a current player and lifetime fan of the greatest game in the world.

The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you’re making it impossible to adjudicate and you’re not far off making it impossible to support.

Over the past 12 months, this is my interpretation of the rules of the game based on what I am hearing and seeing coming directly from the AFL;

Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn’t matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don’t forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn’t count, and it depends on the player, and the team they’re on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we’re seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn’t hard enough to hurt them.

I have grown up all my life surrounded by football. Playing football, watching football, my family has been engrossed in the AFL system for decades and I have absolutely no idea what is going on anymore.

My brother is never going to play football again in his whole life because of a jumping smother that turned into a bump that collided with his head. As much as it killed me to watch that, I can put my feelings for Angus aside and say that down to the nuts and bolts of it, Maynard was trying to smother the ball in a qualifying final so technically it was a football act.

You certainly didn’t care all for the outcome there and Brayden went on to win a premiership. That is precedence. That was as big a defining moment for the tribunal as I can remember, and you went with protecting the sanctity of the game over the protection of the player. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but it is breaking me that you are constantly backflipping on that stance.

Peter Wright and Toby Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference. Jeremy Finlayson got less than Peter Wright for a homophobic slur which once again highlights that nobody at the AFL really knows what’s happening at the tribunal, you just make it up as you see fit.

Matt Crouch has been given a week for picking the ball up the way every single kid playing football is taught to do it. There is goal square footage of Jesse Hogan punching his defender in the face, and he has admitted to swinging with force to try and push his opponent. The AFL’s response “We are not clearly satisfied that was anything more than negligible.” He was swung a fist at a bloke's face and because it didn’t hurt you haven’t given him a week. Punish the action, not the outcome unless the outcome is they’re okay. Ask my little brother Andrew if an intentional swing to the face has the potential to cause harm. Incredible.

We’ve heard enough about Charlie Cameron being let off for being a nice guy but Tom Barrass can’t escape a week for the same thing. The get-out-of-jail-free card only appears once in the deck apparently.

This is my last point and I am going to swear so beep this out if you want. Tom Barrass is staying in Perth and missing one game for a dangerous tackle. I don’t think there was much more he could’ve done differently. Walters played the game out and isn’t concussed but sure, still give Barrass a week if that’s the stance, protect the head at all costs. I can’t physically watch the Melbourne Demons play football anymore because my brother’s brain is going to be [censored]ed for the rest of his life and you didn’t think that was enough for a week off.

AFL you are the greatest game in the world, but right now you’re a joke. Your systems for protecting the player and maintaining the integrity of the game are broken and desperately need to be fixed. Before they can be fixed you need to actually understand the criteria you want to govern the game by. It needs to be understandable for the public and it needs to be followed. You can’t pick and choose when to dismiss certain things and when to change your views on others. It has to change otherwise this game is going to turn into something unrecognisable and it’s going to happen very quickly.

Yours Sincerely,

Hamish Brayshaw

TOUCH'E

53 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Fixed

"MAY NOT MAYNARD"

Saw a clever post on FB that suggested if Steve had "nard" on the end of his last name, he wouldn't have been suspended.

Edited Wednesday at 15:074 days by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

3 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

Darren and Steve said that to hang on to their remuneration they said nothing.

21 minutes ago, picket fence said:

TOUCH'E

Ouch...

8 hours ago, greenwaves said:

If he was a Collingwood player the result would of been exactly the same. The tribunal looks at evidence. The club the player plays for is irrelevant.

Rubbish. Can you remember Barry Hall charged with striking before the Grand Final? Got off.

The AFL is corrupt. They don't even pretend to be impartial

7 hours ago, manny100 said:

For health and legal reasons the AFL may now have no option but to introduce a no defence rule.

Start off with 3 weeks and work up from there.

Unfair, now yes but after a while risky bumps will become less common.

There goes footy ..

9 hours ago, biggestred said:

We all know may would get a week or two if he did that.

Which is actually LESS than he's got for doing NOTHING wrong !!

Will be interested to see how the club reacts, if at all .