Disgraceful decision from this unmitigated disaster of a tribunal.

This club is as weak as pizz if it doesn't appeal.

I'll be really disappointed if I don't hear the senior players from across the AFL community speaking out against this today.

1 minute ago, poita said:

Disgraceful decision from this unmitigated disaster of a tribunal.

This club is as weak as pizz if it doesn't appeal.

I'll be really disappointed if I don't hear the senior players from across the AFL community speaking out against this today.

For mine Green can either appeal, or resign.

4 minutes ago, poita said:

Disgraceful decision from this unmitigated disaster of a tribunal.

This club is as weak as pizz if it doesn't appeal.

I'll be really disappointed if I don't hear the senior players from across the AFL community speaking out against this today.

When does the appeal decision have to be made and if so, appeal date?

Curtis - a tackle - 3 weeks.🤬🤬

Steven May - going for the ball and his eyes on the ball and does not move from the line and arrives a “nano second late” as the bouncing ball pops up - 3 weeks.🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Tristan Xerri - swinging round arm , nothing near the ball and knocks a bloke out cold - 3 weeks. Should have been 6 weeks 🤬

Ben King on Whitfield - nothing to see here 🤬

Alex Pearce - 3 weeks then OVERTURNED to nil after tribunal rules … "Pearce's attempt to mark was entirely realistic," Gleeson said."If not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, he would likely have taken the mark."We do not find that this was rough conduct."🤬🤬

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1331214/the-verdict-is-in-fremantle-dockers-skipper-alex-pearce-learns-his-fate-at-tribunal/amp

Tom Lynch - attempting to punch a bloke - 5 weeks

Jack Graham - homophobic slur - 4 weeks.

Darcy Moore - drops knees into Treacys back a good 3 seconds after marking contest, nothing to see here 🤬

Just now, spirit of norm smith said:

Curtis - a tackle - 3 weeks.🤬🤬

Steven May - going for the ball and his eyes on the ball and does not move from the line and arrives a “nano second late” as the bouncing ball pops up - 3 weeks.🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Tristan Xerri - swinging round arm , nothing near the ball and knocks a bloke out cold - 3 weeks. Should have been 6 weeks 🤬

Ben King on Whitfield - nothing to see here 🤬

Alex Pearce - 3 weeks then OVERTURNED to nil after tribunal rules … "Pearce's attempt to mark was entirely realistic," Gleeson said."If not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, he would likely have taken the mark."We do not find that this was rough conduct."🤬🤬

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1331214/the-verdict-is-in-fremantle-dockers-skipper-alex-pearce-learns-his-fate-at-tribunal/amp

Tom Lynch - attempting to punch a bloke - 5 weeks

Jack Graham - homophobic slur - 4 weeks.

Darcy Moore - drops knees into Treacys back a good 3 seconds after marking contest, nothing to see here 🤬

There lies within a common factor 😉

If the club does not appeal I am done with it

They need to get that professor that Collingwood got and then as well present the findings from that case alongside this as they are contradictory

They can’t both be right

Either May gets off or Maynard gets a retrospective 6 weeks and GLEESON IS SENT TO SIBERIA

Was thinking about a couple of things this morning.

1. Petty's concussion against Gold Coast - Fiorini had no case to answer?
https://www.afl.com.au/news/1353302/match-review-brayden-fiorini-and-steven-may-in-the-clear-22-charges-laid

Petty arrived first head over the ball (poor technique according to the media - Petty's fault)
Fiorini in the clear coming in with a hip to Petty's head

2. Thinking back to Pickett's BIG suspension last year and Moore that wasn't even concussed after sliding into the tackle feet first. It cost us big time at the start of this season with Koz out for 3 weeks.
https://youtu.be/xTtlyBTXV88
Hopefully and probably, it will be a mini final for us to go out on a high and inflict some damage on the wobbly Collingwood.
I feel it in my waters that they'll find a way to cite Pickett again for rough conduct. I can just feel it.

I love this game, I truly hate this League.

Grow some big ones Greeny. Stand up for your players, supporters and this club.

At least we can’t blame Laura Kane this is on Greg Swann.

Mick McGuane

Our great game is in serious trouble. May gets 3 weeks at the tribunal. Absolute [censored] decision. Melbourne surely appeals to bring some sanity back to our great game. In time we will see 2 players approaching a loose ball, both hesitate, look at each other and not go at it.

My response … Mick 👏👏 May had eyes on the footy. He was going to win the footy. He keeps his line. The bouncing ball pops up. In a nano second , he’s late. A nano second late. He contacts Evans. No bump. No intent. Contact …yes. Careless … No.

Worst garbage of a decision you could ever see.

How can a player know there will be a collision, if the other player is coming from his side in the last .056 of a second and is expected to calculate who will reach the ball first.

Just garbage and actually shameful, when they said the opposite in the Maynard case.

So May in their decision, is expected as they said, to NOT CONTEST THE BALL.

Here's another reason the AFL may rue this decision. (I doubt any logical arguments as detailed here will have any effect.).

If players start making very early decisions that they may not be first to the ball and that it's safer to stop contesting the ball, they will focus on being ready to tackle instantly the opponent takes it. Result - even more ball-ups with a zillion players within 10 metres. Not a good look for the game.

(Though I guess the AFL will dream up some ill-thought out tweaks to the rules/interpretations to try to lessen that, leading to a new set of unintended consequences.)

Edited Wednesday at 23:264 days by sue

31 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Worst garbage of a decision you could ever see.

How can a player know there will be a collision, if the other player is coming from his side in the last .056 of a second and is expected to calculate who will reach the ball first.

Just garbage and actually shameful, when they said the opposite in the Maynard case.

So May in their decision, is expected as they said, to NOT CONTEST THE BALL.

This is where the likes of Collingwood are smart. They roll out the "quacks" aka bio mechanic scientists etc but we put no evidence before the tribunal regarding an inability to change direction in the time available.

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

This is where the likes of Collingwood are smart. They roll out the "quacks" aka bio mechanic scientists etc but we put no evidence before the tribunal regarding an inability to change direction in the time available.

But I think we did and he wasn’t believed.

Not sure if same man who did Maynard case where of course he was believed.

Just make a uniform blanket ban.

You concuss a player, you get suspended. Accidents are unacceptable. You could even extend that to TDK concussing May in his marking contest.

It would save a lot of angst that we are all experiencing.

The inconsistencies are atrocious. Fiorini, King and Pearce should have also been suspended for putting Petty, Whitfield and Byrne-Jones respectively into next month.

The club has to appeal but --- Does this club have the ability to launch a successful appeal.

Will be interested if we appeal. There's a good argument to be made that the Tribunal's decision was based on opinion rather than evidence.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Here's another reason the AFL may rue this decision. (I doubt any logical arguments as detailed here will have any effect.).

If players start making very early decisions that they may not be first to the ball and that it's safer to stop contesting the ball, they will focus on being ready to tackle instantly the opponent takes it. Result - even more ball-ups with a zillion players within 10 metres. Not a good look for the game.

(Though I guess the AFL will dream up some ill-thought out tweaks to the rules/interpretations to try to lessen that, leading to a new set of unintended consequences.)

Yes, players easing in the run to the ball with an intention of tackling is a highly likely ramification of this ludicrous decision.

The problem with this is the tackler is then placing he’s own welfare at risk ie player pulls out to the point of being stationary, opponent who wins the ball then runs straight through the tackler square on. As a result the tackler thens sustains injury similar, or worse, to Evans Carl.

What do the fools at AFL HQ say then.

31 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The club has to appeal but --- Does this club have the ability to launch a successful appeal.

Get on the blower to Will Haughton.

He got JVR off on appeals in 2023 after Anderson yet again lost a case for us at the original tribunal hearing.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-11/afl-melbourne-jacob-van-rooyen-appeal-two-week-ban/102335210

13 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

Onya Riv 👏

And of course Trent’s post was deleted overnight.

Have we appealed yet ??? 🤔

1 hour ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The club has to appeal but --- Does this club have the ability to launch a successful appeal.

Begs two questions

Does it have the WILL ?

Does it have the STONES ??

Not feeling overly confident about either ...

57 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Will be interested if we appeal. There's a good argument to be made that the Tribunal's decision was based on 🐃💩 o̶p̶i̶n̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶ rather than evidence.

Fixed

4 hours ago, BoBo said:

‘Should have been thinking about what would happen if he didn’t get their first’

This applies to every contest of the footy and every resulting injury.

By that logic, every single injury caused by an opposition player, regardless of context, could and should be able to be mitigated against.

This is the ludicrous extension of this decision.

I accept that elite athletes have greater mental and physical capacity than others (in relation to their sport functions) allowing them to make split second decisions, but they are still limited in the reactions to many variables and certainly cannot process multiple decision outcome options in that same split second. The fact that the tribunal took many hours to examine and make their decision indicates that.

I also understand that training can alter practice and there may be some need to change manner that players "attack " the ball and therefore the player., but I believe there are many other examples of this that should be taken to the tribunal to argue that May should not be the example set to effect this change. The Brayshaw Maynard "attack" (football act) did not set such a severe precedent despite its tragic outcome which finished a players career. I believe that case affected the way many clubs especially Melbourne now train but making an example of May will not effect change and in fact because of its controversy amy be counter productive to change.

The fact that past players, current players, coaches , commentators and a broad swathe of supporters are concerned and confused is enough to dismiss this charge. Such a decision should not diminish the need to undertake change but this should be done as arule change and appropriately officiated, through training, umpiring and tribunal action. The confusion is compounded by inconsistent reporting and penalty decisions. The May decision only reinforces this.

The club should appeal and should be armed with video examples of the many split second decisions that are not reported, The May precedent will indeed alter the game, I dont believe that is the role of the tribunal.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

But I think we did and he wasn’t believed.

Not sure if same man who did Maynard case where of course he was believed.

Isn't it just a coincidence that when Gleeson is for the plaintiff... plaintiff gets off.

When Geeson is prosecuting... plaintiff gets 🪛

41 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Yes, players easing in the run to the ball with an intention of tackling is a highly likely ramification of this ludicrous decision.

The problem with this is the tackler is then placing he’s own welfare at risk ie player pulls out to the point of being stationary, opponent who wins the ball then runs straight through the tackler square on. As a result the tackler thens sustains injury similar, or worse, to Evans Carl.

What do the fools at AFL HQ say then.

AFL, the gentlemen's game.

Your ball. We'll just jump on you and drag the ball back under you and wave our hands in the air like we're hysterical soccer players to pull a stupid free kick or get another stoppage.

The NRL must be loving this