Anyone know the deadline for lodging an appeal?

I presume we are trying to find a real lawyer and check if we have a strong enough case to take this to the appeals board… other than “you’re a bunch of a holes”

I would be bitterly disappointed if we don’t fight this on grounds of our season being over, or because May is gonna miss time with concussion anyway.

The principle matters and we can’t keep just accepting the AFL’s rubbish decisions. We are not their bloody punching bag.

To think that Lynch only got one extra week for literally punching an opponent in the head unprovoked, and Rioli got just one week for threatening to hurt an opponent via text is just vile.

And don’t get me started on Pies players being straight up thugs with zero ramifications.

14 minutes ago, dpositive said:

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.

I agree with everything you’re saying, I would just distill my disagreement on the wording/logic of this decision based upon the fact that the reasoning Gleeson has used to arrive at his decision, is post-hoc justification.

It’s very transparent and frankly pretty insulting that the method he has used is:

Concussion is the end point, so work back from there to justify why the outcome is wrong.

I know I’m banging on about this but man, people need to fully understand that the words ‘could’, ‘should’, ‘reasonable’ are carrying the inherent justifications he has used, can literally be used to suspend any player, ever, in which an injury had occurred.

Players ‘should’ and ‘could’ make 100 different decisions and the allocation of ‘reasonable’ can be applied and justified, again post-hoc, to literally every single contested ball or injury outcome.

It’s a contact sport, so all players ‘should’ know that an injury ‘could’ potentially happen by any play that involves physicality, therefore, they ‘could’ have made different decisions to mitigate the potential for injury.

This logic can be applied to anything!!! If it was applied in this way equally, players would be suspended every single game.

I know the vast majority of people are against this decision but it is painfully absurd in its logic.

How is May tracking anyway?
I know he is missing one game with concussion, but in the event he will miss 2 - is an appeal worth it given where we sit on the table and the costs.
and Yes i'd love to stick it to the AFL, just thinking pragmatically

1 minute ago, roy11 said:

How is May tracking anyway?
I know he is missing one game with concussion, but in the event he will miss 2 - is an appeal worth it given where we sit on the table and the costs.
and Yes i'd love to stick it to the AFL, just thinking pragmatically

Poignant Ray

In all of our indignation there is actually one of ours hurt.

Hope he's ok.

It was the same people as the Maynard case. Andrew Wood arguing for the AFL, Jeff Gleeson leading the tribunal.

Edited Thursday at 02:124 days by Katrina Dee Fan

8 minutes ago, roy11 said:

How is May tracking anyway?
I know he is missing one game with concussion, but in the event he will miss 2 - is an appeal worth it given where we sit on the table and the costs.
and Yes i'd love to stick it to the AFL, just thinking pragmatically

Yes it's worth it, for the principle of it.

Okay, so they've established a precedent. Now, let's watch them apply it erratically, unequally and confoundingly.

If the mfc statement on the website is an indication, I doubt the club will appeal.

Gerard whateleys view - completely aligns with us and we need to appeal

https://sen.com.au/news/2025/07/23/whateley-the-problem-with-the-may-verdict

3 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

If the mfc statement on the website is an indication, I doubt the club will appeal.

Failure of leadership if we don't appeal.

If we choose not to appeal because we don't think we can mount a strong enough case at the appeals board, I would love for Green or Richo to come out and actually say this is why we aren't appealing, and that we think the sanction is unfair and we wholeheartedly support our players going for the ball.

Of course I have so little faith in the management of this club, that I doubt that will happen.

Add this to the "reasons 2025 has sucked" column.

Edited Thursday at 02:424 days by Jaded No More

We're appealing:

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1839425/demons-to-appeal-tribunal-verdict

The hearing will be next week.

Edited Thursday at 02:574 days by Deemented Are Go!

Despite rinse and repeat posts/opportunities to kick everything off field the club is appealing.

You don’t have to like the current status on and off field (I know I don’t), but sometimes it’s better to wait and see what transpires.

We should win but this is the WWEAFL so the result is pre-determined.

53 minutes ago, roy11 said:

How is May tracking anyway?
I know he is missing one game with concussion, but in the event he will miss 2 - is an appeal worth it given where we sit on the table and the costs.
and Yes i'd love to stick it to the AFL, just thinking pragmatically

This is a loser mindset. How about standing up for what is right? (If you’re concerned with the costs, the appeal fee will be refunded when we win).

Edited Thursday at 03:044 days by Ethan Tremblay

In the words of Gerard Whateley

Who is the 'Reasonable Player' the Tribunal has invented – the all-knowing, all-seeing personification of perfection from a utopian world.

40 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

If the mfc statement on the website is an indication, I doubt the club will appeal.

They're appealling

17 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

In the words of Gerard Whateley

Who is the 'Reasonable Player' the Tribunal has invented – the all-knowing, all-seeing personification of perfection from a utopian world.

The club grew some balls TFFT.

Probably to protect Steven May's legacy, because this is how he would be remembered if he got or gets 3 weeks for this incident.

20 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

In the words of Gerard Whateley

Who is the 'Reasonable Player' the Tribunal has invented – the all-knowing, all-seeing personification of perfection from a utopian world.

Reasonable players are players who sherk the contest.

Bruise-free footballer is another name for a reasonable player.

Whimps/reasonable players get out of the way of a contest and Steven May ain't no whimp!

End of story!

In the words of the great Neale Daniher "play on."

Edited Thursday at 03:334 days by YesitwasaWin4theAges

May was sitting out the next 2 weeks anyway due to concussion protocols

24 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

In the words of Gerard Whateley

Who is the 'Reasonable Player' the Tribunal has invented – the all-knowing, all-seeing personification of perfection from a utopian world.

The AFL's application of the reasonable person test is like no-other; where a non-infallible standard is treated as fallible. In no legal world is a reasonable person expected to foresee every possible outcome and take all precautions. Seemingly the AFL now endorses an approach where the ordinary person is not evaluated in the context of the situation in which the act occurs, but rather the AFL's ideal standard context.

Edited Thursday at 03:374 days by BLWNBA

35 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

This is a loser mindset. How about standing up for what is right? (If you’re concerned with the costs, the appeal fee will be refunded when we win).

I don’t trust the afl to right this wrong.

3 minutes ago, SthSea22 said:

May was sitting out the next 2 weeks anyway due to concussion protocols

That is NOT the piont, the piont is a grave miscarriage of justice is at play here, and on behalf of footballers everywhere this next decision will be crucial to the way the game evolves. If the appeal wins then its a victory for common sense and the values of our Australian Game. if it falls over this time. Footy will be further diminished and become diluted netball. Its crunch time for supporters everywhere AND a HUGE test of the AFL and its integrity as an organisation IMV

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

Okay, so they've established a precedent. Now, let's watch them apply it erratically, unequally and confoundingly.

Or somehow change the ruling next year "a la" Maynard/Brayshaw "incident".

7 minutes ago, picket fence said:

That is NOT the piont, the piont is a grave miscarriage of justice is at play here, and on behalf of footballers everywhere this next decision will be crucial to the way the game evolves. If the appeal wins then its a victory for common sense and the values of our Australian Game. if it falls over this time. Footy will be further diminished and become diluted netball. Its crunch time for supporters everywhere AND a HUGE test of the AFL and its integrity as an organisation IMV

On'ya Pick!