Jump to content

Featured Replies

This is a very interesting tidbit.

"Evans, who lost a tooth and was left bloodied and bruised, conceded to the tribunal that he didn’t think he was going to get to the ball before May, adding to the confusion over the ban."

From a news.com.au article

Can the MROs decision to suspend May get anymore ludicrous?

 
6 hours ago, beelzebub said:

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

When Geeson is prosecuting... plaintiff gets 🪛

Can we just call Gleeson "The Goose" from now on? ☹️ BB, you can get your geese on any time you like ... 😃

31 minutes ago, ghost who walks said:

why didnt evans back off he took mays staight line run in.Anyway he got blood nose and lost a tooth but [censored] for brains manyard destroyed someones

The vendetta continues

 
10 minutes ago, lorn said:

When it's a concussion an appeal is a waste of time

Unless your name starts with P and ends in ripps


Many are saying we should use a different lawyer to represent our players. While it is true he has been associated with many puzzling lost cases, don't be too hard on him. There is another common factor present in all those cases, namely MFC is not C'wood.

55 minutes ago, Random Task said:

This is a very interesting tidbit.

"Evans, who lost a tooth and was left bloodied and bruised, conceded to the tribunal that he didn’t think he was going to get to the ball before May, adding to the confusion over the ban."

From a news.com.au article

Can the MROs decision to suspend May get anymore ludicrous?

Given this, isn't Evans also responsible for the clash, and should also be getting a three week ban?

Edited by PaulRB

I had a feeling this wasn't going to go our way. It's a prime chance for the AFL tribunal to rub out a name player from a minow club that aren't competing for finals (far less controversy), while saying, "see we are protecting the head!"

What they are asking of May and the whole playing fraternity is to do the impossible with split second decisions. The fact that May isn't liked through most of the fan bases and even they are saying this is bull tells you everything you need to know. It's not even close to a 50/50 split.

The fact that Moore's kne got nothing more than a fine, and player has a bruised kidney and can't fly, is a bigger slap in the face. He's clearly leading with his knee in dangerous ways, but that's totally fine. Contesting the ball in a 50/50 contest, nah give him 3 weeks.

The game from an umpiring and tribunal perspective is getting close to unwatchable.

 
4 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Anyone got any connections to a lawyer who can cogently argue the, as BoBo magnificently describes it, painfully absurd logic in Collingwood Gleeson’s reasoning?

And mount a better case of course

Rake?

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

They can argue that with 0.5 seconds to react, once he realised he wasn't going to win the ball, he tucked his arm in and braced for contact, instead of lifting or opening his arm to cause more excessive damage.

They can also argue that May had one foot off the ground with 0.5 seconds to go, and couldn't in any physical measure change his position.

There is just not enough time physically for May to do anything but brace for contact, or try to lift his arm and hurt his opponent. He chose to brace, thereby minimising the impact to himself and, in the case of Evans being bigger/taller, to his opponent too.

The AFL tribunal already concluded that May did not elect to bump, so what they are basically saying is that he should have vanished into thin air, or levitated away from the contest. FFS he is a 100kg man, not a prima ballerina, you're asking physically impossible things of players with milliseconds of reaction time.

We need a biomechanical and kinematic motion Plus whomever else to argue this

“Mays only other option was to vanish into thin air and we’re not aware of anyone currently having that capability “

Man I would love that line to be run.


What’s going to happen when a player accidentally knocks out his teammate when they’re both going for the same ball? The AFL determined that May didn’t bump or hit the Carlton player; it was a ‘football’ act in which May apparently should have slowed up for and seen coming. Back to the question, what happens in the same scenario where it’s teammates?

Just now, Ethan Tremblay said:

What’s going to happen when a player accidentally knocks out his teammate when they’re both going for the same ball? The AFL determined that May didn’t bump or hit the Carlton player; it was a ‘football’ act in which May apparently should have slowed up for and seen coming. Back to the question, what happens in the same scenario where it’s teammates?

If Melbourne.... both suspended

Why do so many posters find us unappealing when it's been officially announced that we are appealing? It's appalling.

12 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What’s going to happen when a player accidentally knocks out his teammate when they’re both going for the same ball? The AFL determined that May didn’t bump or hit the Carlton player; it was a ‘football’ act in which May apparently should have slowed up for and seen coming. Back to the question, what happens in the same scenario where it’s teammates?

In an earlier post I mentioned banning the player who concusses a player when going for a speccy. That too should be independent of whether the victim was a team mate or oppo. In fact, I'd say no doubt at all in that case.

(I assumed the AFL was unlikely to do penalise the speccy causing concussion. But I can imagine them introducing such a ban for an unrealistic attempt.)


18 minutes ago, sue said:

In an earlier post I mentioned banning the player who concusses a player when going for a speccy. That too should be independent of whether the victim was a team mate or oppo. In fact, I'd say no doubt at all in that case.

(I assumed the AFL was unlikely to do penalise the speccy causing concussion. But I can imagine them introducing such a ban for an unrealistic attempt.)

They're slowly making the game unplayable.

18 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

They want to win their lawsuits by saying "we tried to punish every player who caused concussion' in order to stamp out head injuries in the game.

Never mind that this could not be further from the truth, because they didn't suspend the guy who concussed Petty, nor TDK for concussing May.

I am not suggesting those players should be suspended, but their argument will be that they're forcing a duty of care on players and punishing those who don't display it.

Of course you can argue what is duty of care. Is it duty of care not to go flying knees first into an opponent? Is it duty of care not to contest a ground ball if you're only a 50% chance of winning it? Is it duty of care not to lay a chase down tackle?

The rules are murky, and while some things are black and white, aka leave the ground, hit someone high behind play, raise your arm and collect someone etc, some actions are just grey. 99% of marks don't result in concussion, 99% of ground ball gets don't result in concussion, 99% of chase down tackles don't result in concussion. So to punish the 1%, if those actions were taken with the reasonable expectation of winning the ball, is just stupid.

This reminds me a lot of the JVR suspension a couple of years ago, where JVR had eyes on the ball and went to spoil and accidently collected his opponent in the head. How many spoils since then have resulted in concussion? The appeals board was right to throw out his suspension, because suspending him would never have stopped players from spoiling a high ball, just as suspending May would never stop players from chasing a ground ball.

Whereas suspending guys for leaving the ground to bump, has significantly reduced those incidents, because they are very avoidable and not necessary. Keep your feet on the ground if you're going to bump an opponent to win the ball, is much easier to execute than asking a player to measure the projection of the bounce of the ball at full speed within 0.5 seconds of said bounce.

Well said as usual.

The AFL's focus should be on dangerous non-football acts like players pushing opponents into marking contests. It's like pushing an unsuspecting pedestrian in front of an oncoming car.

The hand of God who thinks he runs CFC thinks that it's OK for the whole team to push their opponents in the back.

May

What did he do wrong?

He thinks he is going to win the ball.

His eyes are on the ball.

He keeps his line. It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time.

The bouncing ball pops up.

There was no bump. It was contact.

It was not careless.

Gleeson got it wrong

You can't condemn Brayden Mayhem & "Archie" Moore and then excuse Steven May's "gentle clip". The fact is that there are far too many concussions in AFL and regardless of whether the armchair pugilists love this sort of stuff it needs to be taken out of the game well and truly or the AFL code will eventually be replaced by less violent spectators sports. Apologies in advance for calling Collwd players names.


any "reasonable" judge should have been able to reach a judgement in .5 second, but gleeson needed to take 3 hours!

of course any "reasonable" judge would have got the judgement correct too

just as well he doesn't play football

  • Author
21 hours ago, layzie said:

Unless your name starts with P and ends in ripps

Pripps.

  • Author
36 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

any "reasonable" judge should have been able to reach a judgement in .5 second, but gleeson needed to take 3 hours!

of course any "reasonable" judge would have got the judgement correct too

just as well he doesn't play football

Very good DC I like it.

Don’t know if he ever played football, but he is a strong supporter of the Pies.

Does that shock you?

Of course the whole scenario is neatly wrapped with the MRO a former Pies premiership player.

Eddie must have organised it before he was moved aside.

Edited by Redleg

 
58 minutes ago, bush demon said:

You can't condemn Brayden Mayhem & "Archie" Moore and then excuse Steven May's "gentle clip". The fact is that there are far too many concussions in AFL and regardless of whether the armchair pugilists love this sort of stuff it needs to be taken out of the game well and truly or the AFL code will eventually be replaced by less violent spectators sports. Apologies in advance for calling Collwd players names.

I'm no armchair pugilist. I'd love it if the umps cracked down on the niggles, jumper punches and shoving and whacking that has nothing to do with the game. Commentators seem to love it - start with sacking them if they do

A "gentle clip" which arises from a 'football act' with no malice surely should be called an accident. If you don't allow accidental, then no tackling as well as no bumping. Ban the speccy? Ban the not-so-speccy mark but which still knees another player (of either team) in the head because they have fallen forward a bit? No amount of virtue signalling by the AFL will help save footy.

And while I am in rant mode - re-player safety, the AFL has not kept to its undertaking to encourage head safety by penalising players who ducked trying to 'earn' a free. At worst umps just ball it up. That's gone the way of 'dissent' - no, I tell a lie, dissent does get paid very occasionally, ducking never.

No need to apologize for calling those 2 C'wood players names, certainly not BM.

3 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

May

What did he do wrong?

He thinks he is going to win the ball.

His eyes are on the ball.

He keeps his line. It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time.

The bouncing ball pops up.

There was no bump. It was contact.

It was not careless.

Gleeson got it wrong

Why no scrutiny of Evans? He was running in an adjacent line to may and reaches in to get the ball a nano second before May gets there. he could have chosen to tackle instead he chose to get the ball and spin away from may. He stuffed up.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • PREVIEW: St. Kilda

    It seems like only yesterday that these two sides faced off against each other in the centre of the continent. It was when Melbourne was experiencing a rare period of success with five wins from its previous six matches including victories over both of last year’s grand finalists.  Well, it wasn’t yesterday but it was early last month and it remains etched clearly in the memory. The Saints were going through a slump and the predicted outcome of their encounter at TIO Traeger Park was a virtual no-brainer. A Melbourne victory and another step closer to a possible rise into finals contention. Something that was unthinkable after opening the season with five straight defeats.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 5 replies
  • REPORT: Carlton

    I am now certain that the decline in fortunes of the Melbourne Football Club from a premiership power with the potential for more success to come in the future, started when the team ran out for their Round 9 match up against Carlton last year. After knocking over the Cats in a fierce contest the week before, the Demons looked uninterested at the start of play and gave the Blues a six goal start. They recovered to almost snatch victory but lost narrowly with a score of 11.10.76 to 12.5.77. Yesterday, they revisited the scene and provided their fans with a similar display of ineptitude early in the proceedings. Their attitude at the start was poor, given that the game was so winnable. Unsurprisingly, the resulting score was almost identical to that of last year and for the fourth time in succession, the club has lost a game against Carlton despite having more scoring opportunities. 

      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 3 replies
  • CASEY: Carlton

    The Casey Demons smashed the Carlton Reserves off the park at Casey Fields on Sunday to retain a hold on an end of season wild card place. It was a comprehensive 108 point victory in which the home side was dominant and several of its players stood out but, in spite of the positivity of such a display, we need to place an asterisk over the outcome which saw a net 100 point advantage to the combined scores in the two contests between Demons and Blues over the weekend.

      • Thanks
    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: St. Kilda

    The Demons come face to face with St. Kilda for the second time this season for their return clash at Marvel Stadium on Sunday. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 302 replies
  • PODCAST: Carlton

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Tuesday, 22nd July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to Carlton at the MCG.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Thanks
    • 40 replies
  • VOTES: Carlton

    Captain Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year Award from Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Kozzy Pickett & Clayton Oliver. Your votes please; 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

      • Thanks
    • 23 replies