18 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

I still haven’t gotten over the Trengove suspension all those years ago. This might take a while too…disgusting decision.

What about the Brent Moloney one where he ran at the bloke and missed him. He fell on his head and Moloney got suspended without making contact with him. Why do we get screwed so badly? I really hope Brad Green takes the May incident to court.

A bloke has been suspended for going after the footy which is his profession. As far as I can see that is restraint of trade

Wow.

This game is stuffed.

22 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Rush may have gone in a little Hard and made rhe AFL look stupid

Little wallflowers won’t have liked that

Ha ha..he wouldn’t have had to try very hard to make the AFL look stupid. They are great at doing that themselves. They seem just a rudderless, reactionary, inconsistent bunch of incompetents.

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

What about the Brent Moloney one where he ran at the bloke and missed him. He fell on his head and Moloney got suspended without making contact with him. Why do we get screwed so badly? I really hope Brad Green takes the May incident to court.

A bloke has been suspended for going after the footy which is his profession. As far as I can see that is restraint of trade

Restraint of trade.

I like it.

Sue the AFL.

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I really hope Brad Green takes the May incident to court.

A bloke has been suspended for going after the footy which is his profession. As far as I can see that is restraint of trade

Not to mention that the AFL couldn't give a stuff about the numerous and most recent concussions inflicted on May by others - they really need to go ask the AFL about where was Tom De Koning's responsibility and duty of care towards May.

The AFL are a [censored] joke.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

On 28/07/2025 at 17:59, No10 said:

I like his style, going in hard:

“Rush (Dees): To say the player is negligent because a ball may or may not bounce in a particular way is... I won't use the word I was going to say. It's totally unreasonable.”

I'll use the word - it's B-LLSH-T

...and the AFL is full of it.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

What about the Brent Moloney one where he ran at the bloke and missed him. He fell on his head and Moloney got suspended without making contact with him. Why do we get screwed so badly? I really hope Brad Green takes the May incident to court.

A bloke has been suspended for going after the footy which is his profession. As far as I can see that is restraint of trade

We’ve been on the end of some insane tribunal cases but that Maloney one took the cake, didn’t even make contact with the player (believe it was Bartel) instead the player ducked his head into the ground. Somehow it was ruled that Moloney’s actions contributed to the Geelong players own clumsiness and he gets suspended.

Seeing Pies players like Maynard and Moore get off just confirm that the MRO and tribunal is completely corrupt.

May should sue the AFL for concussion

Edited July 29Jul 29 by jnrmac

Take it to court and show we will no longer be pushed around by the afl

Did we really mount an appeal on the grounds that May was denied procedural fairness?

That's weak, even for this club. No wonder it only took 15 minutes for them to deny the appeal.

Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible decision and he should never have been suspended, but we had to come up with a better reason to appeal.

59 minutes ago, poita said:

Did we really mount an appeal on the grounds that May was denied procedural fairness?

That's weak, even for this club. No wonder it only took 15 minutes for them to deny the appeal.

Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible decision and he should never have been suspended, but we had to come up with a better reason to appeal.

There are very restricted grounds on which you can appeal. Disagreeing with the decision isn't one of them.

10 hours ago, Pates said:

We’ve been on the end of some insane tribunal cases but that Maloney one took the cake, didn’t even make contact with the player (believe it was Bartel) instead the player ducked his head into the ground. Somehow it was ruled that Moloney’s actions contributed to the Geelong players own clumsiness and he gets suspended.

Seeing Pies players like Maynard and Moore get off just confirm that the MRO and tribunal is completely corrupt.

I just looked up the reason for Moloney's suspension he was charged with "rough conduct"

Umm am I missing something here did that rule get removed between Moloney missing Bartel and Maynard almost killing Brayshaw?

37 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

I just looked up the reason for Moloney's suspension he was charged with "rough conduct"

Umm am I missing something here did that rule get removed between Moloney missing Bartel and Maynard almost killing Brayshaw?

Conveniently

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I just looked up the reason for Moloney's suspension he was charged with "rough conduct"

Umm am I missing something here did that rule get removed between Moloney missing Bartel and Maynard almost killing Brayshaw?

It got an ammendment that if you are a) a Pies player, and b) potentially in line for a grand final and/or premiership you can do whatever you want.

Days since this [censored] decision and I’m still mad, it doesn’t make sense… imagine being banned for not predicting the future or slowing down… and not for bumping.

Game will turn for the worse after this precedent.

12 hours ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

Days since this [censored] decision and I’m still mad, it doesn’t make sense… imagine being banned for not predicting the future or slowing down… and not for bumping.

Game will turn for the worse after this precedent.

That's assuming it will be a precedent and not just a blind throw at the dart-board

Precedent?? At the afl tribunal? Don't make me laugh

This is not the right thread, however not worth opening one.

Out of curiosity, if Kozzie got brownlow (which he won’t) but if he did, would he be eligible as he was suspended at the start of the year?

Suspension happened last year but it carried through.

Just curious of the ruling in that instance, if anyone knows?

He'd be eligible for this year's medal because the infringement occurred in 2024.

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

He'd be eligible for this year's medal because the infringement occurred in 2024.

Ah awesome. I had hoped that would be the rule but with how the AFL is, I never know what to expect.

On 31/07/2025 at 10:36, biggestred said:

Precedent?? At the afl tribunal? Don't make me laugh

Unfortuantely there is plenty of precedent -- just not one that makes any sense. The precedent seems to be about whether you play for certain clubs, are a star player and on the media's "good bloke" list, and the stage of the season. Any resemblance between similar incidents and their outcomes is purely accidental ☹️

If Jai Newcomb doesn’t cop three games for doing the same thing May did, contesting the ball causing a serious collision/injury, this game is [censored].

2 minutes ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

If Jai Newcomb doesn’t cop three games for doing the same thing May did, contesting the ball causing a serious collision/injury, this game is [censored].

He won't, and it is.

16 minutes ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

If Jai Newcomb doesn’t cop three games for doing the same thing May did, contesting the ball causing a serious collision/injury, this game is [censored].

This is the AFL, they have no integrity.

12 minutes ago, Mouseymoo said:

He won't, and it is.

Legit same situation.

Late to the ball.

Should have known he would be second to it.

Same as May incident except for the shoulder hitting.

But that shouldn’t account for anything as May wasn’t suspended for a bump.

I bet [censored] everything you’re right and nothing is even mentioned.