1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

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

They would want to appeal this for the sake of the game, for May and my ongoning membership!

Edited Wednesday at 20:181 day by picket fence

2 minutes ago, picket fence said:

They would want to appeal this for the sake of the game, for May and my ongoning membership!

I agree 1000% but, and I'm not trying to be facetious, but this is Melbourne.

Guilty.

Terrible decision.

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 ball pops up.

There was no bump. It was contact. The tribunal is wrong.

It was not careless.

Gleeson clearly has an agenda.

MELBOURNE MUST APPEAL.

Smaller clubs gets shafted by the AFL. THATS THE STORY

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

If there is anyone in the footy world that doesn't think the Tribunal are absolute raving idi-ts, here is another brilliant finding of theirs tonight.

"The tribunal said he should have been thinking about what would happen if he didn’t get there first."

Yes of course, in the .056 of a second everyone agreed, is all he had to avoid a "possible collision," with someone coming from his side.

I ask the learned gentleman before me to entertain a whim....

I ask you to 'think of your favourite dinner ?? " STOP !!!!

How far did you get with that ?? 🤔

I would put it to you you got nowhere as there was NO time to think !!

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

If there is anyone in the footy world that doesn't think the Tribunal are absolute raving idi-ts, here is another brilliant finding of theirs tonight.

"The tribunal said he should have been thinking about what would happen if he didn’t get there first."

Yes of course, in the .056 of a second everyone agreed, is all he had to avoid a "possible collision," with someone coming from his side.

‘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.

7 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Gleeson clearly has an agenda

All you needed to say 😉

1 minute 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.

I only laugh because... well it's totally ridiculous which would be your point.

The hearing was a farce played out as a charade masking a sacrifice.

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I only laugh because... well it's totally ridiculous which would be your point.

The hearing was a farce played out as a charade masking a sacrifice.

Just think about the logic of the should and could for a second.

If a player was to purposefully kick another player in the knee and cause damage then it’s a suspension.

Now just say a player tackles another player, and the tackled players leg gets twisted and they have a season ending knee injury as a result.

The tackling player SHOULD have known that those kinda of knee injuries are possible and thus knowing this, COULD have not tackled the player with the ball, so therefore, that’s weeks right there.

That is a completely analogous situation to the May one. There’s zero difference in terms of the logic.

It’s ludicrous.

THIS IS WHY WE ARE ANGRY

REALLY REALLY ANGRY

GLEESON SAYS MAY HAD ALOT OF TIME TO WORK OUT OPTIONS

THAT IS NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FOOTY SUPPORTERS VIEW

IT WAS A NANO SECOND

but wait let’s read Gleeson on Maynard

AFL tribunal news 2023: Brayden Maynard cleared, full reasoning behind not guilty verdict revealed, Jeff Gleeson https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/collingwood-magpies/afl-tribunal-news-2023-brayden-maynard-cleared-full-reasoning-behind-not-guilty-verdict-revealed-jeff-gleeson/news-story/769da7a37ca089ae1f6287605abfc24f

@Ghostwriter @binman @Demonland @Redleg @beelzebub @picket fence @dazzledavey36 @Whispering_Jack

Gleeson on Maynard

It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.

This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.

The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.

The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.

We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.

It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.

At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.

In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.

We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.

The charge is dismissed.

11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

THIS IS WHY WE ARE ANGRY

REALLY REALLY ANGRY

GLEESON SAYS MAY HAD ALOT OF TIME TO WORK OUT OPTIONS

THAT IS NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FOOTY SUPPORTERS VIEW

IT WAS A NANO SECOND

but wait let’s read Gleeson on Maynard

AFL tribunal news 2023: Brayden Maynard cleared, full reasoning behind not guilty verdict revealed, Jeff Gleeson https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/collingwood-magpies/afl-tribunal-news-2023-brayden-maynard-cleared-full-reasoning-behind-not-guilty-verdict-revealed-jeff-gleeson/news-story/769da7a37ca089ae1f6287605abfc24f

@Ghostwriter @binman @Demonland @Redleg @beelzebub @picket fence @dazzledavey36 @Whispering_Jack

Gleeson on Maynard

It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.

This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.

The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.

The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.

We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.

It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.

At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.

In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.

We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.

The charge is dismissed.

Normy i can only agree but we are not dealing with an entity that operates to fairness and logic nor ever pretends ( really ) to do so.

About the only way to deal with these bozos would be to take them to court. I know not how or on what basis but there must be some avenues whereby this Kangaroo Court of incestuous conspirators could be made accountable.

Currently they are a law unto themselves and the little folk shall lump it.

10 hours ago, Random Task said:

Check out this horse**** reasoning

Reasons:

The football was handballed over the head of Francis Evans and towards the Carlton goal.

Evans turned and accelerated quickly to retrieve the ball. When he did so, he was several meters in the clear. Steven May had been running back towards the goal, and appears from the vision to have been approximately 20 meters away from Evans when he first saw that the handball had gone over the head of Evans.

May changed direction and ran at speed towards the ball. We find that at the moment that May changed direction and ran towards the ball, a reasonable player would have realised that it was highly likely that Evans would reach the ball before May did.

There was, of course, the possibility that, if everything went right, from May's perspective, he may reach the ball at about the same time as Evans, but only if the ball only bounced low and fast on every bounce away from Evans and towards May.

We find that when May changed direction, a reasonable player would have realised that there was little, if any, chance that May would reach the ball first.

The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans, and as we have said, it was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans.

May then accelerated towards the ball. He appears to have made no allowance for the likelihood that Evans would reach the ball first. In the circumstances, he should have done so.

Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the last of the four times that the ball bounced, it did so in a more upright manner, and that brought the ball closer to Evans than to May and that May could not have foreseen this.

May said that the ground was wet and that therefore the ball tended to skid through.

He acknowledged, however, that even in the wet, it is possible the ball will bounce up.

Here the vision shows that the second last bounce also bounces in an upright manner, so May could and should have observed that the next bounce may well also sit up.

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first. By the second last bounce he could, and should have realised that Evans would reach the ball first and likely take possession of the ball.

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other. As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May.

This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact to Evans.

May had his arms out to gather the ball, he had sufficient time to retract them noticeably, indicating that he had some reaction time.

May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest.

As a result, the effect was that he ran through Evans at high speed. A reasonable player would not have done so.

May did not have a lot of time to do so, but he had sufficient time to avoid or minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball.

The collision involving Alex Pearce was used by way of comparison. In that matter, the players arrived at the contest almost simultaneously, and yet Pearce had time to drop his arm in an attempt to minimise contact.

Evidence from the biomechanist states that may had only 0.56 seconds from the time that the ball landed for its final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react, noting that this is the reaction time in controlled laboratory environments.

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

This was not a situation where May had a split second in which to assess what might happen in the contest and to consider what he might do if the ball did not bounce in an entirely favourable way for him.

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 that he did not reach the ball either first or at the same time.

We find that May engaged in rough conduct that was unreasonable in the circumstances.

As we said in the Pearce matter, an outcome of concussion does not inevitably result in a finding of at least careless conduct.

Every incident must be and is examined and determined on its own facts.

Here, the collision resulted in a concussion to a player, and that collision was caused or contributed to by a failure by May to take reasonable care.

A reasonable player in today's game would not have collided with Evans in the manner that occurred here.

I have a whole new respect for our players and most AFL players who have to suck this excrement up week in week out.

Both from the MRO and the umpires.

How they keep their mouths shut without exploding is a credit to them.

Brad Green is hope you are reading. I will microwave my membership like a richmond supporter if we don't contest this

5 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Brad Green is hope you are reading. I will microwave my membership like a richmond supporter if we don't contest this

It is going to be interesting, and I honestly mean that, as to how club reacts. And as you allude by Club i mean Green. No one else can really push the button. Do we even have buttons at Melbourne ??

16 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Brad Green is hope you are reading. I will microwave my membership like a richmond supporter if we don't contest this

One of my mates goes to most of not all games at home, and is a member.

If we lose. He usually throws his scarf into the urinal.

Always a laugh.

He must spend a lot on scarves.

1 minute ago, SadDee said:

One of my mates goes to most of not all games at home, and is a member.

If we lose. He usually throws his scarf into the urinal.

Always a laugh.

He must spend a lot on scarves.

Does he buy in bulk ??

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

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

There will be no reaction, just like always .

Roll over take what is given.

Squeak up and pass the cheese !

13 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Does he buy in bulk ??

I’ve never actually asked, you’d hope so. Surely a discount.

32 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

It is going to be interesting, and I honestly mean that, as to how club reacts. And as you allude by Club i mean Green. No one else can really push the button. Do we even have buttons at Melbourne ??

Do we even own shirts that button up??

19 minutes ago, SadDee said:

One of my mates goes to most of not all games at home, and is a member.

If we lose. He usually throws his scarf into the urinal.

Always a laugh.

He must spend a lot on scarves.

Like cigarettes you need to dry them rinse them then you can use it of smoke it!

Like the old advice on the pisser,

Do not throw cigarette butts into the tray.

It makes them soggy and hard to light

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

So basically May should have predicted the likelihood of him getting to the ball first - an oval ball that’s bounces all over the place - and if higher than 50% of being late he should slow down and divert off course

WTF!!!!!

And are we to believe that if the last bounce of the ball had gone forward and May took possession 0.10 second before impact and Evans still gets concussed because May is 7 cm taller, there would have been no case to answer?

I am in 2 minds about this.

Appeal the decision or, if I was Steven, hang up the boots, resign immediately,walk away in disgust and let the footy world know that he can't participate in a game any longer that treats people like that and dismisses actions like Moore and Maynards.

Hopefully that might get a few tongues wagging and to be honest he's going to be 34 next season and although I love what he brings to the club the end is near anyway.

Maybe the club could keep him on in some form of defensive coaching role.

7 minutes ago, doc roet said:

I am in 2 minds about this.

Appeal the decision or, if I was Steven, hang up the boots, resign immediately,walk away in disgust and let the footy world know that he can't participate in a game any longer that treats people like that and dismisses actions like Moore and Maynards.

Hopefully that might get a few tongues wagging and to be honest he's going to be 34 next season and although I love what he brings to the club the end is near anyway.

Maybe the club could keep him on in some form of defensive coaching role.

No way May should fall on his sword. He's done nothing wrong. He played the ball fair, unlike the Mockery of a Tribunal who are as skewed as all get go.

Andrew Dillon is the “Bonnie Blue” of AFL CEO’s in that he’s managed to [censored] the game more times in record time.

13 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

And are we to believe that if the last bounce of the ball had gone forward and May took possession 0.10 second before impact and Evans still gets concussed because May is 7 cm taller, there would have been no case to answer?

And if it was Xerri and not Evans then May gets knocked out instead in the same incident

It's a tough game. leave it alone

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

No way May should fall on his sword. He's done nothing wrong. He played the ball fair, unlike the Mockery of a Tribunal who are as skewed as all get go.

Nothing like falling on sword, more like Marty

15 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

No way May should fall on his sword. He's done nothing wrong. He played the ball fair, unlike the Mockery of a Tribunal who are as skewed as all get go.

Not falling on sword, no way!

More like a Martyr for strong beliefs.