45 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Agreed. But the victim plays for Collingwood so the MRO will probably give him 8 weeks....

Especially if it will benefit the Pies in the finals.

11 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I will eat my hat if Newcombe is suspended

MRO is a joke

If it benefits the Pies in the finals, get some tomato sauce to pour on your hat, to make it tastier.

13 hours 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].

I understand the logic of what you are saying but of course it’s not going to happen.

I am just bemused by the irony of how two accidental collision are seen so differently. Even from a Channel 7 commentary perspective. From what I recall from the other week we were shown multiple slow motion replays of the May incident, but last night it was a different story.

The AFL and the majority of its commercial partners stink.

The only thing that ‘pleased’ me about the May incident was how many people in the football community not aligned to the MFC (putting aside and ignoring the click bait Nazis) said that he should not be suspended.

For what it’s worth my opinion is that Jai Newcombe should not be cited or suspended, nor should have May.

I don't understand the argument from King & Cornes.

King reckons Newcome had no idea that Howe was there at the start...

He looks straight at him when they are around 10 metres off the ball and then again before the collision.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

I don't understand the argument from King & Cornes.

King reckons Newcome had no idea that Howe was there at the start...

He looks straight at him when they are around 10 metres off the ball and then again before the collision.

Absolute [censored] isn’t it

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Remember what the Tribunal said about May:

"We find that at the moment 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...

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first...

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other...

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...

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 or him. May ran at 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".

Substitute Newcombe for May and Howe for Evans and there can't be any argument.

So Newcombe supposedly does everything right by 'choosing to tackle' but the outcome is exactly the same as the May incident. Sounds like MROs recommendations on how to keep players safe are absolute rubbish.

Careless contact, high impact, dont see how he gets anything less than May. Its irrelevant these days if its a "football act" or not. They changed the ruling after the Brayshaw incident.

If he doesnt get at least 3 weeks, then we know the system is corrupt

11 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

So Newcombe supposedly does everything right by 'choosing to tackle' but the outcome is exactly the same as the May incident. Sounds like MROs recommendations on how to keep players safe are absolute rubbish.

They keep saying he was trying to tackle, reckon thats just an automatic reaction after the collision and not a tackle.

32 minutes ago, Wodja said:

I understand the logic of what you are saying but of course it’s not going to happen.

I am just bemused by the irony of how two accidental collision are seen so differently. Even from a Channel 7 commentary perspective. From what I recall from the other week we were shown multiple slow motion replays of the May incident, but last night it was a different story.

The AFL and the majority of its commercial partners stink.

The only thing that ‘pleased’ me about the May incident was how many people in the football community not aligned to the MFC (putting aside and ignoring the click bait Nazis) said that he should not be suspended.

For what it’s worth my opinion is that Jai Newcombe should not be cited or suspended, nor should have May.

Agreed, neither should be but they have created precedent.

I personally don’t agree that this has much to do with the May incident - because Howe sees Newcombe and they both contribute to the incident in a way that can be argued is about both of them trying to protect themselves/bracing.

Evans, stayed wide open, and so if May was going to make contact Evans was always going to get absolutely creamed. I’d also argue that May had to guess where the ball was and turned his body to protect himself regardless. He just got undone by the bounce, and his experience to brace first but maintain his line.

I see this differently because Howe sees the collision and tries to protect himself - he leaves the ground. It’s a really interesting case, but none of it ever adds up to a better understanding of how the game should be played, and that’s what infuriates supporters.

Which part of Newcombe's head hit which part of Howe's head?

I reckon I know the answer.

Remember one is a ball player, the other leads through packs with his head.

This close to finals with finals on the line there will be no suspensions that impact teams in contention.

12 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Remember what the Tribunal said about May:

"We find that at the moment 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...

May could and should have realised before the last bounce that he remained unlikely to get to the ball first...

Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other...

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...

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 or him. May ran at 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".

Almost all of the above apply, IMO, to Newcombe on Howe. One key difference is that the ball was to Newcombe's left but Howe was on the right (not both in front like May), but Newcombe has time to turn and look at Howe coming the other way, and then elects to run through him to try to tackle.

If the game today required May to assess that situation and attempt to minimise contact, IMO it required Newcombe to attempt to minimise contact, which he did not do.

I haven't heard David King's argument on it but if he has gone with "no weeks, football accident", that simply confirms that he's a [censored] moron, the complete opposite of the "best analyst in football". He's a hypocritical, finger to the wind, opinion-flipping, non-sensical moron. Where's the whole "these players are capable of split second decisions, they can react to these things, I'm the only commentator in the industry who cares about concussion, stop thinking about May and think about Evans instead" now?

And Jon Ralph would love his time again when he went with "the good news is it's only concussion". I suppose, being nice, he was trying to say there was no additional neck/bone damage, but seriously, do better you [censored].

Absolutely brilliant summary. If the AFL goes weak on this there are clearly two set of rules. He clearly saw Howe this cannot be disputed. Your wording from tribunal leave no room for doubt. This is a monumental test for the AFL and was obvious the moment they made the May decision. I for one don’t think either deserved sanction but the AFL has shifted the line and made their bed. As for King has there ever been a more ridiculous stance. The hypocrisy is breath taking. Anything this guy says in future about concussion is worthless. Maybe he has been hit in the head to many times. Example Chol never misses five minutes after he shanked an attempt on goal. King put a computer in front of him as a prop for credibility and intelligence but this issue has made him a moronic Neanderthal.

17 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

Absolutely brilliant summary. If the AFL goes weak on this there are clearly two set of rules. He clearly saw Howe this cannot be disputed. Your wording from tribunal leave no room for doubt. This is a monumental test for the AFL and was obvious the moment they made the May decision. I for one don’t think either deserved sanction but the AFL has shifted the line and made their bed. As for King has there ever been a more ridiculous stance. The hypocrisy is breath taking. Anything this guy says in future about concussion is worthless. Maybe he has been hit in the head to many times. Example Chol never misses five minutes after he shanked an attempt on goal. King put a computer in front of him as a prop for credibility and intelligence but this issue has made him a moronic Neanderthal.

42 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

Absolutely brilliant summary. If the AFL goes weak on this there are clearly two set of rules. He clearly saw Howe this cannot be disputed. Your wording from tribunal leave no room for doubt. This is a monumental test for the AFL and was obvious the moment they made the May decision. I for one don’t think either deserved sanction but the AFL has shifted the line and made their bed. As for King has there ever been a more ridiculous stance. The hypocrisy is breath taking. Anything this guy says in future about concussion is worthless. Maybe he has been hit in the head to many times. Example Chol never misses five minutes after he shanked an attempt on goal. King put a computer in front of him as a prop for credibility and intelligence but this issue has made him a moronic Neanderthal.

You have summed up King perfectly.

57 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I personally don’t agree that this has much to do with the May incident - because Howe sees Newcombe and they both contribute to the incident in a way that can be argued is about both of them trying to protect themselves/bracing.

Evans, stayed wide open, and so if May was going to make contact Evans was always going to get absolutely creamed. I’d also argue that May had to guess where the ball was and turned his body to protect himself regardless. He just got undone by the bounce, and his experience to brace first but maintain his line.

I see this differently because Howe sees the collision and tries to protect himself - he leaves the ground. It’s a really interesting case, but none of it ever adds up to a better understanding of how the game should be played, and that’s what infuriates supporters.

Gleeson said in the May case:

‘Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other...

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...‘

Both Newcomb and Howe also had a clear and Unimpeded view ✅

Newcomb made no attempt to change his path, body position or his velocity ✅

As a result the effect was that he ran through Howe at high speed ✅

Newcomb 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 ✅

If the argument was ‘Newcomb tried to tackle’ then I could say, he had plenty of time to slow down to ‘minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball’ but didn’t.

And I don’t think Newcomb should be suspended in and of itself of this incident, but if May gets suspended then I don’t see how Newcomb doesn’t given the rationale Gleeson used applies to Newcomb.

Edit: in the Archer case Gleeson said that Archer didn’t slow down at that the velocity was at which he ran was the incorrect metric. He said it was ‘too little, too late’ in slowing down. So: Newcomb didn’t slow down either, resulting in a concussion.

Edited Friday at 02:092 days by BoBo

24 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Gleeson said in the May case:

‘Both players had a clear and unimpeded view of the ball and of each other...

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...‘

Both Newcomb and Howe also had a clear and Unimpeded view ✅

Newcomb made no attempt to change his path, body position or his velocity ✅

As a result the effect was that he ran through Howe at high speed ✅

Newcomb 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 ✅

If the argument was ‘Newcomb tried to tackle’ then I could say, he had plenty of time to slow down to ‘minimise a high speed collision with a player who was gathering the ball’ but didn’t.

And I don’t think Newcomb should be suspended in and of itself of this incident, but if May gets suspended then I don’t see how Newcomb doesn’t given the rationale Gleeson used applies to Newcomb.

Those are great points Bobo. A logical organisation would concur. 😂

I see the incident is different just because Howe contributes to the clash more actively than Evans did. Howe leaves the ground, and that is enough of a variable for the AFL.

I also agree with you that it seems insane that the AFL tries to argue about what a reasonable player would do. Both incidents were insanely quick.

I just would temper anyone’s expectations about there being any relationship between these incidents and an expected outcome. There’s enough variables that the AFL can concoct whatever they want as an outcome. This is by design. 👍

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

Those are great points Bobo. A logical organisation would concur. 😂

I see the incident is different just because Howe contributes to the clash more actively than Evans did. Howe leaves the ground, and that is enough of a variable for the AFL.

I also agree with you that it seems insane that the AFL tries to argue about what a reasonable player would do. Both incidents were insanely quick.

I just would temper anyone’s expectations about there being any relationship between these incidents and an expected outcome. There’s enough variables that the AFL can concoct whatever they want as an outcome. This is by design. 👍

Oh you’re right, there’s no way this will result in a suspension, the media has decided that, haha

Message in the group chat "I don't think that they're comparable incidents"

Me in the group chat after 6pm today

2 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Those are great points Bobo. A logical organisation would concur. 😂

I see the incident is different just because Howe contributes to the clash more actively than Evans did. Howe leaves the ground, and that is enough of a variable for the AFL.

I also agree with you that it seems insane that the AFL tries to argue about what a reasonable player would do. Both incidents were insanely quick.

I just would temper anyone’s expectations about there being any relationship between these incidents and an expected outcome. There’s enough variables that the AFL can concoct whatever they want as an outcome. This is by design. 👍

Good lord "Howe contributed to this himself more than Evans" It's pretty much pot luck how these incidents turn out in both those circumstances. May could have just as easily copped a slightly erant elbow to the head, would Evans have been suspended then?

Honestly think they need to have some of these AFL muppets role play all of this out at full pace to show how the players should act and maybe get an actual appreciation of what's reasonable.

5 hours ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

Agreed, neither should be but they have created precedent.

and moreso footy should only be played by 'reasonable' players with split second reasonability

imagine a game where all the players were 'reasonable'

4 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

I just would temper anyone’s expectations about there being any relationship between these incidents and an expected outcome. There’s enough variables that the AFL can concoct whatever they want as an outcome. This is by design. 👍

Yep. We all knew this. As soon as the May decision was final I knew the precedent set was just for clubs like us. The dynamism of each contest and how it can be interpreted leaves a blank slate for the powers that be to make an example out of the clubs they chose.

Problem is that the examples that they try to set through strugglers like us is never followed through when one of the darling clubs find themselves in similar situations.

We are the sacrificially lambs for AFL houses seemingly selective concern for for head trauma. They can point to our punishments for examples of them trying to mitigate injury. Lucky us right?

Newcomb escaped suspension and a fine.

The afl can go and eat [censored].