The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

3 minutes ago, roy11 said:

The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

There is a saying that conspiracy is less likely than a stuff up. Looks like the MRO is more of the latter, given the blatant inconsistency between the May incident and this one.

3 minutes ago, roy11 said:

The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

So this confirms that despite the tribunal and appeals board stating that May was not suspended for bumping, that indeed he was suspended for bumping.

They stated he was suspended for being second and he should have slowed down. Same as Newcomb should have done.

Just now, GawnOfTheDead said:

So this confirms that despite the tribunal and appeals board stating that May was not suspended for bumping, that indeed he was suspended for bumping.

They stated he was suspended for being second and he should have slowed down. Same as Newcomb should have done.

I still don't think he "tackled" him either, smacked heads and his arms had no where else to go whilst running.

11 minutes ago, roy11 said:

I still don't think he "tackled" him either, smacked heads and his arms had no where else to go whilst running.

agreed. Who tackles chest first? That is reckless and a sure way to get himself hurt. A genuine tackle attempt that was not too reckless would be to drop the shoulder and attack the ribs putting your head on the back. he didn't attempt this so he was clearly reckless and unreasonable...

No point wasting oxygen on this. AFL does as AFL pleases.

21 minutes ago, roy11 said:

The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

Oh cool, so May was wrong for going for the ball and not initiating contact, therefore he should have tried to tackle Evans, at full speed, absolutely obliterating him, and he would’ve not even been sighted.

Got it 🥴

Edited Friday at 08:042 days by BoBo

He was suspended off his reputation of being a bit rough and tough, no other reason. Over it.

5 minutes ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

He was suspended off his reputation of being a bit rough and tough, no other reason. Over it.

In a sane world, reputation should have nothing to do with any decision on whether an offence has been committed. Every incident should be considered on its merits.

Reputation (ie previous record) should only come into play when sentencing is decided.

The AFL's inconsistency in disciplinary matters is totally farcical.

2 minutes ago, Dee-tonator said:

In a sane world, reputation should have nothing to do with any decision on whether an offence has been committed. Every incident should be considered on its merits.

Reputation (ie previous record) should only come into play when sentencing is decided.

The AFL's inconsistency in disciplinary matters is totally farcical.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Toby Greene shouldn’t be suspended based off the fact he’s dirty.

That should be considered for sentence as you said.

But as you also said, that’s in a sane world, not this world we live in. Really frustrating. May would be filthy with the result of Newcomb.

55 minutes ago, roy11 said:

The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

Hey @Redleg what did I say?

MRO making up rules on the fly? Well I would never!

Wow, what an absolute farce the AFL is !

Pure gaslighting.

So over the treatment Melb gets.

I didn't see a tackle. I saw a head partially bent down and another side of a face exposed.

The Collingwood bloke was out for a good minute or so.

16 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I didn't see a tackle. I saw a head partially bent down and another side of a face exposed.

The Collingwood bloke was out for a good minute or so.

Yep the more times I look at it, it was a side on charge at full speed at the player gathering the ball. If it was a tackle, it was a highly dangerous one, admittedly putting both players at risk. One would be tempted to call it unwarranted and rough conduct that a “reasonable player” would avoid.

There was no doubt Newcomb would get off.

1 hour ago, Winter Dan said:

Wow, what an absolute farce the AFL is !

Pure gaslighting.

So over the treatment Melb gets.

My hatred of the AFL is outweighing my love for the MFC. This league is a joke, who can stay invested in a comp so obviously corrupt?

42 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Yep the more times I look at it, it was a side on charge at full speed at the player gathering the ball. If it was a tackle, it was a highly dangerous one, admittedly putting both players at risk. One would be tempted to call it unwarranted and rough conduct that a “reasonable player” would avoid.

Perhaps you could describe it as "Careless"?

Just a joke...

Put Newcombe in Red and Blue and he gets 3 plus weeks...

Convince me otherwise !!

Match Review Officer Michael Christian said Newcombe's attempt to tackle Howe was 'not unreasonable in the circumstances' and did not constitute a reportable offence.

Meanwhile, Mabior Chol and Dan McStay can each accept $2000 fines after being charged with rough conduct and tripping, respectively.

Incident explained:
The incident involving Hawthorn’s Jai Newcombe and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe from the First Quarter of Thursday night’s match was assessed by the Match Review Officer. Newcombe and Howe approach a loose ball from opposite directions and as the ball bounces towards and into the possession of Howe, Newcombe elects to tackle and in this attempt to tackle, a head clash occurs. It was the view of the MRO that Newcombe’s attempt to tackle was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not constitute a Reportable Offence. No further action was taken.

BUT IT WAS …

CARELESS

HIGH

SEVERE

3-4 WEEKS

Player Newcomb looks at Howe and stands up with his full body at point of impact with no attempt to lower his body for a tackle

Newcomb … views of the incident from the outer

—-———————————-

Yep, took his eyes off the ball and went for Howe. Thats weeks

He watched Howe the whole time and took him out - 4 weeks at least

Any reasonable player would have seen that coming, 3 weeks just has to be

3 weeks after the Steven may debacle the AFL Have painted themselves into a corner, any reasonable player would have anticipated the collision

Surely Newcombe should have been able to predict the bounce of the ball as any reasonable player would and also slow down to minimise impact. Looking at 6 weeks for mine. @davidking34

Didn't the tribunal also declare that May didn't elect to bump and that the decision to abort the contest should have been made a few steps earlier before contact was inevitable? Not sure how this is different.

It's literally milliseconds different to May, and Newcombe failed to show duty of care.

Very strange way to tackle. Stayed vertical with arms by his side. He had options and caused the contact, should be suspended

Outcome based. 3 weeks for failing duty of care

He locked eyes on him from 3 yards out, lined him up and took him out. If May got rubbed out so should Newcombe.

He took his eyes off the ball and lined him up. Straight to the tribunal

That’s 4 weeks. Impacted careless. High. Severe impact. How can he get off ???? It’s definitely going to the tribunal.

4 weeks. how is this different to may ? it’s the same just to go going for the ball and hits high

1 hour ago, Golden fist said:

There was no doubt Newcomb would get off.

Yep wasnt wearing a MFC jumper.

Still pick your battles. We got off with Rivers not being suspended for concussing Ryan.

Absolutely disgusted by this non decision.

I hope the AFL’s payout to ex-players with CTE is enormous

if for no reason other than their absolute hypocrisy about this

Howe was ex-Demon anyway, hence the non-decision

On 03/08/2025 at 18:39, GawnOfTheDead said:

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

21 hours ago, GM11 said:

Just pictured the MRO & tribunal trying to figure out how to get out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

17 hours ago, picket fence said:

And Gleeson SPINS more according to his own Gravitas

WATCH THIS SPACE

15 hours ago, chookrat said:

I think the problem is that the MRO/Tribunal "review" these incidents with a predetermined outcome in mind and then spend hours deliberating to work out the subjective factors to support their predetermined outcome.

The May suspension is fully based on subjective "interpretations" of what the mythological reasonable player would do. I wonder which reasonable player they will use this time.

Absolutely zero integrity or consistency in the AFL, the MRO or Gleeson’s Star Chamber

This Shiel/Jezza shove that resulted in Lual being tunnelled is an interesting one. The AFL article puts forward the question, "can a player be cited for injuring his own teammate?" For me the answer is 100% yes, and to me the incident with Petty and McGovern set a bad precedence. The media at the time was hyper focused on Melksham protecting the space while McGoverns own bloody teammate shoved Petty into the contest causing the concussion of both players and the retirement of McGovern.

This one looks even worse and could've had a catastrophic outcome. He should be given 2-3 weeks because he showed no duty of care to Cameron and Lual.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1383481/essendon-bombers-dylan-shiel-shove-on-luamon-lual-leaves-mro-with-interesting-dilemma-after-friendly-fire

Edited Friday at 15:292 days by Pates
Adding link