https://www.afl.com.au/news/1371236/i-dont-understand-what-we-want-may-to-do-cripps-on-hit-that-concussed-blues-teammate

At least 4 weeks. Not because the action deserves it, but because it is Steven May and Melbourne FC. Just watch, mark my words. And if the club don't challenge with lawyers, weak as p...

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

But the MRO DID make a ruling: Careless, HIgh, Severe Impact. Onus is on the club to prove otherwise.

The MRO has to grade incidents, and you can't argue with the high or severe impact grading, those are very clear cut.

They graded it Careless, because as I noted last week with the Xerri case, there is nothing below careless, it's either careless, or intentional which is much worse (4+ weeks and straight to tribunal)

The argument here is that May wasn't careless, and contact was accidental. The MRO is too scared to make that call, and so they are sending it to the tribunal to argue.

We will hopefully get a decent lawyer that will show that May had about 1 second to realise that he wasn't going to win the ball, and that only happened as a result of the bounce of the ball deviating from it's original course. May's eyes were firmly on the ball the entire time, in the split second that he sees his opponent in the periphery, you can actually see him tuck his elbow in and brace for contact, and not elect to bump. He actually flinches, which means he didn't see it coming.

The argument from us should be that he had the right to go for the ball, and he would have taken possession first had the ball not bounced the way it did, and he had not enough time to stop himself with the momentum from hitting his opponent. Unfortunately the height difference meant there was a head injury, but May never changes direction, never leaves the ground, and never raises an arm, which are all the things we are wanting to stamp out. He didn't elect to bump, he clashed with an opponent at full speed trying to win the ball.

But of course we will get that absolute [censored] Adrian Anderson to represent us with a limp wet lettuce leaf defense and May will get 4 weeks because he's not a 'good guy' like [censored] Maynard. Nothing surer.

Just saw this is being heard on Wednesday, plenty more juice to squeeze out of this one for the afl media then.

Microwave dinners again for everyone here tomorrow night following the hearing via Zeets.

He will get off, at worst by appeal.

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

The MRO has to grade incidents, and you can't argue with the high or severe impact grading, those are very clear cut.

They graded it Careless, because as I noted last week with the Xerri case, there is nothing below careless, it's either careless, or intentional which is much worse (4+ weeks and straight to tribunal

I said it was graded as Careless. I know how the grading works and the rules around MRO and Tribunal referrals.

I also noted in an earlier post the May contact was accidental.

The post you quoted was about the inconsistent treatment of May vis a vis Pierce and Xerri who were also graded Careless, HIgh and Severe Impact but WERE NOT referred directly to the Tribunal. They went to the Tribunal to challenge the MRO ruling. It is rare for the Tribunal to increase the 3 weeks.

But for the same ruling the MRO ALSO referred May directly to the Tribunal which invites a higher than 3 week suspension.

This is inconsistent and unfair.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Lucifers Hero

20 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

The post you quoted was about the inconsistent treatment of May vis a vis Pierce and Xerri who were also graded Careless, HIgh and Severe Impact but WERE NOT referred directly to the Tribunal. They went to the Tribunal to challenge the MRO ruling. It is rare for the Tribunal to increase the 3 weeks.

But for the same ruling the MRO ALSO referred May directly to the Tribunal which invites a higher than 3 week suspension.

This is inconsistent and unfair.

I think that it was referred directly to the tribunal for the same grading is a good thing. It means they aren’t confident a careless grading will hold up at appeal. Otherwise they’d have slapped him with 3 weeks and got on with it.

On the grading of careless it can’t be more than 3 weeks, unless we are so bad at representing ourselves that we argue he intentionally hit the other guy 😂

The AFL will need grounds to ask for more than 3 weeks, and according to their own metrics that only applies if the action was intentional.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Jaded No More