@Lucifers Hero as I said yesterday the AFL is seeking a 3 week ban, which fits exactly within the guidelines of the charge being careless, high contact and severe impact.

My guess is that the MRO knew we’d argue the careless part and hence it’s gone to the tribunal.

If this useless lawyer can argue his actions weren’t careless he will get off

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

@Lucifers Hero as I said yesterday the AFL is seeking a 3 week ban, which fits exactly within the guidelines of the charge being careless, high contact and severe impact.

My guess is that the MRO knew we’d argue the careless part and hence it’s gone to the tribunal.

If this useless lawyer can argue his actions weren’t careless he will get off

May being sent to the tribunal means we don't have to wear the $10k softcap hit if we lose.

Just now, KozzyCan said:

May being sent to the tribunal means we don't have to wear the $10k softcap hit if we lose.

And I assume Adrian runs on a “no win no fee”?

No other reason we keep using him

Good stuff

Just now, KozzyCan said:

Good stuff

It’s giving Lionel Hutz

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by Jaded No More

Melbourne will use the Alex Pearce tribunal case tomorrow and argue it is even more relevant because the ball was in the air when Pearce contested.

For Steven May, who will testify, it was a slippery bouncing Sherrin that he believed was going to get to him before Francis Evans.

Tribunal boss Jeff Gleeson said after he let Pearce off that not every concussion is caused by careless contact.

Melbourne believes it has a compelling case and if May's suspension is upheld it will lead to total confusion in ground-ball incidents when two players are hitting a contest at the same time

Steven May did just about everything right when he collected Francis Evans on the weekend – and yet he's still off to the tribunal. It’s a disgrace.

The ball pops up and May is already committed. He thought he could get to the contest and likely should have if the ball runs on

In 0.0005 second he braces !! That’s not Careless. That’s incidental or better described as Accidental!!!

He keeps his eye on the ball !!

At the tribunal, the farce unfolds

Woods from AFL states "a reasonable player would understand the ball can bounce unpredictably"

Might be followed by such brilliance as "a reasonable player would see that the oval shaped ball bounces differently to a round shaped ball"

What would the AFL do if that was Curnow running into Evans instead of May?

Lol, Woods says a reasonable player would understand the ball can bounce unpredictably. You can’t make this stuff up 🤣🤣

He won't get off. This is a farce always has been. It's just for show. Decision has been made.

if he gets weeks we must NEVER use Anderson again. I’m not sure which side he works for.

I don't think Woods' arguments are very strong. Will be interesting how the tribunal sees it.

2 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I don't think Woods' arguments are very strong. Will be interesting how the tribunal sees it.

It’s the battle of who is doing a worse job at pleading their case

Woods has never played elite level football, and it shows. To suggest a player should know the ball can bounce unpredictably is like saying “the sky is blue”, it’s true but has no relevance to this case.

Otherwise you’re telling players to never do anything in case the ball bounces the wrong way.

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I don't think Woods' arguments are very strong. Will be interesting how the tribunal sees it.

If Woods used the Archer case as an example why can’t the Alex Pearce case be used for us? And Pearce was airborne

Just now, Jaded No More said:

It’s the battle of who is doing a worse job at pleading their case

Woods has never played elite level football, and it shows. To suggest a player should know the ball can bounce unpredictably is like saying “the sky is blue”, it’s true but has no relevance to this case.

Otherwise you’re telling players to never do anything in case the ball bounces the wrong way.

He's also citing precedent on the Archer case which I thought was a big no-no in the AFL tribunal. I could be out of date on that though.

26 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Good stuff

No good bloke discount then

Adrian Anderson says he has nine reasons May's conduct isn't unreasonable.

Bit of a worry, the tribunal has already saidto Anderson he is being repetitive ...

I'm pretty sure May will be locked up with the mushroom lady

Ever since mr Collingwood supporter Gleeson didn't even try in the Maynard case, it's hard to take him seriously.

15 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

He's also citing precedent on the Archer case which I thought was a big no-no in the AFL tribunal. I could be out of date on that though.

Listening earlier to Adrian Anderson … he is a clown. Why do we use him ?

Well I can’t see how he doesn’t get off.

So he’s definitely getting life in prison

21 minutes ago, MarkMacca said:

Adrian Anderson says he has nine reasons May's conduct isn't unreasonable.

Bit of a worry, the tribunal has already saidto Anderson he is being repetitive ...

ahhh, but each of the nine are different! so can't be repeating himself. Plus not one of the nine is about the vibe or mabo, so he's not quoting Danny Denuto!

Adrian's nine reasons™

1 - May contesting the ball

2 - Legitimately expected to get to the ball first. Has his hands out, expecting he can get to the ball first

3 - Both travelling at pace, reasonable for both to do so

4 - Unexpected bounce of the ball on its fourth bounce

5 - By the time he realises Evans is there, it’s too late to slow or change momentum significantly

6 - Doesn’t move off line

7 - Doesn’t tuck elbow in or rotate, doesn’t jump off ground.

8 - Attempts to slow at the end, even though it’s too late.

9 - May significantly taller than Evans

3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Listening earlier to Adrian Anderson … he is a clown. Why do we use him ?

a lot of clubs use him, and he's got a lot of people off .... just not MFC players :(