Rodney (Balls) Grinter

I'll use the word - it's B-LLSH-T ...and the AFL is full of it.

Not to mention that the AFL couldn't give a stuff about the numerous and most recent concussions inflicted on May by others - they really need to go ask the AFL about where was Tom De Koning's responsibility and duty of care towards May. The AFL are a [censored] joke.

"MAY NOT MAYNARD" Saw a clever post on FB that suggested if Steve had "nard" on the end of his last name, he wouldn't have been suspended.

Maybe, and I do like Disco, but I think he could have some tough competition form the likes of Bowser and Langford of that generation of players.

Not exactly sure when this was first published, but rings very true today: HAMISH BRAYSHAW'S OPEN LETTER TO THE AFL ON BACKCHAT PODCAST Dear AFL, I normally swear on here and act like an [censored], however there will be no profanity or hyperbole in this letter. These are my honest and bewildered thoughts as a current player and lifetime fan of the greatest game in the world. The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you’re making it impossible to adjudicate and you’re not far off making it impossible to support. Over the past 12 months, this is my interpretation of the rules of the game based on what I am hearing and seeing coming directly from the AFL; Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn’t matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don’t forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn’t count, and it depends on the player, and the team they’re on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we’re seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn’t hard enough to hurt them. I have grown up all my life surrounded by football. Playing football, watching football, my family has been engrossed in the AFL system for decades and I have absolutely no idea what is going on anymore. My brother is never going to play football again in his whole life because of a jumping smother that turned into a bump that collided with his head. As much as it killed me to watch that, I can put my feelings for Angus aside and say that down to the nuts and bolts of it, Maynard was trying to smother the ball in a qualifying final so technically it was a football act. You certainly didn’t care all for the outcome there and Brayden went on to win a premiership. That is precedence. That was as big a defining moment for the tribunal as I can remember, and you went with protecting the sanctity of the game over the protection of the player. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but it is breaking me that you are constantly backflipping on that stance. Peter Wright and Toby Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference. Jeremy Finlayson got less than Peter Wright for a homophobic slur which once again highlights that nobody at the AFL really knows what’s happening at the tribunal, you just make it up as you see fit. Matt Crouch has been given a week for picking the ball up the way every single kid playing football is taught to do it. There is goal square footage of Jesse Hogan punching his defender in the face, and he has admitted to swinging with force to try and push his opponent. The AFL’s response “We are not clearly satisfied that was anything more than negligible.” He was swung a fist at a bloke's face and because it didn’t hurt you haven’t given him a week. Punish the action, not the outcome unless the outcome is they’re okay. Ask my little brother Andrew if an intentional swing to the face has the potential to cause harm. Incredible. We’ve heard enough about Charlie Cameron being let off for being a nice guy but Tom Barrass can’t escape a week for the same thing. The get-out-of-jail-free card only appears once in the deck apparently. This is my last point and I am going to swear so beep this out if you want. Tom Barrass is staying in Perth and missing one game for a dangerous tackle. I don’t think there was much more he could’ve done differently. Walters played the game out and isn’t concussed but sure, still give Barrass a week if that’s the stance, protect the head at all costs. I can’t physically watch the Melbourne Demons play football anymore because my brother’s brain is going to be [censored]ed for the rest of his life and you didn’t think that was enough for a week off. AFL you are the greatest game in the world, but right now you’re a joke. Your systems for protecting the player and maintaining the integrity of the game are broken and desperately need to be fixed. Before they can be fixed you need to actually understand the criteria you want to govern the game by. It needs to be understandable for the public and it needs to be followed. You can’t pick and choose when to dismiss certain things and when to change your views on others. It has to change otherwise this game is going to turn into something unrecognisable and it’s going to happen very quickly. Yours Sincerely, Hamish Brayshaw

Can't tell me there isn't some serious favouritism going on here: https://aflratings.com.au/afl-suspensions/ 2024/25 MFC 10 Collingwood FC 3 MOST MATCHES MISSED THROUGH SUSPENSION SINCE 2010 ( till 2021, https://www.afl.com.au/news/568692/the-naughty-club-whos-been-banned-the-most-whose-players-behave ) 62 Geelong 57 Richmond 56 Hawthorn 53 West Coast 52 St Kilda 51 Essendon 50 Melbourne 46 Fremantle 43 North Melbourne 40 Brisbane, Port Adelaide 36 Carlton 35 Gold Coast 29 Greater Western Sydney 28 Collingwood 26 Western Bulldogs 22 Adelaide 18 Sydney Let's also just consider that several Collingwood players have caused career ending, life threatening, life changing injuries to opposition players within that time frame. Yes, the AFL is an impartial, facts based ruling body.

I don't care so much about appealing for the sake of the game, I think it should really be more about appealing for the sake of the MFC that we aren't the perennial soft target, scape goat for the AFL to make an example out of.

So let's just reflect on this. The AFL tribunal took 3hrs to analyse and provide a ruling on something Steve had 0.5 seconds to process and act on perfectlly , all within the laws of physics, all whilst doing pretty much everything right that the AFL had previously said was within a players duty of care. My gosh these people are imbeciles. There was a principle in cricket about giving the batsmen the benifit of the doubt and one in law about incenent until proven guilty that seem to have been violated here.

I can't imagine of a better look. Every MFC player should do it in protest and solidarity with May and call the AFL out to justify their absolute rubbish.

DO IT P.S. it's also an oxymoron to think that the AFL cares about facts or even knows what they are.

Don't blame Anderson. Shouldn't need some fancy lawyer to make a complicated leagal argument. The AFL should be capable of making a reasonable, sensible and unbiased judgement. It's the AFL that are the most at fault party here. They are also at fault for picking and choosing when players do and don't have a duty of care: Racing to contest a loose ball with both players front onto the contest and able to make decisions to attack or protect themselves - duty of care on the player that comes out uninjured. Standing in front of a high ball and having a player jump into the back of your head. Of course TDK had no other option and no duty of care. Steve May should have disappeared.

Or having their splean ripped in half.

And that he's Steve May and plays for the MFC, not Collingwood.

So May slows and attacks the ball at half pace, waits for the Carlton player to easily pick it up uncontested and walk it in for an easy goal. We'd have every comentator in the land saying Melbourne are playing 'bruse free football'. What's the other saying in footy - 'you've got to go when it's your turn to go'. Let's get serious every AFL coach and playing group would be expecting May to give that his best effort at winning the football. AFL - GET F [censored]. You have just proven what a biased rubbish joke of a ruling body you are. MFC has to use what ever means they can to appeal and/protest this ruling that they can - to start with they should be asking that Tom De Koning also be sighted for recklessly injuring Steve May.

I never saw Dixon play, but when I asked my dad about him, his recollection was that he wasn't a great kick, but always got lots of the ball.