Teufelmann

My point of principle is that it is unduly prejudicial and should not be allowed on the AFL website. The fact that it is done as click bait is of course no form of justification.The AFL strictly controls what coaches,players etc are able to say in the media. Why should its own media platform be permitted to effectively prejudge an issue before its officially independent MRO has assessed the matter? I accept that I am engaged because it involves Stephen May but I reiterate my earlier point that it should not be done to any player, irrespective of the club.

I would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has a view on what I wrote i.e.about the prejudicial nature of the Afl website in this instance (rather than the myriad of other issues which have attached themselves to what I actually wrote).

The point of my topic was really to ask whether our club goes into bat for its players when there’s a justifiable basis for doing so. When the AFL media website puts up vision of the May incident using the word “reckless“ in a caption I would generally describe as inflammatory, prior to any review by the MRO, I’m suggesting it’s obviously prejudicial. And this would be true of any club not just Melbourne. So it’s not really a question of whether Melbourne supporters are lacking objectivity. Any club should push back against this form of prejudicial publicity and I hope ours does and publicise the fact that he has done so.

Others on this forum have often commented on what we Melbourne supporters certainly perceive as media bias-and I would suggest it’s more than a perception.It frequently seems like certain commentators are actively“barracking” for our opponents. This takes the form of validating highly dubious free kicks against Melbourne and being conspicuously silent when obvious kicks to Melbourne are not paid. Anything vaguely reportable by Melbourne player is often amplified in commentary. Can I point to a particular example of this? On the current AFL website there is some footage of the Stephen May incident with the caption “Reckless May hit sparks massive all-out brawl”. Of course, whether or not an action is “reckless” forms an element of whether the action is reportable and the penalty. Captioning the incident this way is clearly prejudicial. I wonder whether our club takes issue with this, especially as it seems we lower profile clubs are often seen as expendable by the MRO.

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.