KozzyCan

Gleeson chaired the hearing. Woods represented the AFL.

The TDK one is funny. Basically because everyone loves a speccy, duty of care gets thrown out the window in a marking contest.

So the Tribunal's argument for the reaction time hinged on the fact that Evans was able to adjust to collect the ball once it bounced his way and began to change direction. They basically said if he had enough time to do that, May had enough time to do something to minimise the impact. May argued that he attempted to slow down in that moment but the Tribunal didn't accept that. I don't think he tucked his arm in or braced. His arms maintained the same position as when he was going for the ball. Your point about the fact May's foot was off the ground is interesting though, it would help May's contention that he attempted to slow down. I'm not exactly sure how the appeals process works but I know you have a much narrower scope of argument than at the Tribunal. IIRC you can't enter new evidence in and have to argue that there was either an error of law or the tribunal was unreasonable. I think we will argue the latter.

This was a great editorial from Whateley. I think there are a few areas where the Tribunal's ruling can be disputed. The tribunal concluded that May should have known Evans was 'highly likely' to get to the ball first before he began his approach. This is disputed by both May and Evans and is not consistent with the evidence. It also presumes that May should have known the ball would bounce back towards Evans before he even began his approach. I think that is a ludicrous proposition from the Tribunal. They are basically saying that before you approach a contest you need to be sure that you can reach the ball first even accounting for the unpredictable nature of the bouncing ball. That is an impossible threshold for a 'reasonable player' to satisfy. The harder part to contend will be the Tribunal's contention that May did not make any attempt to minimise contact once it was clear he could not win the ball. May argued he attempted to slow down once Evan gained posession, so that will be up for the appeals board to determine.

Will be interested if we appeal. There's a good argument to be made that the Tribunal's decision was based on opinion rather than evidence.

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 I could be out of date on that though.

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

Good stuff

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

Hard to tell in such a one-sided game but those highlights make his skills look a bit cleaner than AJ and Jeffo. If he can take a clean grab and kick the ball straight I'd bring him in.

The whole first half felt like a practice match. Both teams looked [censored]. Carlton wanted the win a little more after losing four weeks in a row.

Agree. The game hasn't gotten too fast for Oliver, he's lost a bunch of pace.

Didn't hurt them though which is my point. We've got a bunch of underperforming guys on big coin that we have held onto.

Pies got rid of Treloar and Grundy when they no longer fit into their best team. Geelong consistently attract A-grade talent.

I think it's relevant when you're chasing a 31 year old who won't be match fit for at least two pre-seasons. Age is irrelevant to Geelong because when their stars are cooked they can just recruit someone in their prime to fill in the gaps and they have a very high rate of success with later picks in the draft. Both Collingwood and Geelong have been very good at continuously regenerating their lists with quality players. Geelong and Collingwood have been lucky with guys like Dangerfield, Pendlebury and Sidebottom bucking the trend of age and remaining hugely compettive longer than most but all those guys are ultimate professionals. Daniher on the other hand always had a pretty cruisy attitude to footy.

Daniher will be 32 years old at the start of next year and with a year out of the system and will struggle to get to AFL fitness in a single preseason. He will also cost a lot to not only lure out of retirement but also pick us over Brisbane. If this is our best option then it shows how few genuine prospects we actually have.

There are rules around this to stop teams from rorting the system iirc. I don't know how it would work exactly in this scenario but a good example would be when Mitch Clark 'retired' and then Geelong had to trade for him.

Goodwin getting extended would be insane to me. I'd be astounded if the club was that stupid after missing finals for two years while he still has a year left to run.

Sorry I meant supporterbase moreso than memberships. Essendon have been garbage for 20 years. If they ever get good again their memberships will skyrocket. The supporter base is there and bigger than what Hawks and Geelong can reach. People thought Richmond and Carlton's supporterbase was diminishing. Then Richmond win a flag and they have the biggest membership in the comp. Carlton start making finals for the first time in ages and they crack 100k immediately. The big four are called that for a reason. When their form isn't good they just become sleeping giants. If Hawthorn were as big a club as the actual big clubs they wouldn't have to sell their games to Tassie.

They are successful but comparative to the actual big clubs they don't quite stack up from a membership point of view. As far as Victoria goes the big clubs are Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon. Hawthorn and Geelong are a rung below. Us, Saints, Dogs and North are all small.

It annoys me even more because Goodwin literally went on TV a week ago and said we were rebuilding on the run by adding youth to the side. Now we find out we're chasing a bloke who's been out of the game for a year and will be 32 before the next season starts. Not to mention we'd have to overpay him substantially to get him to pick us over just going back to Brisbane.

Big clubs have and will always have that advantage. Hawks are a medium sized club who have no trouble luring players. We traded very well between 2014-2018

Genuinely one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen a footy club actually consider. Embarrassing and desperate from a list management team that hasn't been able to lure anyone of note for 5 years.

King is a moron on this stuff.

I think there's a fair chance May gets off. Being sent straight to the tribunal doesn't necessarily mean he's screwed. Sometimes it just means that the MRO doesn't feel equipped to make a ruling based on the matrix.