Lucifers Hero

Appeal starts at 5pm. Follow it here: Fox SportsLIVE: Dees’ last-ditch bid to free star after polarising...LIVE: Dees’ last-ditch bid to free star after polarising bump in AFL’s most complex case

People have short For all intents and purposes Goodwin is the FD! Unlkely assist coaches will upset the boss. Richardson has had plenty of opportunities to overhaul the list. iirc Taylor and Lamb report to him. I've not seen much evidence of a list overhaul (aside from adding 1st round picks) so am not expecting them to in the future. If Graham Wright was coming in as CEO we might see an overhaul. He overhauled Pies list to win a premiership. He is about to overhaul Carlton's list. Hopefully, they don't win a premiership any time soon. At this stage there is no obvious person in the FD/Club to push back on what Goodwin wants.

Goodwin said in the press conf we had an extra fwd. This morning on MMM Max said he thought it was an extra fwd and tried to bring one into the square when he had a few seconds to do that but in fact it was an extra defender. Not sure who is correct. But it doesn't matter. We messed up for the whole quarter and that was just another blunder.

We should never have been in a situation where the last 8 seconds mattered. But we were! And we failed to manage 'that moment'. The umpire is somewhat responsible for fiasco. There was no need for the same players to come back to the square nor be in the circle. We could have put any 4 players in the centre square, line them up as a wall at the back of the square to block any run. And the two wingman at the defensive ends of the square would give us a wall of 6 players. Marshall would have had to kick over the wall. Even without rules awareness leaving NWM unattended was just so so stupid. But our leaders should have known of the rules, checked the umpire when he called them back and the formation I describe should have been a set play. I bet they don't know the rules and haven't trained that play and that is a coaching issue.

Those doubting North/Clarkson have short memories. He is our Roos. Spent the first 3 years building the core list of mids while getting better use from the already established players. And brought in experienced players to shore up critical roles and support the new kids. It was 5 years after Roos started that we made and won finals with Goodwin at the helm. It was another 3 years before we won a flag. Clarkson probably had a better off-field FD staff at Hawks than now at North but he hasn't forgotten how to coach. Give them time. They might contend before we do again.

If the mfc statement on the website is an indication, I doubt the club will appeal.

Tribunal started at 5pm Follow it here: Fox SportsTribunal LIVE: The ‘key’ reason Dees are ‘convinced’ May...Tribunal LIVE: The ‘key’ reason Dees are ‘convinced’ May will get off big ban

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.

The more I think about this the less I like it. Cases sent directly to the Tribunal are where MRO can't decide or it is so severe the penalty should be more than the Matrix accommodates. And usually there is no MRO ruling. So not many cases are sent directly to the Tribunal. They end up there because their club challenge the MRO ruling. eg Pierce and Xerri whose actions were ruled as May: Careless, High, Severe, 3 weeks. A challenge rarely results in a higher penalty. But fore some reason the MRO is not following that process. He has made a ruling (3 weeks) AND sent May directly to the Tribunal exposing him to a higher penalty. It is like he is saying to the Tribunal: I've given him 3 weeks but I reckon it should be more. When the dust settles the club should complain to the AFL as this seems to be blatantly unfair on May relative to others eg Pierce, Xerri etc.

If that was the case it would help May as we could argue and the Tribunal could rule on a number of factors associated with the cotnact. But the MRO DID make a ruling: Careless, HIgh, Severe Impact. Onus is on the club to prove otherwise. To be fair the MRO should have made no ruling, as you suggest. As it stands May is 'Guilty unless proven innocent'!

They are concurrent. So hopefully we see his 250th game this year🙂

Arithmetic was never my strong point 😁 I wouldn't put anything past Gleeson! May never gets the benefit of the doubt!

I want May to play on to play the Pies in rnd 23. But if Gleeson chairs the Tribunal he will up the penalty from the minimum 3 weeks to 4 so that May can't play that game. The way their season is going top 2 spot or even top 4 may rest on that final game against us. And we know how Gleeeson takes a hard line on Dees cases to help the Pies: Maynard/Brayshaw, Kozzie/Moore. So wouldn't be surprised if Maynard gets 4 weeks.

I posted this in the MRO thread but more relevant here. 'The still photo showing May's shoulder into Evans is the result of May being 11 cm taller than Evans so unfortunately any contact was never going to end well for Evans. The height difference and both players going for the ball means the contact was Accidental not Careless so the charge should be dismissed. May has oft offended but he doesn't deserve to go for that. To have any hope of having the charge thrown out we must NOT use Adrian Anderson'.

MRO has sent May sent straight to the Tribunal. Contact rated Careless, High, Severe Impact. The still photo showing May's shoulder into Evans is the result of May being 11 cm taller than Evans so unfortunately any contact was never going to end well for Evans.. The height difference and both players going for the ball mans the contact was Accidental not Careless so the charge should be dismissed. May has oft offended but he doesn't deserve to go for that. To have any hope of having the charge thrown out we must NOT use Adrian Anderson.