spirit of norm smith

What did he do wrong? The facts He thinks at all times he is going to win the ball. His eyes are on the ball. He keeps his line. The BOUNCING ball pops up (the bounce is not consistent but it’s reasonable to assume it runs on) It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time. HE KEEPS HIS FEET (not off the ground) His arms are outstretched to take the footy. There was no bump. It was contact. His body is lowered not raised to head level It was not careless. Clear minds must recognise of this The reasonable player goes to win the footy and nothing here suggests May ever thought or could have thought differently He comes off his player to win the footy It’s a decision making in 0.05/second MELBOURNE MUST APPEAL. MELBOURNE MUST WIN THE APPEAL

Agree we are a soft target. But it’s almost weekly that it’s a pile in on the Dees. Even more than the Blues at times. Any good news to say … no just burn the joint down is the constant theme from the media. There’s more issues than just change the players. We are in a real red zone if the media inspired purge is a [censored] up and we go back to 2009 !!!

Saints on a losing streak. Like the Blues last week. Memo to Goodwin … it’s last chance saloon Dees MUST win this or it’s getting more than disappointing , it’s EMBARRASSING as a club !! Here’s some basic tips from the other side of the fence Wanganeen Milera … you let him run around for 37 possessions last time. Little pressure. wtf. At least make sure he’s under pressure Dees don’t let guys like Sharman or Wood or Higgins or Owens kick 4 or more goals. Amazing how many average “no namers” like Moir and Menzie have a day out against us DONT KICK TO WILKIE. Last time the strategy was to kick it so he could intercept. Ffs. It was dumb. Dumb footy. Protect Kozzzzzy. Windhager will go to a hard tag. Other clubs like cats and pies protect their players getting tags. Blocks. Bumps. Etc. Stand up for your teammates Centre clearances. Need to get this sorted as we have been weak each week. We were pathetic Development. Like to see Langford used for 5 or 6 CBAs this week. That’s where his future lies. Not on a wing. Start the game like you’re prepared. Our slow starts are becoming systemic. Turn it on from minute 1 to the siren. Relax time is AFTER the game.

add Peter Ryan to the list of haters https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/steven-may-s-suspension-was-justified-and-won-t-change-footy-as-we-know-it-20250723-p5mhb8.html He should understand. It’s clear. The AFL wants players to show such a duty of care to their opponent that they assess a range of decisions they make – whether to bump, whether to change direction, whether to accelerate or decelerate, whether to brace or not – on more than the single criteria of winning the ball. Players are also expected to factor in the likelihood of injuring their opponent or putting their opponent at serious risk of injury when making those decisions. He could have been less certain he was going to reach the unpredictable ball first. He could have altered his approach as a result. He could have positioned his body differently, something Evans managed to do, in the final instant. May knew what was at stake as he made each decision in a series of decisions, albeit each determined in a split second, with a goal at risk. Putting a player at risk was prioritised above the risk of conceding a goal.

Add @scottgullan to the list of Dees haters For all those in 2021 who said the Pies and Cats were too old … they turned it around Nothing like aiming at a soft target like the Dees http://bit.ly/40Ba33I

Gleeson wants May to foresee where and how the ball will bounce. It’s always been hard to predict. NO BUMP. Not careless. EYES ON THE BALL. No jump. KEEPS HIS LINE. May did everything like he thought he’d win the ball. Everything!

Noah Anderson. Just the type of young player and leader needed in red and blue.

Memo … topic …What did he do wrong? He thinks at all times he is going to win the ball. His eyes are on the ball. He keeps his line. The BOUNCING ball pops up. It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time. HE KEEPS HIS FEET (not off the ground) His arms are outstretched to take the footy. There was no bump. It was contact. It was not careless. Clear minds must recognise of this The reasonable player goes to win the footy and nothing here suggests May ever thought or could have thought differently He comes off his player to win the footy MELBOURNE MUST APPEAL. MELBOURNE MUST WIN THE APPEAL

Spargo. In. He was average at Casey last week. So he’s in. That’s another 9 possessions. 2 kicks perhaps for 20 metres to hit a target somewhere inside 50 metres. Think maybe 1 goal at best but likely zero direct scoreboard impact. He’s not the answer. I know some asked if they’d bring in Mentha jnr. Goody doesn’t experiment much and sticks to his favourites.

@Whispering_Jack agree with Mitch Kirkwood-Scott. Small defender. Excellent kick and makes good decisions which would transfer to AFL requirements. He played 4 games earlier in the year and impressed before injured. Just returned and played his role. Like to see him again before season end.

Just to be clear, Harry Petty’s 2.2, 12 disposals and 4 marks warranted a game over Kentfield (4.0, 9 disposals and 6 marks) and AJ (5.2, 21 disposals and 12 marks). You can’t even make this stuff up anymore. @cameronburt

McVee. McDonald. Howes. Salem. Turner. Bowey Langdon. Trac. Windsor Viney . Petty. Fritsch Melksham. JVR. Pickett GAWN. Rivers. Oliver. Int. Sparrow. Langford. Chandler. Lindsay. Sub. Spargo

v Saints In: Charlie Spargo, Well he’s Goodys favourite boy so even a barely satisfactory game at Casey means enough for him to get promoted Blake Howes, Yes in good form at Casey and unlucky to miss the last 2 weeks after passing concussion protocols Harrison Petty, Yes good to see him back and will play forward Tom Sparrow. Hope he’s recovered I thought he might need another week , imv I think he starts as the sub Out: Steven May (concussion), Kolt Tholstrup, Needs a block at Casey across half forward where he must show ability to put in 100% and kick goals Matthew Jefferson, Needs to mark above his head and not on his chest. Needs a pre season on protein and gym work Harry Sharp, Needs to play in the middle and run run run all day to get 25+ possessions, use his weapon , his run and stamina

May What did he do wrong? He thinks he is going to win the ball. His eyes are on the ball. He keeps his line. It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time. The bouncing ball pops up. There was no bump. It was contact. It was not careless. Gleeson got it wrong

What a star Happy Birthday David Schwarz 24 July 53 today He was sensational pre knee injury As good a CHF as I’ve seen

In the words of Gerard Whateley Who is the 'Reasonable Player' the Tribunal has invented – the all-knowing, all-seeing personification of perfection from a utopian world.

Mick McGuane Our great game is in serious trouble. May gets 3 weeks at the tribunal. Absolute [censored] decision. Melbourne surely appeals to bring some sanity back to our great game. In time we will see 2 players approaching a loose ball, both hesitate, look at each other and not go at it. My response … Mick 👏👏 May had eyes on the footy. He was going to win the footy. He keeps his line. The bouncing ball pops up. In a nano second , he’s late. A nano second late. He contacts Evans. No bump. No intent. Contact …yes. Careless … No.

Curtis - a tackle - 3 weeks.🤬🤬 Steven May - going for the ball and his eyes on the ball and does not move from the line and arrives a “nano second late” as the bouncing ball pops up - 3 weeks.🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 Tristan Xerri - swinging round arm , nothing near the ball and knocks a bloke out cold - 3 weeks. Should have been 6 weeks 🤬 Ben King on Whitfield - nothing to see here 🤬 Alex Pearce - 3 weeks then OVERTURNED to nil after tribunal rules … "Pearce's attempt to mark was entirely realistic," Gleeson said."If not for Byrne-Jones entering the contest from the opposite direction, he would likely have taken the mark."We do not find that this was rough conduct."🤬🤬 https://www.afl.com.au/news/1331214/the-verdict-is-in-fremantle-dockers-skipper-alex-pearce-learns-his-fate-at-tribunal/amp Tom Lynch - attempting to punch a bloke - 5 weeks Jack Graham - homophobic slur - 4 weeks. Darcy Moore - drops knees into Treacys back a good 3 seconds after marking contest, nothing to see here 🤬

THIS IS WHY WE ARE ANGRY REALLY REALLY ANGRY GLEESON SAYS MAY HAD ALOT OF TIME TO WORK OUT OPTIONS THAT IS NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FOOTY SUPPORTERS VIEW IT WAS A NANO SECOND but wait let’s read Gleeson on Maynard AFL tribunal news 2023: Brayden Maynard cleared, full reasoning behind not guilty verdict revealed, Jeff Gleeson https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/collingwood-magpies/afl-tribunal-news-2023-brayden-maynard-cleared-full-reasoning-behind-not-guilty-verdict-revealed-jeff-gleeson/news-story/769da7a37ca089ae1f6287605abfc24f @Ghostwriter @binman @Demonland @Redleg @beelzebub @picket fence @dazzledavey36 @Whispering_Jack Gleeson on Maynard It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence. We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed. This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision. The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent. The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact. We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw. It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother. At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother. In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap. We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention. The charge is dismissed.

Guilty. Terrible decision. What did he do wrong? He thinks he is going to win the ball. His eyes are on the ball. He keeps his line. It was a nano second. 0.025/second reaction time. The ball pops up. There was no bump. It was contact. The tribunal is wrong. It was not careless. Gleeson clearly has an agenda. MELBOURNE MUST APPEAL. Smaller clubs gets shafted by the AFL. THATS THE STORY

AFL website May's case was sent directly to the Tribunal on Wednesday night, with the rough conduct charge graded as careless, severe impact and high contact. Tribunal counsel Andrew Woods pushed for a three-match ban to be imposed, declaring May should have slowed down or changed direction to either avoid or lessen the collision. The premiership defender had pleaded not guilty, with his lawyer Adrian Anderson arguing his client's actions weren't unreasonable. May and Evans clashed at speed while attacking a loose ball in the Blues' eight-point win at the MCG on Saturday night. Given the rolling ball popped up during its final bounce, Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, with a charging May making contact after continuing his trajectory. During his evidence, he reiterated the fact he thought he would arrive at the bouncing ball first. "I definitely thought it was my ball given how the previous bounces reacted," May said. "Then it took an unusual bounce given the conditions. It actually bounced up and towards Evans, which I didn't anticipate." May's hands were still in front of him in a collect-the-ball type pose when his shoulder made contact with Evans' head. "I thought it was going to be in my hands. I just can't believe I didn't take possession," May said. "I thought I did everything right. I was shocked." In his findings, Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson said the evidence from the biomechanics expert showed May had 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that he would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "We find, however, that May could and should have reacted before the moment of the last bounce of the ball," Gleeson said. "Even if, contrary to our view, May could and should not have reacted until the final bounce of the ball, we find that he had sufficient time to position his body so that he was no longer attempting to gather the ball. "It's important to note in this regard that May had a relatively long period of time to sum up the key features of the contest. "May ran a sufficient distance and had sufficient time with an unimpeded view of what was before him to determine what he could and should do in the likely event he did not reach the ball first or at the same time." ———————————————- He expected to win the football. It pops up and he is a nano second too late and has a nano second to brace for impact. His eyes are always on the ball. He did not bump. He was not careless. It was accidental. The Tribunal is WRONG. @Demonland @binman @george_on_the_outer WE MUST APPEAL THIS THEIR CHARGE WAS CARELESS , IT WAS NOT CARELESS, IT WAS CONTACT IT WAS A REASONABLE ACT TO EXPECT TO WIN THE FOOTBALL HE KEEPS HIS EYES ON THE FOOTBALL HE DID NOT BUMP HE KEEPS HIS LINE THE FOOTBALL POPS UP AT THE LAST NANO SECOND WE MUST APPEAL THIS

An accident is three weeks but Moore deliberately dropping your knees into someone is not even reviewed??? And Knocking out a player with a swinging arm is also just 3 weeks Madness Explain that to me @AFL is losing the fans

Absolutely Go Riv It’s madness He was going for the ball His eyes are on the ball He has 0.0005 second reaction time when the ball pops up

Agree. Gleeson is a biased 35 year Magpies member.

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