Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 14s15 seconds ago
Jordan Lewis can accept 2 games, striking Todd Goldstein. MRP adjudged high impact, not medium, for potential to cause injury.
Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 41s41 seconds ago
Luke Hodge referred directly to tribunal, striking Andrew Swallow. No early plea offered. Judged high impact for potential to cause injury.
2 weeks, was expecting 3 tbh
Quote from: Ricochet on May 04, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
2 weeks, was expecting 3 tbh
Was probably "3 down to 2" or however they work out the early plea discounts.
May got two weeks as well! wow
Lewis will take the 2 weeks. Hodge will get 4 weeks
Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 8m8 minutes ago
Stephen May can accept 2 games for rough conduct against Tom Rockliff. Nick Robertson can accept $1000 for striking Tom Nicholls.
May is unlucky in my opinion strong tackle. Rough conduct you have got to be joking and I am a Lions supporter
May very unlucky.
Happy with 2 weeks for lewis. He can warm the pine. Hopefully he cones back and can average 110-115 from his return till the end
May would have copped the 2 weeks because his shoulder connected with Rocky's jaw
Lewis 2 weeks seems right to me
Expect Hodge to 3, possibly 4
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 04:15:20 PM
Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 8m8 minutes ago
Stephen May can accept 2 games for rough conduct against Tom Rockliff. Nick Robertson can accept $1000 for striking Tom Nicholls.
May is unlucky in my opinion strong tackle. Rough conduct you have got to be joking and I am a Lions supporter
Had MAy been shorter then he would have been fine. Due to his height his shoulder hit Rocky's jaw
Does not sound to flash for Hodge high impact with potential to cause injury 4 weeks sounds about right ?
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 04:15:20 PM
Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 8m8 minutes ago
Stephen May can accept 2 games for rough conduct against Tom Rockliff. Nick Robertson can accept $1000 for striking Tom Nicholls.
May is unlucky in my opinion strong tackle. Rough conduct you have got to be joking and I am a Lions supporter
Think May is a little unlucky and Lewis is quite lucky.
Quote from: Capper on May 04, 2015, 04:32:37 PM
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 04:15:20 PM
Patrick Keane â€@AFL_PKeane 8m8 minutes ago
Stephen May can accept 2 games for rough conduct against Tom Rockliff. Nick Robertson can accept $1000 for striking Tom Nicholls.
May is unlucky in my opinion strong tackle. Rough conduct you have got to be joking and I am a Lions supporter
Had MAy been shorter then he would have been fine. Due to his height his shoulder hit Rocky's jaw
For some reason I am thinking Buddy vs Cousins.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/afl-greats-slam-lance-franklins-suspension-for-rough-conduct/story-e6frg12c-1225766687965
Thought 3 for Lewis, 4 for Hodge but 2 and 3 would probably be right.
The biggest thing working against May is how freakin huge he is. That hit was massive, but really just an unlucky high bump.
What i hate is that Yarra got 3 weeks, 1 more than May who went in to bump and get the ball. Whilst Yarran was more interested in fighting not playing AFL.
I think fighting is bringing the game in to disrepute and should get more
Quote from: shaker on May 04, 2015, 04:35:04 PM
Does not sound to flash for Hodge high impact with potential to cause injury 4 weeks sounds about right ?
He's in a bit of strife thats for sure, big fan of Hodgey but that stuff left the game in the 80's. A brain fart on his part and not a great look. Let himself down badly there. 4 sounds like the right number 5 i can't see and 3 probably isnt enough.
Quote from: Ricochet on May 04, 2015, 04:12:53 PM
May got two weeks as well! wow
That's ridiculous IMHO! The bump is part of the game. It's not like he blindsided Rockliff or shirt fronted him Byron Pickett style. He would have been in Rockliffs vision, you would have thought that the closer they both got to the ball and each other the more likely he should be to expect body contact.
The bump is an integral part of our game and it's history! Yes, by all means stamp out the dangerous shirt front and protect the player with their head over the ball or the blind sided bump but I think this is just being over cautious..... Had he not been knocked out we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 04:42:06 PM
Quote from: shaker on May 04, 2015, 04:35:04 PM
Does not sound to flash for Hodge high impact with potential to cause injury 4 weeks sounds about right ?
He's in a bit of strife thats for sure, big fan of Hodgey but that stuff left the game in the 80's. A brain fart on his part and not a great look. Let himself down badly there. 4 sounds like the right number 5 i can't see and 3 probably isnt enough.
I will probably have to trade him if he is out for 4 round 11 bye would mean only playing 1 game out of 6 :(
Quote from: Woppa15 on May 04, 2015, 04:51:37 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 04, 2015, 04:12:53 PM
May got two weeks as well! wow
That's ridiculous IMHO! The bump is part of the game. It's not like he blindsided Rockliff or shirt fronted him Byron Pickett style. He would have been in Rockliffs vision, you would have thought that the closer they both got to the ball and each other the more likely he should be to expect body contact.
The bump is an integral part of our game and it's history! Yes, by all means stamp out the dangerous shirt front and protect the player with their head over the ball or the blind sided bump but I think this is just being over cautious..... Had he not been knocked out we wouldn't even be talking about this.
http://www.lions.com.au/news/2015-05-04/players-need-to-stand-up
Rockliff said he did not see Suns defender Steven May coming before the contact that sent the Lions Captain to the ground.
“I remember running back for the ball, thinking I had the 50 to myself,’’ he said.
“I didn’t see him at all until about the last two steps and then I was out before I hit the ground.’’
Agree the charge is ridiculous and as has been said May is a giant at 190cm and 101kg compared to Rocky's 184cm and 85kg and this ino doubt had the greater impact. There was obviously no intent by May and if there was could accept a sanction. If Hodge only gets 3 for his actions and May gets 2 for this something is wrong.
How it is possible that May gets the same as Lewis? Does the MRP just needa be mentioned in the papers again for being a bunch of spastic muppets?
Quote from: petefisker on May 04, 2015, 05:06:28 PM
How it is possible that May gets the same as Lewis? Does the MRP just needa be mentioned in the papers again for being a bunch of spastic muppets?
Have to agree, Lewis can count himself very lucky, May's was an accident Lewis had intention on his mind the difference between the two incidents is pretty large.
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
Quote from: Woppa15 on May 04, 2015, 04:51:37 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 04, 2015, 04:12:53 PM
May got two weeks as well! wow
That's ridiculous IMHO! The bump is part of the game. It's not like he blindsided Rockliff or shirt fronted him Byron Pickett style. He would have been in Rockliffs vision, you would have thought that the closer they both got to the ball and each other the more likely he should be to expect body contact.
The bump is an integral part of our game and it's history! Yes, by all means stamp out the dangerous shirt front and protect the player with their head over the ball or the blind sided bump but I think this is just being over cautious..... Had he not been knocked out we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Unfortunately it's less a part of the game than it used to be. If you elect to bump and make contact to the head, especially if you knock a guy out, you're going to get suspended. Accident or not.
I don't like it but that's they way it's been for at least a few years now.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on May 04, 2015, 04:28:10 PM
May would have copped the 2 weeks because his shoulder connected with Rocky's jaw
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
Quote from: elephants on May 04, 2015, 05:19:21 PM
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
I stand by what I said :-X
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
What a load of BS.
May was bumping a shorter guy out of the contest which is part of the game (he is very unlucky)...
Lewis had a deliberate cheap shot at a blokes head (very lucky he didnt break Goldys jaw)...
They need to start putting more emphases on intent and not just results of impact...
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.
Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Saving grace is it was a marking contest and he was fisting at the ball. Clearly an unrealistic attempt, but that is the definition of 'careless'
" Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence"
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:54:20 PM
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.
Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.
surely he would have ruled himself out from hearing/deliberating on Lewis' case for 'conflict of interest' reasons having been a recent team-mate of his?? ::) :-\ :-X :P ;)
I didn't get a good look at the May/Rockliff incident so I won't comment on that one specifically ... but generally regardless I understand that they have to protect the head of all players so regardless of whether there is a size differential there is always likely going to be time for a hit/clash of heads ... only one I really disagree with was Fyfe on Ristchitelli last year ... also compare Viney acquittal ...
having said that I agree with Cambo's comment that the emphasis should be on the intent not just the result of the impact ...
Lewis' should be intentional, he was late and still gave the whack full force - not very different to Vickery on Cox ... :P :-X
imo ...
Lewis 3wks
Hodge 4wks
Quote from: elephants on May 04, 2015, 05:19:21 PM
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
Hahahaha, love your work ele!
May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.
Quote from: Nige on May 04, 2015, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 04, 2015, 05:19:21 PM
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.
+1
Quote from: j959 on May 04, 2015, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: Nige on May 04, 2015, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 04, 2015, 05:19:21 PM
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.
+1
If you elect to bump, you have the responsibility not to hit your opponent's head, unless you have no other choice (eg bracing yourself). Whether or not people agree with it (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, here I don't), that's the way it is, and players know that.
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on May 04, 2015, 10:22:13 PM
Quote from: j959 on May 04, 2015, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: Nige on May 04, 2015, 06:48:25 PM
Quote from: elephants on May 04, 2015, 05:19:21 PM
All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball
May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.
+1
If you elect to bump, you have the responsibility not to hit your opponent's head, unless you have no other choice (eg bracing yourself). Whether or not people agree with it (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, here I don't), that's the way it is, and players know that.
Yeah, that's what I was saying. May's intention was clear (as in bumping Rocky), but ultimately the execution was poor and unfortunately he unintentionally got Rocky high and is now gonna pay the price.
I still can't believe Rocky returned to action so soon though.
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:54:20 PM
Quote from: Ringo on May 04, 2015, 05:49:10 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:25:08 PM
Quote from: Grazz on May 04, 2015, 05:23:22 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 04, 2015, 05:15:29 PM
For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.
Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh
This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.
Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there
That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.
Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.
Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.
IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??
#conflictofinterest
Quote from: Capper on May 04, 2015, 11:49:41 PM
IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??
#conflictofinterest
Luke Ball was also appointed and it might have something to do with them both actually having a feel for the modern game and being smart
Quote from: Mat0369 on May 04, 2015, 11:52:36 PM
Quote from: Capper on May 04, 2015, 11:49:41 PM
IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??
#conflictofinterest
Luke Ball was also appointed and it might have something to do with them both actually having a feel for the modern game and being smart
so if they both have a feel for the game then how did Yarran only get 3 weeks for that punch??
As Gerard said, do you need a steal chair to get 4 weeks at the tribunal??
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 12:01:27 AM
so if they both have a feel for the game then how did Yarran only get 3 weeks for that punch??
As Gerard said, do you need a steal chair to get 4 weeks at the tribunal??
Yaz went to the tribunal, Lewis didn't. The new system is supposed to be to the advantage of the players, they have room to move and Hodge was sent to the tribunal instead of only getting 3 under the MRP system for what they deemed to be a serious offense.
And 3 for Yaz was right, I don't get what the issue is? I was honestly surprised that Lewis didn't get 1 and he actually would have if it was graded correctly, they used the wiggle room to bump it up to two.
I think they got the Lewis decision wrong.
I agree the May decision is unlucky.
I think the Hodge decision is the one they have right out of the 3.
If they want the rubbish acts out of the game, and I agree that there is no place for it, you need to penalise those who choose to perform the act. Lewis' act was clearly more than 'reckless'... very lucky boy (and will this deter him from doing this again?!? me thinks not). There is a huge push in society about penalties for a 'one punch' scenarios based on the damage that could be attributed from same... the Lewis/Goldy incident could have ended VERY poorly, and from the footage I've seen, the intent was clearly there, not just reckless action.
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on May 04, 2015, 04:28:10 PM
May would have copped the 2 weeks because his shoulder connected with Rocky's jaw
I have to disagree. Was a fair bump, from what I saw didn't connect the jaw and is only suspended because of the concussion. Surely Gold Coast will challenge.
On the Hodge incident I still maintain Swallow made it look worse by diving. He didn't need to make a dive, not that it will help at the tribunal. Should get same or less than Yarran.
Quote from: AaronKirk on May 05, 2015, 01:11:00 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on May 04, 2015, 04:28:10 PM
May would have copped the 2 weeks because his shoulder connected with Rocky's jaw
I have to disagree. Was a fair bump, from what I saw didn't connect the jaw and is only suspended because of the concussion. Surely Gold Coast will challenge.
On the Hodge incident I still maintain Swallow made it look worse by diving. He didn't need to make a dive, not that it will help at the tribunal. Should get same or less than Yarran.
Gotta disagree there. He was out before he hit the turf.
Agree with Hodge's, definitely less than Yarran's.
May taking the risk and wish him well.
AFL retweeted
AFL Tribunal â€@AFLTribunal 3m3 minutes ago
Steven May (Gold Coast) will contest his charge tonight. His case will be heard before Luke Hodge's.
Quote from: Ringo on May 05, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
May taking the risk and wish him well.
AFL retweeted
AFL Tribunal â€@AFLTribunal 3m3 minutes ago
Steven May (Gold Coast) will contest his charge tonight. His case will be heard before Luke Hodge's.
will it still be 2 if he loses??
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 11:06:27 AM
Quote from: Ringo on May 05, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
May taking the risk and wish him well.
AFL retweeted
AFL Tribunal â€@AFLTribunal 3m3 minutes ago
Steven May (Gold Coast) will contest his charge tonight. His case will be heard before Luke Hodge's.
will it still be 2 if he loses??
3 I think
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Quote from: H1bb3i2d on May 05, 2015, 08:38:07 AM
Quote from: AaronKirk on May 05, 2015, 01:11:00 AM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on May 04, 2015, 04:28:10 PM
May would have copped the 2 weeks because his shoulder connected with Rocky's jaw
I have to disagree. Was a fair bump, from what I saw didn't connect the jaw and is only suspended because of the concussion. Surely Gold Coast will challenge.
On the Hodge incident I still maintain Swallow made it look worse by diving. He didn't need to make a dive, not that it will help at the tribunal. Should get same or less than Yarran.
Gotta disagree there. He was out before he hit the turf.
Agree with Hodge's, definitely less than Yarran's.
(http://i.gyazo.com/97627642a6ff404d9bc4fb617fa8cb6d.png)
Quote from: Ricochet on May 05, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Lewis should play lotto today. If May loses the appeal and gets 3 it makes you wonder...
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 05, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Lewis should play lotto today. If May loses the appeal and gets 3 it makes you wonder...
Nah for me I think it should have been 3 weeks, in real time it looks clearly like Goldy has taken the ball and then Lewis swings his arm to cop him after the fact - he hasn't just left his arm out and coat hangered him, there's definitely a movement after Goldy had the ball. I reckon it was intentional, though I can definitely see how the MRP might have given him some benefit of the doubt. I think the fact that Goldy played on and did ok probably helps his case but for me it was pretty ugly and hard to see how a player of Lewis' experience and caliber could genuinely have thought they could spoil...
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 02:44:40 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 05, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Lewis should play lotto today. If May loses the appeal and gets 3 it makes you wonder...
Nah for me I think it should have been 3 weeks, in real time it looks clearly like Goldy has taken the ball and then Lewis swings his arm to cop him after the fact - he hasn't just left his arm out and coat hangered him, there's definitely a movement after Goldy had the ball. I reckon it was intentional, though I can definitely see how the MRP might have given him some benefit of the doubt. I think the fact that Goldy played on and did ok probably helps his case but for me it was pretty ugly and hard to see how a player of Lewis' experience and caliber could genuinely have thought they could spoil...
That was my point Kiwi. Lewis extremely lucky. May could end up with 3 weeks for his hit on Rocky, and I don't think that's fair in comparison
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 02:44:40 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 05, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Lewis should play lotto today. If May loses the appeal and gets 3 it makes you wonder...
Nah for me I think it should have been 3 weeks, in real time it looks clearly like Goldy has taken the ball and then Lewis swings his arm to cop him after the fact - he hasn't just left his arm out and coat hangered him, there's definitely a movement after Goldy had the ball. I reckon it was intentional, though I can definitely see how the MRP might have given him some benefit of the doubt. I think the fact that Goldy played on and did ok probably helps his case but for me it was pretty ugly and hard to see how a player of Lewis' experience and caliber could genuinely have thought they could spoil...
That was my point Kiwi. Lewis extremely lucky. May could end up with 3 weeks for his hit on Rocky, and I don't think that's fair in comparison
I doubt the tribunal will give him 3 even if they do find him guilty, will leave it at 2 I think ...
I've now seen the May/Rocky incident albeit only a couple of times on Talking Footy last night - I still agree with the head as sacrosanct but I think it's a Viney situation ie what else was he supposed to do? just going for the ball and unlucky to make contact with Rocky's head imo - ie I don't think his intent was to bump, just protect his space and contest the ball ...
Lewis' was definitely intentional, should have been 3 which says the MRP is still flowered like last year but not quite as much so far ... ;)
i'm not sure how some can say that Swallow was acting - i'm no brick showerhouse but i'm not a shrinking violent either but if I got an elbow to my jaw/head I wasn't expecting (ie king-hit/coward's punch) i'm sure i'd be down an out ... ;)
Hodgey has to get 4 imo - let's see what the tribunal think, good test imo ... along with May ... :)
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 02:44:40 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on May 05, 2015, 11:10:26 AM
Lewis has accepted his 2 weeks as well
Lewis should play lotto today. If May loses the appeal and gets 3 it makes you wonder...
Nah for me I think it should have been 3 weeks, in real time it looks clearly like Goldy has taken the ball and then Lewis swings his arm to cop him after the fact - he hasn't just left his arm out and coat hangered him, there's definitely a movement after Goldy had the ball. I reckon it was intentional, though I can definitely see how the MRP might have given him some benefit of the doubt. I think the fact that Goldy played on and did ok probably helps his case but for me it was pretty ugly and hard to see how a player of Lewis' experience and caliber could genuinely have thought they could spoil...
That was my point Kiwi. Lewis extremely lucky. May could end up with 3 weeks for his hit on Rocky, and I don't think that's fair in comparison
Ahhhh sorry misinterpreted "play lotto" as challenge and go to tribunal :P never mind me!
May found guilty and out for 3 matches.
What a load of crock that is. And they wonder why people hated the previous system, its looking like this one is going to be even worse.
After that im expecting Hodge to get atleast 5, eventhough i dont think it is worth anymore than 3.
Wow what a load of shower
Absolutely ridiculous, expect Hodge to be fresh for finals footy if the same harshness applies
3 weeks for May?
How the flower does he cop the same as Yarran's haymaker?
2 was fair.
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
They're going to start suspending players for high tackles the way they're going. That was one of the best hip n shoulders I've seen... And he gets 3 weeks for it.
Protect the head? I'd rather protect the sport.
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
I think for me it comes down to the comparison with Lewis, and the malicious intent in that incident
If you want to give May 5 weeks, fine. But what does it actually achieve? Is May going to approach each contest differently now? No, of course not. This stuff is instinctive for him and every other player not named Jack Watts.
If I remember correctly, there was an outrage when Buddy bumped Cousins, only a lot of people were bagging Buddy because, well, Buddy is Buddy.
The bump died then.
Don't agree in certain circumstances, but I don't make the policies (which the players all know) and for the record, nor do I support the death penalty.
Quote from: Nige on May 05, 2015, 06:32:46 PM
3 weeks for May?
How the flower does he cop the same as Yarran's haymaker?
2 was fair.
I've only seen the incident twice on reply (and not at normal speed mind you) but ...
flower me!
would've thought even if guilty they wouldn't have given him 3 ... ::)
this should be a Viney type appeal!!! >:( ;)
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
I think for me it comes down to the comparison with Lewis, and the malicious intent in that incident
Lewis probably should have gotten 3 weeks, and if May didn't challenge he would've only received a 2 week suspension, which is a lot better. I honestly have no idea why May challenged, he was gone from the moment he made contact with Rocky's jaw.
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 07:03:31 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
I think for me it comes down to the comparison with Lewis, and the malicious intent in that incident
Lewis probably should have gotten 3 weeks, and if May didn't challenge he would've only received a 2 week suspension, which is a lot better. I honestly have no idea why May challenged, he was gone from the moment he made contact with Rocky's jaw.
I didn't see it as a bump but maybe only seeing it twice in replay isn't a fair indication of the incident??
I saw it as him contesting for the ball and Rocky comes in last minute from his point of view ...
saw commentary indicating tribunal directions to jury saying if he had no other alternative as in he could've picked up the ball ... from what I saw that's what he was about to do and then Rocky is there so he braces for impact, but again, maybe the replays aren't quite in total context?? ???
Two weeks for Lewis is rubbish, how that was classed as careless and not intentional is beyond me. Three weeks for May is too harsh. If Hodge gets 3 the consistency/fairness of the MRP is a joke, again.
Quote from: j959 on May 05, 2015, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 07:03:31 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
I think for me it comes down to the comparison with Lewis, and the malicious intent in that incident
Lewis probably should have gotten 3 weeks, and if May didn't challenge he would've only received a 2 week suspension, which is a lot better. I honestly have no idea why May challenged, he was gone from the moment he made contact with Rocky's jaw.
I didn't see it as a bump but maybe only seeing it twice in replay isn't a fair indication of the incident??
I saw it as him contesting for the ball and Rocky comes in last minute from his point of view ...
saw commentary indicating tribunal directions to jury saying if he had no other alternative as in he could've picked up the ball ... from what I saw that's what he was about to do and then Rocky is there so he braces for impact, but again, maybe the replays aren't quite in total context?? ???
May's case was that his only option was to bump Rocky before going for the ball. Jury said he could've gone for the ball without bumping. So he clearly knew Rocky was there :P
Don't get me wrong, he's extremely unlucky, but you just can't make contact to the head any more and expect to play the next week, whether it's accidental or not.
Quote from: PiPies on May 05, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
Two weeks for Lewis is rubbish, how that was classed as careless and not intentional is beyond me. Three weeks for May is too harsh. If Hodge gets 3 the consistency/fairness of the MRP is a joke, again.
Common sense says that the severity of the penalties should be Hodge/Yarran equally as bad then Lewis then May.
I would have thought anyway. Also I thought you couldn't take a discount for a guilty plea under the new system but the AFL council seems awfully happy to hand out reduced sentences.....
hodge 3 weeks...
Bollocks!
Quote from: honza on May 05, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: tmac16 on May 05, 2015, 07:24:51 PM
hodge 3 weeks...
Anyone else 5 weeks
Yarran hooked a bloke and got the same
Wtf are you talking about
While I agree that this should have been 3 weeks. Precident set with Yarran.
I disagree with the May verdict. If they Adjudicated that May was guilty they should have held it at 2. To me it shows a lack of common sense in consistency.
Quote from: Woppa15 on May 05, 2015, 07:16:29 PM
Quote from: PiPies on May 05, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
Two weeks for Lewis is rubbish, how that was classed as careless and not intentional is beyond me. Three weeks for May is too harsh. If Hodge gets 3 the consistency/fairness of the MRP is a joke, again.
Common sense says that the severity of the penalties should be Hodge/Yarran equally as bad then Lewis then May.
I would have thought anyway. Also I thought you couldn't take a discount for a guilty plea under the new system but the AFL council seems awfully happy to hand out reduced sentences.....
Yes that's how I see it as do plenty of others I'd say.
Quote from: Big Mac on May 05, 2015, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: honza on May 05, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: tmac16 on May 05, 2015, 07:24:51 PM
hodge 3 weeks...
Anyone else 5 weeks
Yarran hooked a bloke and got the same
Wtf are you talking about
Matter of opinion. It's about the weight distribution and inertia. A hook punch loses its inertia on impact (unless your arm's built of lead). Putting your weight behind your elbow and lining someone up is a serious hit.
There's a reason why basic hits in martial arts are hitting (not slapping) with the palm of the hand.
Glad I don't have to explain it to juniors, and make it sound sensible. >:(
3 seems reasonable.
My man crush remains intact. :-*
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 07:13:04 PM
Quote from: j959 on May 05, 2015, 07:09:45 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 07:03:31 PM
Quote from: js19 on May 05, 2015, 06:43:47 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 06:40:06 PM
I don't get why you are all so surprised. He chose to bump. He got Rocky in the jaw, knocking him out cold. Rocky may not play this week because of it.
Did he intend to make high contact? No. Does that matter? No.
I think for me it comes down to the comparison with Lewis, and the malicious intent in that incident
Lewis probably should have gotten 3 weeks, and if May didn't challenge he would've only received a 2 week suspension, which is a lot better. I honestly have no idea why May challenged, he was gone from the moment he made contact with Rocky's jaw.
I didn't see it as a bump but maybe only seeing it twice in replay isn't a fair indication of the incident??
I saw it as him contesting for the ball and Rocky comes in last minute from his point of view ...
saw commentary indicating tribunal directions to jury saying if he had no other alternative as in he could've picked up the ball ... from what I saw that's what he was about to do and then Rocky is there so he braces for impact, but again, maybe the replays aren't quite in total context?? ???
May's case was that his only option was to bump Rocky before going for the ball. Jury said he could've gone for the ball without bumping. So he clearly knew Rocky was there :P
Don't get me wrong, he's extremely unlucky, but you just can't make contact to the head any more and expect to play the next week, whether it's accidental or not.
Except plenty of players have in the best. Off the top of my head Franklin and Ballentyne both in the exact situation last year and got off completely free (rightly so as well)
Shouldn't make a difference if Rockliff had to go to hospital either, Darren Glass sent Chad Wingard to hospital and only got 1 week for it
lmao 3 weeks for Hodge is a complete joke, I guess he's a brave champion of the game still ::)
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 07:57:09 PM
lmao 3 weeks for Hodge is a complete joke, I guess he's a brave champion of the game still ::)
Come on Nancy,
Hit him but no blood. Swallow kept playing. 3 weeks seems fair.
3 for May is a load of crap though - even though Rocky was knocked out and he chose to bump which we all know is a risky choice given the current climate.
Quote from: tor01doc on May 05, 2015, 08:02:51 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 07:57:09 PM
lmao 3 weeks for Hodge is a complete joke, I guess he's a brave champion of the game still ::)
Come on Nancy,
Hit him but no blood. Swallow kept playing. 3 weeks seems fair.
3 for May is a load of crap though - even though Rocky was knocked out and he chose to bump which we all know is a risky choice given the current climate.
I'm ok with Hodge getting 3 if Lewis gets 3, May gets 0 and Yarran gets 4 but there is 0 consistency at all.
Disappointing to say the least as its fast becoming a lottery once again
Quote from: honza on May 05, 2015, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: Big Mac on May 05, 2015, 07:29:07 PM
Quote from: honza on May 05, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
Quote from: tmac16 on May 05, 2015, 07:24:51 PM
hodge 3 weeks...
Anyone else 5 weeks
Yarran hooked a bloke and got the same
Wtf are you talking about
Matter of opinion. It's about the weight distribution and inertia. A hook punch loses its inertia on impact (unless your arm's built of lead). Putting your weight behind your elbow and lining someone up is a serious hit.
There's a reason why basic hits in martial arts are hitting (not slapping) with the palm of the hand.
Not sure inertia is the right word there (don't think it can be lost or gained) but the momentum of Yarran's punch is transferred straight to Chappy's head. None is 'lost'. A hook can easily be just as lethal as what Hodge did.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: tor01doc on May 05, 2015, 08:02:51 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 07:57:09 PM
lmao 3 weeks for Hodge is a complete joke, I guess he's a brave champion of the game still ::)
Come on Nancy,
Hit him but no blood. Swallow kept playing. 3 weeks seems fair.
3 for May is a load of crap though - even though Rocky was knocked out and he chose to bump which we all know is a risky choice given the current climate.
I'm ok with Hodge getting 3 if Lewis gets 3, May gets 0 and Yarran gets 4 but there is 0 consistency at all.
Disappointing to say the least as its fast becoming a lottery once again
So Mt2,
Can we agree on
May - a reprimand
Lewis - 2 (down from 3 because he copped it sweet)
Yarran - 3 - a better punch than any seen in that farce of the century the other day
Hodge - 3?
Quote from: tor01doc on May 05, 2015, 08:14:00 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 08:07:11 PM
Quote from: tor01doc on May 05, 2015, 08:02:51 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 07:57:09 PM
lmao 3 weeks for Hodge is a complete joke, I guess he's a brave champion of the game still ::)
Come on Nancy,
Hit him but no blood. Swallow kept playing. 3 weeks seems fair.
3 for May is a load of crap though - even though Rocky was knocked out and he chose to bump which we all know is a risky choice given the current climate.
I'm ok with Hodge getting 3 if Lewis gets 3, May gets 0 and Yarran gets 4 but there is 0 consistency at all.
Disappointing to say the least as its fast becoming a lottery once again
So Mt2,
Can we agree on
May - a reprimand
Lewis - 2 (down from 3 because he copped it sweet)
Yarran - 3 - a better punch than any seen in that farce of the century the other day
Hodge - 3?
To some extent yes, Hodge was very lucky though. Any significant damage to Swallow and that's reaching Barry Hall territory
When a player elects to make contact with another player rather the ball first and makes contact with head then he is flowered, doubly flowered if he knocks him out. This has always been the case. The means May was always going to lose his appeal, dumb move by Gold Coast to appeal and a complete waste of time.
you may disagree with this but when dealing with concussion firm rules need to apply and the AFL should be applauded for its stance on this.
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
a lot of people on here are talking from the view of their team and not viewing the situation as it stands
I think it was harsh that May got 3 for that as it is now on the same level as Hodge and Yarran.
Yes May bumped but he didnt stand there and clock a bloke like Yarran and Hodge.
That stinks to me
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
I agree that hodge, and yarran's hit, should have got more.
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's
Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's
Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky
Yeah so having eyes on the ball = 0 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Top stuff AFL
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
I agree with Jayman, you're right about the guilty/not guilty thing but I think it's being looked at totally the wrong way...
Hodge: deliberate act, intent was to hurt the player, not in game play situation = slam him
May: deliberate act, intent was to improve his chances playing the ball, genuine option in game situation = unfortunate accident. Maybe, MAYBE 1 week because of the effect it had in ko-ing Rockliff, but it's a completely legal and legitimate option. Yet both garner the same penalty at the end of the day, that makes no sense.
I totally understand the stance the AFL are taking in terms of protecting player welfare etc but at some point you have to say that something is just part of the game. They're trying to stamp out the head contact because it makes it safer for the players... Well it would also be safer for the players if they were playing cards instead of AFL, but they're not. So either the bump becomes a completely illegal option in any respect at any time, or incidents like this are regarded as undesirable and unfortunate, but a genuine act of the game and should have something like a 1 week max regardless of the damage to the other player. It's a different story if there's no intent to play the ball and you're just taking someone out, but this I think was totally legit, I can totally understand why May challeneged it and I think he should be very upset with the result.
Brad Sewell looking after Hodgey?
Agree with the discussions around the lack of consistency.
Throwing your elbow into someone's face vs laying a bump that clips a guy's jaw simply because you are taller and bigger than him shouldn't get the same amount of weeks
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on May 05, 2015, 09:54:34 PM
Brad Sewell looking after Hodgey?
Agree with the discussions around the lack of consistency.
Throwing your elbow into someone's face vs laying a bump that clips a guy's jaw simply because you are taller and bigger than him shouldn't get the same amount of weeks
If you look at the footage again you will see that it was the forearm that grazed the face of Swallow and not the elbow.
If the elbow connected he would have been in Barry Hall territory.
Yeah my bad, I meant forearm not elbow
Either way, its a horrible look and shouldn't be given the same penalty as May
May verdict is so wrong! They said he had the option of picking up the ball. If he did that Rocky would have cleaned him up!
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
That's where the system is flawed. May appealed because he genuinely believed he was not guilty. Hodge/Lewis didn't appeal because they new they were!
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
I agree with Jayman, you're right about the guilty/not guilty thing but I think it's being looked at totally the wrong way...
Hodge: deliberate act, intent was to hurt the player, not in game play situation = slam him
May: deliberate act, intent was to improve his chances playing the ball, genuine option in game situation = unfortunate accident. Maybe, MAYBE 1 week because of the effect it had in ko-ing Rockliff, but it's a completely legal and legitimate option. Yet both garner the same penalty at the end of the day, that makes no sense.
I totally understand the stance the AFL are taking in terms of protecting player welfare etc but at some point you have to say that something is just part of the game. They're trying to stamp out the head contact because it makes it safer for the players... Well it would also be safer for the players if they were playing cards instead of AFL, but they're not. So either the bump becomes a completely illegal option in any respect at any time, or incidents like this are regarded as undesirable and unfortunate, but a genuine act of the game and should have something like a 1 week max regardless of the damage to the other player. It's a different story if there's no intent to play the ball and you're just taking someone out, but this I think was totally legit, I can totally understand why May challeneged it and I think he should be very upset with the result.
This, I believe, is as close to the truth as I have seen.
AFL have got it wrong.
It is a physical game with risks. It cannot be sanitised to this degree of it will suffer.
The gladiatorial aspect (not the sniping, cowardly king hit aspect) needs to be respected.
A fine line has been transgressed.
Quote from: tor01doc on May 06, 2015, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
I agree with Jayman, you're right about the guilty/not guilty thing but I think it's being looked at totally the wrong way...
Hodge: deliberate act, intent was to hurt the player, not in game play situation = slam him
May: deliberate act, intent was to improve his chances playing the ball, genuine option in game situation = unfortunate accident. Maybe, MAYBE 1 week because of the effect it had in ko-ing Rockliff, but it's a completely legal and legitimate option. Yet both garner the same penalty at the end of the day, that makes no sense.
I totally understand the stance the AFL are taking in terms of protecting player welfare etc but at some point you have to say that something is just part of the game. They're trying to stamp out the head contact because it makes it safer for the players... Well it would also be safer for the players if they were playing cards instead of AFL, but they're not. So either the bump becomes a completely illegal option in any respect at any time, or incidents like this are regarded as undesirable and unfortunate, but a genuine act of the game and should have something like a 1 week max regardless of the damage to the other player. It's a different story if there's no intent to play the ball and you're just taking someone out, but this I think was totally legit, I can totally understand why May challeneged it and I think he should be very upset with the result.
This, I believe, is as close to the truth as I have seen.
AFL have got it wrong.
It is a physical game with risks. It cannot be sanitised to this degree of it will suffer.
The gladiatorial aspect (not the sniping, cowardly king hit aspect) needs to be respected.
A fine line has been transgressed.
Well put GCS great summation.
Rocky had already mentioned he did not see May until too late and May had the intent of bumping Rocky off the ball to gain possession quite a legitimate tactic and if we are to give players 3 weeks for this something is wrong with the system.
As has been said the flaw in the system is pleading guilty. They did away with carry over points this year maybe it is time they did away with concessions for guilty plea if they are really serious about protecting players welfare. Have a set penalties for all offences which is totally transparent and the only appeal for players is the grading deliberate or reckless.
Quote from: Ringo on May 06, 2015, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: tor01doc on May 06, 2015, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.
Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?
On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.
I agree with Jayman, you're right about the guilty/not guilty thing but I think it's being looked at totally the wrong way...
Hodge: deliberate act, intent was to hurt the player, not in game play situation = slam him
May: deliberate act, intent was to improve his chances playing the ball, genuine option in game situation = unfortunate accident. Maybe, MAYBE 1 week because of the effect it had in ko-ing Rockliff, but it's a completely legal and legitimate option. Yet both garner the same penalty at the end of the day, that makes no sense.
I totally understand the stance the AFL are taking in terms of protecting player welfare etc but at some point you have to say that something is just part of the game. They're trying to stamp out the head contact because it makes it safer for the players... Well it would also be safer for the players if they were playing cards instead of AFL, but they're not. So either the bump becomes a completely illegal option in any respect at any time, or incidents like this are regarded as undesirable and unfortunate, but a genuine act of the game and should have something like a 1 week max regardless of the damage to the other player. It's a different story if there's no intent to play the ball and you're just taking someone out, but this I think was totally legit, I can totally understand why May challeneged it and I think he should be very upset with the result.
This, I believe, is as close to the truth as I have seen.
AFL have got it wrong.
It is a physical game with risks. It cannot be sanitised to this degree of it will suffer.
The gladiatorial aspect (not the sniping, cowardly king hit aspect) needs to be respected.
A fine line has been transgressed.
Well put GCS great summation.
Rocky had already mentioned he did not see May until too late and May had the intent of bumping Rocky off the ball to gain possession quite a legitimate tactic and if we are to give players 3 weeks for this something is wrong with the system.
As has been said the flaw in the system is pleading guilty. They did away with carry over points this year maybe it is time they did away with concessions for guilty plea if they are really serious about protecting players welfare. Have a set penalties for all offences which is totally transparent and the only appeal for players is the grading deliberate or reckless.
If you don't have the pleading guilty/not guilty though, what's to stop players from appealing everything? It'd be a mess.
With May - I hate the rule, but, he knew that if found guilty he would cop 3 weeks. No it's nowhere near worth the same as Hodge and more than Lewis, but they knew if they rolled the dice what would happen if it went against them.
Should never have got there in the first place, but that's where we are heading.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's
Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky
Yeah so having eyes on the ball = 0 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Top stuff AFL
Having eyes for the ball depends on context and shouldn't be applied as broadly as it is. People expect that eyes on the ball is innocence. Rubbish. Some players built careers out of seriously injuring people while his eyes were on the ball. E.g. Kevin Muscat.
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's
Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky
Yeah so having eyes on the ball = 0 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Top stuff AFL
Yeah but May was looking at Rocky until after he hit him then looked at the ball. ballatyne was only looking at the ball