I'm not sure what is worse, the decision or that it's dubious nature meant that he had to challenge and risk the extra week. Meanwhile Lewis commits a blatant act and is allowed to accept a lesser sentence for an early plea.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
May's hit on Rockcliffe
- Thread starter Wild Bill
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 27, 2013
- 46,992
- 43,989
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur, SSC Napoli, ESH
I hope GC appeal it like Melbourne/Viney last year
Willo_
Trust the Process
- Apr 27, 2010
- 35,237
- 62,327
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- 76ers, Melbourne Roys
Yeah I don't like the fact you can get an extra week for trying to defend yourself and getting a different result.
How is it equal to what Hodge did?
Hodge didn't get a discount for a guilty plea, May challenged so also lost the early plea discount.
Hodge deliberately / intentionally elbowed to the jaw, behind / outside play, player went off semi concussed. Total thug act and admits that. Gets 3 weeks.
May and Rockliff contest loose ball, May blocks the line and being a bit taller accidental high contact was the result. Just like dozens of other contests every week that result in accidental high contact. No malice and no intent to cause injury.
But May cops the same penalty as an outside / behind play deliberate thug act.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,423
- 235,903
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #205
Have seen this written a few times in the media and it's blatantly wrong.
Swallow only left the field after copping an accidental high tackle much later in the game.
Anyway, people need to separate the Hodge/Lewis decisions from the May one. The only similarities are that they were dealt with on the same day. Nothing else.
May's penalty is wrong for completely different reasons.
Here was two guys running at the loose ball, and one decides in a split second decision that he is going to knock the other off the line of the ball, and win it.
This simply should never be up in front of a tribunal.
It's accidental contact to the head, at worst.
This game went completely pear shaped the day that the MRP was told that nothing is accidental, and therefore every injury or piece of contact made above the shoulders should be looked at for penalties.
It's not the way we were taught to play as kids, and it's ludicrous that players can be found guilty of accidental contact to the head, in a sport that is played at such high speed between players of such varying heights.
All we have here is a penalty handed out on the basis of a medical report, if he'd simply got him high but Rockliff had the awareness to spot him coming/brace. Gets up un-injured . Then it's play on. We can't have a medical report dictating the penalty. Otherwise we have intent to injure but not causing damage, getting less than incidental high contact
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Nobody (apart from Hawk fans) defended Roughead for bumping McGlynn in the head last year. Everyone was screaming for him to get suspended. That was almost the same as May, but even less forceful with much lesser impact. Roughie wasn't running fast like May was, nor even looking at McGlynn. He basically stepped across into his path to shield him away from the ball, so he could then take possession. He got done over by a bad bounce and the 30cm difference in height between him and McGlynn.
I just laugh at the way people flip flop on these issues depending on who the person plays for. Robbo on 360' can eat a bag of dicks. He is the biggest oxygen thief in the football media. His attitude last year was "The rules are quite clear. You can't bump anyone in the head. You are responsible for any contact you make with an opponent."
So to hear him defend May (after he had little or no sympathy for Roughie) it just makes me have even less respect for the rubbish which comes from his mouth - if that was even possible.
I just laugh at the way people flip flop on these issues depending on who the person plays for. Robbo on 360' can eat a bag of dicks. He is the biggest oxygen thief in the football media. His attitude last year was "The rules are quite clear. You can't bump anyone in the head. You are responsible for any contact you make with an opponent."
So to hear him defend May (after he had little or no sympathy for Roughie) it just makes me have even less respect for the rubbish which comes from his mouth - if that was even possible.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
They didn't grade the Lewis clip as intentional. They graded it as careless.
The rules state if you accept the early guilty plea, then you get a 1 week discount.
Why should the rules be any different for Lewis purely because you don't like him?
The MRP also said it was high impact (the same as Hodge v Swallow and May v Rockliff)
Interesting that May, Lewis, Hodge and Yarran were all considered to be 'high impact'
- Rockliff was knocked out and carried off on a stretcher
- Chapman was cut open, benched for 20 minutes and was still feeling dusty the following day
- Swallow and Goldstein both got to their feet, took their free kicks. Neither player left the field or suffered any damage
Last edited:
A good hard bump is such an exciting part of our game and unique to our form. I continue to find it astonishing that it is being phased out like this.
In the Hawks/Norf game there was a beautiful bump late in the game that was one of the most exciting things for the crowd, the commentary ... and soon it will be no longer. Just speechless
In the Hawks/Norf game there was a beautiful bump late in the game that was one of the most exciting things for the crowd, the commentary ... and soon it will be no longer. Just speechless
Haha you mean this?
"nor even looking at McGlynn"
Oh, he was looking THROUGH McGlynn?
In this situation, Roughead was coming from a different direction, bumped McGlynn in a congested group of players, shoulder flush to the head, and didn't win the ball. You can't blame it on a 'bad bounce', it wasn't a one on one contested ball situation, there was a pack coming in from all directions - he stuffed up.
In the May situation, he and Rockliff were running side by side, he bumped Rockliff, catching him high and then secured the ball himself. He was barely looking at Rockliff (as opposed to Roughead lining McGlynn up) and beat him in a one on one contest. Should have been a high free kick paid however.
To put it in another way - Rockliff knew May was next to him, McGlynn had no idea Roughead was coming in to clean him up.
Who were the tribunal panellists for the May case ?.
The incident was an accident in play, free kick if anything.
Now if May had stepped over towards Rockliffe and "coathangered" him, he could rightly take an early plea and get 2 weeks !!!!!.
Can't the AFL see the problem ?.
The incident was an accident in play, free kick if anything.
Now if May had stepped over towards Rockliffe and "coathangered" him, he could rightly take an early plea and get 2 weeks !!!!!.
Can't the AFL see the problem ?.
Most of what you said doesn't relate to what you quoted, and you've thrown in some assumption for good measure as well.
My post was about the flaw in the early plea system. Lewis f**ked up and he knew it, so he was always going to take the early plea. May's case appeared to have genuine cause for appeal (especially due to the similarities to the Ballantyne case last year), so they appealed and lost. May has been penalised because his case wasn't as clear cut as Lewis' case.
This is one of the worst decisions I've seen handed down in my time watching footy. Absolute disgrace that a perfect bump - IN PLAY - gets 3 weeks. Totally goes against the nature of the sport. It's highlighted even further by the Hodge/Lewis decisions.
Absurd doesn't even begin to describe it.
Absurd doesn't even begin to describe it.
This game is doomed !!
If a legitimate hip & shoulder gets three-weeks on the sidelines nowadays it's time to start handing out netball bibs.
FMD, the administration have gone overboard on physical contact and are totally ruining the game.
What was the bloke supposed to do, let Rockliff get the ball first, it's a competitive sport, let them compete.
If a legitimate hip & shoulder gets three-weeks on the sidelines nowadays it's time to start handing out netball bibs.
FMD, the administration have gone overboard on physical contact and are totally ruining the game.
What was the bloke supposed to do, let Rockliff get the ball first, it's a competitive sport, let them compete.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
No. You're wrong. Watch it from all angles. Very similar bit of play. Sure, it was more congested, not a footrace toward the goal square. Both McGlynn and Roughie converged on the ball and Roughie tried to bump McGlynn out of the way. The contact was side on. You say he got him "flush in the head" but it was no different to May v Rockliff.
May and Rockliff were not running "side by side". He knocked him out, FFS. How do you suppose that happened? Fairies?
If you watched a bird's eye view of that contest, May ran into Rockliff on a similar angle to Roughead v McGlynn
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
May's case has nothing to do with the Lewis case
It's only the pea-brains like Mark Robinson who try to link these two.
"Similar angle"
Now I know that's disingenuous as the camera angle is different (but so is you claiming "watch a bird's eye view" - how would one do that?), but it's shockingly obvious that Roughead and McGlynn are coming from different directions, whereas May and Rockliff are running in the same direction.
How do I suppose it happened? May is faster than Rockliff. He got to a position before him, bumped him off the ball and got the ball himself, as I described in my original post.
Also, someone telling me "I'm wrong" after they originally posted "Roughie wasn't even looking at him" and being completely wrong themselves... eh, doesn't hold much water with me.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
"Similar angle"
Now I know that's disingenuous as the camera angle is different (but so is you claiming "watch a bird's eye view" - how would one do that?), but it's shockingly obvious that Roughead and McGlynn are coming from different directions, whereas May and Rockliff are running in the same direction.
How do I suppose it happened? May is faster than Rockliff. He got to a position before him, bumped him off the ball and got the ball himself, as I described in my original post.
Also, someone telling me "I'm wrong" after they originally posted "Roughie wasn't even looking at him" and being completely wrong themselves... eh, doesn't hold much water with me.
Maybe I need my eyes checked, but it looks like a similar angle to me
I think you're deceived by the camera angles
Imagine a camera was positioned halfway up the Metricon goal post and zoomed in as close as camera from the SCG pic
One incident was Jarryd Roughead coming from CHF and Ben McGlynn coming from the centre circle.
The other incident was "a footrace toward the goal square" (your words).
There's no way you can say that they're the same.
One angle is OBTUSE - meaning the angles they are coming from are closer to being the opposite direction than they are to being the same direction.
One angle is ACUTE - meaning the angles they are coming from are closer to being the same direction than they are to being opposite direction.
You keep missing my point mate. I'm pointing out the flaw in the early plea system.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The ball is not on a line between McGlynn (centre) and Roughead (CHF). It is closer to the camera and they're both converging on it at right angles. Maybe not quite as "acute" an angle as May v Rockliff, but not a lot different either. I think you're being overly pedantic. I also think you're being swayed by the different camera angles and positioning of the play.
Try to imagine what both incidents would look like from the "down the ground" camera behind the goals. If you can't see that these two collisions are fairly similar (in terms of angle and intent) then there is nothing more I can say. We'll just agree to disagree.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Oh… Sure, it's a flaw. But the whole point of the early plea system is to expedite the process. The AFL brought in the early plea deals to eliminate the tribunals which were dominating the footy landscape from Mon-Fri every week of the season. Teams were calling in QCs, doctors, professors, bio-physicists to try to get their player off a 2-3 week suspension. Massive waste of time and resources. It got out of hand, so the AFL said "Enough of this crap; here's an incentive for you to admit guilt and just take your medicine."
I'm happy to live with this flaw if it means we don't have to discuss f**king tribunal hearings for SIX MONTHS of the year. In the end, what are we arguing about? Lewis got 2 and May got 3. If May got 2 and Lewis got 3 then everyone would be happy? Who f**king cares? Why are discussing this trivial bullshit? What difference does 1 week make?
May should have got 0 weeks.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,070
- 34,291
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Yeah, it was also bullshit that Roughie got suspended last year, but nobody cared
+ Fyfe
There has been a ground swell amongst supporters around the AFL, for these incidents in contesting the ball to be seen as part of the game.
Sure throw the book at "thugs" whacking players behind play or headhunting in marking contests, but let the players contest the ball.
Soccer Mums mentality is infesting the AFL administration.
