Steven May hits Francis Evans

[ReturningHawk]

Because he was.

But that’s opinions isn’t it?

Not really. The “opinion” that he was realistically contesting the ball would have a lot more weight if it was franked by reality. He didn’t touch it.

It’s exactly like every dumb defender who makes late contact to the back of their opponents head: “I was trying to punch the ball!”. Free kick, 50 meters.

 

[SC_Power]

Keep hearing the media say the tribunal found 'he should have predicted the bounce of the ball', but I'm pretty sure they said he shouldnt have charged towards a player at high speed.

What's their defence angle?

Melbourne should invoke the Alex Pearce defence. Emphasising that Pearce had a more predictable contest as he did not have a bouncing ball changing direction, had the entire vision of play and opponent in front of him as well but chose to attack the contest at full speed, was later to the contest and had more time than May did before jumping in the air, colliding with high contact and causing injury.

“Pearce successfully argued against the classification that his actions were careless …. while not challenging the classifications of severe impact and high contact.
…. Fremantle's argument focused on claiming his actions were reasonable in the circumstances, as he was making a realistic attempt to either mark or intercept the ball.
Through defence lawyer Tim Hammond, the Dockers argued that Pearce took the only practical response in the circumstances by trying to impact the contest, suggesting to do otherwise would be against the spirit of the game.
Pearce refuted the suggestion he should have known he was going to be beaten to the ball, saying if he pulled out it would not sit well with him, the team or the wider football public.”

Pearce = good guy discount. May = punchable head penalty.

 

[SC_Power]

Not really. The “opinion” that he was realistically contesting the ball would have a lot more weight if it was franked by reality. He didn’t touch it.

It’s exactly like every dumb defender who makes late contact to the back of their opponents head: “I was trying to punch the ball!”. Free kick, 50 meters.

There are so many high contact incidents in a game where an opponent doesn’t touch the ball ….. doesn’t mean that their actions weren’t realistic.

 

[ReturningHawk]

There are so many high contact incidents in a game where an opponent doesn’t touch the ball ….. doesn’t mean that their actions weren’t realistic.

Which also doesn’t mean they were realistic. That argument doesn’t hold a single drop of water.

The same with the bounce of the ball. We don’t celebrate St Kilda as 2010 premiers. What could’ve happened is irrelevant.

The only compelling argument in May’s favour is to ask about his alternatives. Same with Archer, the answer is that you just can’t sprint into that contest. Most players would slow down.

 

[SC_Power]

Which also doesn’t mean they were realistic. That argument doesn’t hold a single drop of water.

The same with the bounce of the ball. We don’t celebrate St Kilda as 2010 premiers. What could’ve happened is irrelevant.

The only compelling argument in May’s favour is to ask about his alternatives. Same with Archer, the answer is that you just can’t sprint into that contest. Most players would slow down.

Except no one wants to argue why Alex Pearce didn’t have to slow down.
As mentioned, his argument was precisely that he was expected to make a contest, even if he were late to the ball. And he won his appeal based on that argument.

Going around in circles, not going to change anything of course, just my opinion.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Except no one wants to argue why Alex Pearce didn’t have to slow down.
As mentioned, his argument was precisely that he was expected to make a contest, even if he were late to the ball. And he won his appeal based on that argument.

Going around in circles, not going to change anything of course, just my opinion.

I’ve said multiple times in this thread that it’s comparable, but that a player going back with the flight, with no regard for their own safety, cannot expect more protection than what Pearce gave. Francis Evans didn’t change direction, lower his body or do anything to create risk, so he deserves full protection. In DBJ’s case, there is an huge risk created by his own approach to the contest.

And by the way, DBJ should be thanking all his lucky stars that it was Alex Pearce, and not Steven May, coming the other direction.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Melbourne should invoke the Alex Pearce defence. Emphasising that Pearce had a more predictable contest as he did not have a bouncing ball changing direction, had the entire vision of play and opponent in front of him as well but chose to attack the contest at full speed, was later to the contest and had more time than May did before jumping in the air, colliding with high contact and causing injury.

“Pearce successfully argued against the classification that his actions were careless …. while not challenging the classifications of severe impact and high contact.
…. Fremantle's argument focused on claiming his actions were reasonable in the circumstances, as he was making a realistic attempt to either mark or intercept the ball.
Through defence lawyer Tim Hammond, the Dockers argued that Pearce took the only practical response in the circumstances by trying to impact the contest, suggesting to do otherwise would be against the spirit of the game.
Pearce refuted the suggestion he should have known he was going to be beaten to the ball, saying if he pulled out it would not sit well with him, the team or the wider football public.”

Pearce = good guy discount. May = punchable head penalty.

I fully agree that Pearce's was worse. May and Melbourne should feel aggrieved based on the Pearce decision, but they should both be weeks.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I’ve said multiple times in this thread that it’s comparable, but that a player going back with the flight, with no regard for their own safety, cannot expect more protection than what Pearce gave. Francis Evans didn’t change direction, lower his body or do anything to create risk, so he deserves full protection. In DBJ’s case, there is an huge risk created by his own approach to the contest.

Francis Evans does change direction. He's also going with the flight of the ball. Its also with Francis Evans its a loose ball get. Its perfectly legal to collide with a opponent in that situation.

DBJ idn't change direction, or lower body or do anything to create a risk. DBJ was taking a mark, if he doesn't drop the wet ball, what we had was Pearce colliding with an opponent after they've taken a mark. That's a 50m penalty even if he manages to avoid high contact.

There is no legal way for Pearce to collide with Byrne-Jones if DBJ doesn't fumble the mark at the last second.

May smashing into Evans body and grabbing him would be perfectly legal.

 

[ReturningHawk]

Francis Evans does change direction. He's also going with the flight of the ball. Its also with Francis Evans its a loose ball get. Its perfectly legal to collide with a opponent in that situation.

DBJ idn't change direction, or lower body or do anything to create a risk. DBJ was taking a mark, if he doesn't drop the wet ball, what we had was Pearce colliding with an opponent after they've taken a mark. That's a 50m penalty even if he manages to avoid high contact.

There is no legal way for Pearce to collide with Byrne-Jones if DBJ doesn't fumble the mark at the last second.

May smashing into Evans body and grabbing him would be perfectly legal.

I don’t know if this is a joke. The ball was on the ground.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I don’t know if this is a joke. The ball was on the ground.

The ball was in front of him... moving in the same direction as he was.

That means Evans was following the flight of the ball.

And it was actually bouncing along in the air for more than it was on the ground. Because he didn't have to bend down to pick it up.