Steven May hits Francis Evans

[RCAB]

This is the dumbest thing I've seen. What about the direction the ball is going in? Does that not count. Also anyone who has any idea of 3d space would know your line length isn't an accurate representation of how far the players are from the footy relative to the camera angle.

If you think that May was closer than Evans to the ball... you need to reconsider your life choices up until this point, because your brain is completely fried.

 

[RCAB]

Actually, they specifically referred to the bounce of the ball.

Hence irrelevant. Try to understand it again.

 

[RCAB]

The side on view is best explained here,

The ball is travelling left to right in these pics, bounces at the first photo, and the second is the ball bouncing straight up. You can see Mays hand in the second shot entering from the right.

If that ball bounced in the same direction it was travelling, it would have become a contest to the right of the small white spot on the grass, a genuine 50-50 contest. (Marked with an x on the third shot)

Instead it bounces basically straight up, and Evans gets the ball first.

Instead of looking at the distance between the players, look at the distance to the reasonably expected point of contest. Doesn’t look that far does it. What, a step?
Negligent? Ludicrous in my honest opinion. But that’s the AFL.

View attachment 2376050


View attachment 2376041


View attachment 2376054

Yes should've got four weeks based on those stills.

 

[SC_Power]

Don’t know how else you can describe a situation that didn’t happen. “If things had happened differently, things would’ve been different”.

May didn’t get the ball.

Again, I emphasise, that was the EXACT argument that Pearce successfully used to avoid suspension in the Byrne-Jones incident. Pearce didn’t get the ball. And that if things had happened differently, things would have been different. If it were reasonably and foreseeably different, of course.

And for Pearce, there wasn’t even a bounce of a ball, there was a 6 foot tall player in front of him that he “didn’t see”, and at the last moment when he “saw him” he couldn’t avoid contact. He did have time to jump in the air but not enough time to avoid heavy contact.

And we were all told by the AFL that was a “football incident”. And now we’re told by the AFL that this isn’t.

I’m using italics because all of these terms are subjective, and as such people can put their own interpretation on them to justify their opinion. And in my interpretation, there is no way that a rational mind can consider May’s incident to be worse than Pearce’s.

But that just makes me “irrational”, obviously.

 

[Fadge]

Again, I emphasise, that was the EXACT argument that Pearce successfully used to avoid suspension in the Byrne-Jones incident. Pearce didn’t get the ball.

And there wasn’t even a bounce of a ball, there was a 6 foot tall player in front of him that he “didn’t see”, and at the last moment when he “saw him” he couldn’t avoid contact. He did have time to jump in the air but not enough time to avoid heavy contact.

And we were all told by the AFL that was a “football incident”. And now we’re told by the AFL that this isn’t.

I’m using italics because all of these terms are subjective, and as such people can put their own interpretation on them to justify their opinion. And in my interpretation, there is no way that a rational mind can consider May’s incident to be worse than Pearce’s.

But that just makes me “irrational”, obviously.

It seems the majority of football observers are 'irrational' in this instance...

The decision just has to get overturned on appeal next week.

 

[Carn The Berries]

No Evans wouldn't, he was first to the ball.

This is the idiocy of your (and others) position. You're effectively saying that as long as you get to the ball first, you can cave someone's skull in and that's ok, but if you don't have the ball it's 3 weeks (or even more in your learned opinion).

 

[Carn The Berries]

If somehow May wins the ball and then Evans cannons into his shoulder, then we would be forced to admit that May’s approach to the contest was reasonable.

But he didn’t win the ball, because his approach was unreasonable. This incident has become so much clearer the more I watch it. Evans is chasing a ball towards goal, takes possession, May slams into him, makes high contact, it’s a free kick. People are talking like May approached this contest perfectly, it’s just not true. He got it wrong and he needs to learn to change his approach given it’s not the first time he’s caused serious injury.

See that's the issue here. The only reason May didn't get the ball is because the ball took an unpredictable final bounce. If it hadn't, your first paragraph would have occurred.

So the Tribunal is now saying that reasonableness will now be judged on the unpredictable bounce of an oval shaped ball.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Question, should it have been a free kick? If so, why?

Because he made high contact, like dozens of other free kicks that are paid during a game that don't result in a player being suspended for 3 weeks.

I genuinely have no idea why you think that is relevant.

 

[Carn The Berries]

A collision like that is never a freekick. It wasnt a bump nor a tackle. mro even admitted it wasn't a bump. That was no different to an accidental head clash where neither player gets a free or is deemed culpable. The only thing that stopped both of them being knocked out was Mays height

Ummmmm what? That is a free kick every day of the week.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The side on view is best explained here,

The ball is travelling left to right in these pics, bounces at the first photo, and the second is the ball bouncing straight up. You can see Mays hand in the second shot entering from the right.

If that ball bounced in the same direction it was travelling, it would have become a contest to the right of the small white spot on the grass, a genuine 50-50 contest. (Marked with an x on the third shot)

Instead it bounces basically straight up, and Evans gets the ball first.

Instead of looking at the distance between the players, look at the distance to the reasonably expected point of contest. Doesn’t look that far does it. What, a step?
Negligent? Ludicrous in my honest opinion. But that’s the AFL.

View attachment 2376050


View attachment 2376041


View attachment 2376054

Can you please add in some deceptive black lines so that RCAB feels vindicated?

 

[Carn The Berries]

If you think that May was closer than Evans to the ball... you need to reconsider your life choices up until this point, because your brain is completely fried.

Being closer to the ball at a point in time is not directly correlated to whether you'll be closer to, or at, the ball at a future point in time.

 

[SC_Power]

Being closer to the ball at a point in time is not directly correlated to whether you'll be closer to, or at, the ball at a future point in time.

Exactly, players are making judgement decisions on where to go and what to do, based on where they think the ball will be and where they think their opponents will be at a particular moment.

The tribunal should be making decisions on whether those judgement decisions were reasonable based on the time of the decision, not based on what actually occurred.

As an in game example, players can go for a high mark whenever they want, and if aren’t successful, it’s not an automatic free kick for high contact, but an assessment on whether the attempt was a realistic attempt.

Just extrapolate that thinking, and it’s clear that the AFL are judging in the outcome and not the action and its reasonableness.

I’ll keep going back to that Pearce/Byrne Jones incident where the reasonableness condition was Pearce’s successful defence. And I’m thinking that if DBJ had broken his nose and had streaming blood down his face, for the exact same incident Pearce would have been found guilty.

 

[RCAB]

This is the idiocy of your (and others) position. You're effectively saying that as long as you get to the ball first, you can cave someone's skull in and that's ok, but if you don't have the ball it's 3 weeks (or even more in your learned opinion).

No, that's not what I'm saying at all

 

[Carn The Berries]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all

It kinda is though... Does Steven May get suspended if the ball bounces the other way and he picks it up, and then crashes into Francis in the same way?

 

[RCAB]

See that's the issue here. The only reason May didn't get the ball is because the ball took an unpredictable final bounce.

Unpredictable? Ball bounced in the same direction the whole time. Evans who won the ball was running towards the ball the whole time.

Regardless of the bounce of the ball, May cannoned into Evans' head and we cannot have that. It doesn't matter if May is first or second to the ball, you can't have him smashing into someone's head when he could clearly have avoided this contact.

 

[RCAB]

It kinda is though... Does Steven May get suspended if the ball bounces the other way and he picks it up, and then crashes into Francis in the same way?

It kind of isn't... at all. I just explained it on the previous post 1 second ago, incidentally.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Unpredictable? Ball bounced in the same direction the whole time. Evans who won the ball was running towards the ball the whole time.

Regardless of the bounce of the ball, May cannoned into Evans' head and we cannot have that. It doesn't matter if May is first or second to the ball, you can't have him smashing into someone's head when he could clearly have avoided this contact.

You're making yourself appear silly now. The ball was bouncing AWAY from Francis until the last bounce where it sat up on it's end.

So you're now saying that if the same contact had occurred and May had the ball that he should be suspended?

 

[flamethrower]

The appeals board should be scrapped.

It was brought in to challenge suspensions when there was only 1 tribunal. Now that the AFL has the MRP to assess all cases and then the tribunal to challenge MRP decisions, a second means of appealing a decision should be redundant.

Since it still exists any player that chooses to take a case to the appeals tribunal should have to put up a $100,000 bond (with $50,000 non-refundable). Stops wasting everyone's time and getting cases thrown out on a legal technicality.

 

[Jugada]

The appeals board should be scrapped.

It was brought in to challenge suspensions when there was only 1 tribunal. Now that the AFL has the MRP to assess all cases and then the tribunal to challenge MRP decisions, a second means of appealing a decision should be redundant.

Since it still exists any player that chooses to take a case to the appeals tribunal should have to put up a $100,000 bond (with $50,000 non-refundable). Stops wasting everyone's time and getting cases thrown out on a legal technicality.

If it goes straight to the tribunal with no suspension given from the MRP its still only really one case and then one appeal

 

[ReturningHawk]

See that's the issue here. The only reason May didn't get the ball is because the ball took an unpredictable final bounce. If it hadn't, your first paragraph would have occurred.

So the Tribunal is now saying that reasonableness will now be judged on the unpredictable bounce of an oval shaped ball.

Just stop repeating this meaningless phrase. People are repeating this like it could have been different, but it's not what happened. It’s the equivalent of saying “Evans only got the ball because he put his hands on it". There is no parallel universe where May got the ball. Time to plug yourself into reality.

Approaching a contest reasonably means the player takes into account the bounce of the ball. I'm surprised you lot haven't called for the sherrin to be suspended.

 

[Fadge]

Approaching a contest reasonably means the player takes into account the bounce of the ball.

OMFG.

I've read some dumb comments on this forum, but I think I've just seen #1 in the history of BigFooty.

 

[ReturningHawk]

OMFG.

I've read some dumb comments on this forum, but I think I've just seen #1 in the history of BigFooty.

You think that players should guess where the ball is going, and then KO their opponent if they're wrong?

 

[ReturningHawk]

It kinda is though... Does Steven May get suspended if the ball bounces the other way and he picks it up, and then crashes into Francis in the same way?

I don't know mate, have you been to the parallel universe and checked? Should we declare St Kilda the 2010 premiers, because the ball could've bounced the other way for Milne? You seem to believe that May's strongest defence is "things could have been different", but it really doesn't mean anything.

Joel Selwood summed it up. Missing the ball and clattering into your opponent is just dumb footy.

 

[kickazz]

OMFG.

I've read some dumb comments on this forum, but I think I've just seen #1 in the history of BigFooty.

Nothing dumb about it at all.

As you approach the ball you need to ensure you are balanced and ready for a variety of possible bounces. You don't often see players sprint at a loose ball, by themselves, (as in no opponents or teammates around) and then just shoot straight past it because they misjudged the bounce. They'd look like complete dickheads.

So when there are other players, that changes things a bit, (as you might get there second, you might want to shepherd, you might want to tap it on or tackle) but the fact is that the bounce is still unpredictable and some measure of caution/balance is prudent when going for it.

 

[Fadge]

Nothing dumb about it at all.

As you approach the ball you need to ensure you are balanced and ready for a variety of possible bounces. You don't often see players sprint at a loose ball, by themselves, (as in no opponents or teammates around) and then just shoot straight past it because they misjudged the bounce. They'd look like complete dickheads.

So when there are other players, that changes things a bit, (as you might get there second, you might want to shepherd, you might want to tap it on or tackle) but the fact is that the bounce is still unpredictable and some measure of caution/balance is prudent when going for it.

The way the ball was bouncing, there was only one way for BOTH May and Evans to approach it, and that was full tilt.

Otherwise, they would have simply been conceding possession of the ball to the opposition player.