Round 6 MRP

[timmyparso]

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.

[Jay]

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.

[Capper]

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

[timmyparso]

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.

[GoLions]

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.

[Capper]

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

[Mailman the 2nd]

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

[GCSkiwi]

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.

[RaisyDaisy]

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

[AaronKirk]

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.

[RaisyDaisy]

Yeah my bad, I meant forearm not elbow

Either way, its a horrible look and shouldn't be given the same penalty as May

[no eye deer]

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!

[no eye deer]

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!

[tor01doc]

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.

[Ringo]

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.