Latest news with #OntheInside
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Sport
- The Advertiser
Demons to challenge May's controversial three-match ban
Melbourne will challenge Steven May's controversial three-match ban for a collision that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. The Demons announced on Thursday they are challenging the suspension, with the case to be heard by the AFL Appeals Board next week. "We felt we presented a really strong case and Steven's sole intention was to win the ball, and we believe he provided a contest in a reasonable way given the circumstances," Melbourne's football manager Alan Richardson said in a statement. "After reviewing the outcome and seeking further expert legal advice this morning, we have decided to appeal the Tribunal's decision." In his findings on Wednesday night, AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured, but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" If May is unsuccessful in his appeal, he will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs. He was set to miss this week's clash with St Kilda in any case due to concussion. Melbourne will challenge Steven May's controversial three-match ban for a collision that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. The Demons announced on Thursday they are challenging the suspension, with the case to be heard by the AFL Appeals Board next week. "We felt we presented a really strong case and Steven's sole intention was to win the ball, and we believe he provided a contest in a reasonable way given the circumstances," Melbourne's football manager Alan Richardson said in a statement. "After reviewing the outcome and seeking further expert legal advice this morning, we have decided to appeal the Tribunal's decision." In his findings on Wednesday night, AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured, but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" If May is unsuccessful in his appeal, he will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs. He was set to miss this week's clash with St Kilda in any case due to concussion. Melbourne will challenge Steven May's controversial three-match ban for a collision that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. The Demons announced on Thursday they are challenging the suspension, with the case to be heard by the AFL Appeals Board next week. "We felt we presented a really strong case and Steven's sole intention was to win the ball, and we believe he provided a contest in a reasonable way given the circumstances," Melbourne's football manager Alan Richardson said in a statement. "After reviewing the outcome and seeking further expert legal advice this morning, we have decided to appeal the Tribunal's decision." In his findings on Wednesday night, AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured, but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" If May is unsuccessful in his appeal, he will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs. He was set to miss this week's clash with St Kilda in any case due to concussion.
The Advertiser
7 days ago
- Sport
- The Advertiser
May's three-game ban set to divide the AFL world
Debate is set to rage after Melbourne defender Steven May was handed a three-match ban for his devastating collision with an opponent that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. But AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" The decision to suspend May has set a strong precedent when it comes to players arriving at a loose ball within a split second of each other. May will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs. Debate is set to rage after Melbourne defender Steven May was handed a three-match ban for his devastating collision with an opponent that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. But AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" The decision to suspend May has set a strong precedent when it comes to players arriving at a loose ball within a split second of each other. May will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs. Debate is set to rage after Melbourne defender Steven May was handed a three-match ban for his devastating collision with an opponent that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. But AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" The decision to suspend May has set a strong precedent when it comes to players arriving at a loose ball within a split second of each other. May will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
May's three-game ban set to divide the AFL world
Debate is set to rage after Melbourne defender Steven May was handed a three-match ban for his devastating collision with an opponent that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. Francis Evans has been subbed out of the game following this incident involving Steven May.#AFLBluesDees — AFL (@AFL) July 19, 2025 May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. But AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" The decision to suspend May has set a strong precedent when it comes to players arriving at a loose ball within a split second of each other. May will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.
Perth Now
7 days ago
- Sport
- Perth Now
May's three-game ban set to divide the AFL world
Debate is set to rage after Melbourne defender Steven May was handed a three-match ban for his devastating collision with an opponent that has divided the football world. May was found guilty of rough conduct at the AFL Tribunal on Wednesday night for the collision that concussed Francis Evans and left the Carlton forward with a broken nose and a chipped tooth. A biomechanics expert calculated May had only 0.56 seconds from the ball's final bounce until the moment of the collision, and that the premiership defender would have needed at least 0.2 to 0.25 seconds to react. "The time available to him to perceive and react to a complex scenario is not sufficient for him to adapt and avoid contact," AIS biomechanist Daniel Cottam said in his findings, not all of which could be submitted as evidence for the tribunal hearing. May argued he had little time to react, saying he was so sure he was going to get to the ball first that he was left shocked when Evans beat him to it during Saturday's game at the MCG. But AFL Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said May had ample time while running towards the ball to realise there was a big chance he wouldn't arrive there first and to come up with a contingency plan. "The most he could have hoped was that he would arrive at about the same time as Evans," Gleeson said. "It was far more likely that he would reach the ball after Evans. "As he gathered the ball, Evans had time to position his body just slightly so as to turn slightly away from May. "This gives some indication that May had sufficient time to make some attempt to move his body in a way that minimised or avoided the impact limits. "May made no attempt to change his path, his body position or his velocity at any time leading up to or in the contest." Before the hearing, Carlton captain Patrick Cripps questioned how May could have approached things differently. "I felt like both of them were trying to contest the ball," Cripps told the On the Inside podcast. "You never want to see a player get injured but I don't understand what we want players to do. "If that's a grand final and (May) hesitates and Franky gets the ball, what do you do?" The decision to suspend May has set a strong precedent when it comes to players arriving at a loose ball within a split second of each other. May will miss games against St Kilda, West Coast and the Western Bulldogs.
CBC
27-02-2025
- Entertainment
- CBC
Inside a grand Georgian home filled with charming original details and chic modern updates
Kotn co-founder Mackenzie Yeates is bringing new life to her space with art, personal touches and big plans When Mackenzie Yeates first went to see her Georgian house in Toronto's Lawrence Park neighbourhood, its details drew her in. She appreciated the original mouldings, windows and plaster rosettes, and felt the impressive entryway and winding staircase were like something out of a movie. Still, there were changes that Yeates made within months. She wanted to replace the terracotta tiles in the foyer and had handmade concrete tiles with a limestone look laid down. She and her family took on basement and kitchen improvements themselves. Downstairs, they painted and installed carpet to create an attractive yet sturdy space her kids could own, while upstairs, they brightened the backsplash and cabinets of the back-of-house kitchen. But the grandest of Yeates's plans is yet to come to fruition: she intends to move the kitchen to the formal dining area, a large room off the stately entryway with a fireplace to boot. It seems just right for a home where the principal bedroom flaunts a chandelier, another fireplace and alabaster sconces that emit a moonlight-like glow. I think not being precious with things — allowing counters to get stained, and furniture and floors to get scuffed up a little — is what makes a place feel warm, inviting and authentic. Image | On The Inside - ep102 5 (CBC Life) Open Image in New Tab Image | On The Inside - ep102 6 Caption: One large area comprises the living room and dining room, allowing for family and guests to gather en masse and move freely. (CBC Life) Open Image in New Tab It's also a place where memories with friends and family are created regularly — her parents live just two blocks away — and where cherished art is displayed. A few standouts include timeless pieces by her father and family friend Jeffrey Harrison, and a wall-sized, decidedly modern photo by Sarah Blais (created to promote Kotn, the Canadian clothing and textiles brand that Yeates co-founded). Image | On The Inside - ep102 8 Caption: Yeates enjoys working in the sunroom. Extending off the dining room, the space is also where the family naturally gathers after meals. (CBC Life) Open Image in New Tab Watch this episode of On the Inside to see how Yeates has brought her vision to life thus far. And read on for more about her decor inspiration and approach. Mackenzie Yeates on home decor and design (As told to CBC Life. These answers have been edited and condensed.) Image | On The Inside - ep102 9 Caption: Yeates in her living room, seated near a wall-sized photo from a Kotn photo shoot. (CBC Life) Open Image in New Tab I would describe my home design style as classic, warm and a little bit European. I make this esthetic my own by displaying artwork and other items that have a lot of personal meaning to me. I love natural materials, and my splurges will always be wood furniture, marble and trees. I then like to mix in some modern pieces, like my dining table and chairs that are more mid-century, or provocative photography. I'm constantly clocking inspiration everywhere I go… Image | On The Inside - ep102 10 Caption: A large armoire in the entryway sits in between two distinctly designed doorways. The arched doorway leads to the dining room, and was designed to mimic an arched passageway in the upstairs hallway. (CBC Life) Open Image in New Tab The layout of my home is one of its most interesting features. Its rambling design creates distinct zones, each with its own potential for a unique mood and design style. The openness of the front entry and the upstairs landing adds a sense of tranquility, acting as peaceful "white space" within the overall flow of the house. As a Georgian Revival home, its decorative elements are more understated compared to the ornate details of, say, Victorian architecture. This simplification makes it easier to strike a balance between honouring its historical character and maintaining a contemporary esthetic. I've always been someone who relies very heavily on my intuition. I'm constantly clocking inspiration everywhere I go and storing it in my brain to be pulled out at random times. With this being my own home, it's been a very gut-focused process, choosing things I truly love but also things that will be comfortable and easy to live with. I think not being precious with things — allowing counters to get stained, and furniture and floors to get scuffed up a little — is what makes a place feel warm, inviting and authentic.
