I normally get these things wrong so I’ll put it out there. He will get off. 🤞

13 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Confident the MRO will send it to the tribunal, he’ll cop a 3 week suspension by the tribunal and then the Pies will get him off on appeal.

Nothing surer.

Meanwhile we’re a key midfielder down next week.

I have no problem with that, but it MUST go to the tribunal. If Michael Christian doesn't even refer it then that will be my biggest concern.

Never heard anyone refer to a Dees  player colliding with an opponent as a 'footy action'.

The media is doing everything it can to swing public opinion in favour of Maynard.  Would never happen if it was May or Pickett.  BOOK  EM !

Anyone taking bets on the outcome next week, presumably, as Pies will appeal.

Id bet he misses prelim but green light for Granny.

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

Like it or not, footy will become less and less of a contact sport due to concussion liabilities. Knee to head in marking contest will go at some point. Not if, but when

It is possible to train out these habits. We've trained out the deliberate hip and shoulder, we've trained players to turn their bodies to avoid head-on contact.

In 15 years time, what is acceptable now will look like a 1980's biffs, bumps and brawl VHS video

I know plenty of parents who are nervous about their kids playing footy due to concussions. The AFL will change the game to respond accordingly 

Spot on. I was watching some old vfl, afl and afl reserves vids on YouTube during the week and and shocked by what was allowed in the past. I had almost forgotten. 

It's sad in  some ways but positive in others. There are some shocking head injuries around today because of poor protection.

I get it's a fine line too so I don't really know what to think. As someone who is related to a young woman who plays Aflw I want her to be protected at all times. I worry as she as already had a few concussions.

The videos from 30 years ago seem eons away in terms of what was allowed. 

The transgressions are even worse.

Off topic I watched a reserves player push an umpire over and then go after some poor bloke in the crowd. I was both entertained and appalled. Like the proverbial  car crash I couldn't look away.

I do think Maynard wanted to make some contact and while he probably didn't intend that much it left a young man with a concussion  history totally knocked out. Plus probably cost us the game with Laurie taking his place.

Edit.

Found it. Coincidence it was a pies player John Bourke.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by leave it to deever

12 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

I have no problem with that, but it MUST go to the tribunal. If Michael Christian doesn't even refer it then that will be my biggest concern.

CHistian should his job. careless, high and severe impact. 3-4 weeks. Then let Collingwood make the next move.

ve. 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by John Crow Batty

Barrett on AFL website says its a football act therefore no suspension.

What an [censored]. Does that mean you can spoil in a contest and knock someone out every time?

The act of spoiling properly is ok but the act of knocking some one out is not.

The ball was likely past Maynard before he even launched. It was a reckless decision as contact was inevitable before he launched himself.

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

He had one aim in mind before he left the ground... to hit a Melbourne  player.

Now he probably didn't intend to almost kill poor Gus but it's a moot point.

The height and speed and direction clearly could have done nothing but collect Gus and players have a duty of care.

Nothwitstanding... The facts of this case are as follows your honour.

Defendant launched himself at great speed and height towards the victim. 

The defendant turned mid air and then  put his shoulder and entire momentum and weight into victim's head.

Victim was knocked out cold.

The defendant argues he didn't mean to but the facts remain unchanged.

Guilty.

I agree with above and my take in addition.

• There was no one else around the ball to confuse what happened, no one got pushed or jostled around.
• Maynard didn't just jump upwards, he was jumping as he was running at speed towards Brayshaw. He mistimed things horribly. Still on him.
• Brayshaw did not deviate or do anything to cause the motion of Maynard to hit him unexpectedly.
• It's severe and high impact, the intentional or careless is debateable, but Maynard acted knowing that it had the chance of contact with Brayshaw and he braced in the air to protect himself.... 
• I don't give a fat flying duck if it was a 'Footy Act' This almost enraged me more than anything else after it occurred, in that every damn commentator (including his uncle!!) used that as the excuse as to why Maynard should not be cited.  A tackle is a footy act, can be reported for not executing that correctly. 
• Having the pies chant Collingwood and cheer Maynard when he was near the ball just show what scum they are. If he was truly remorseful why remonstrate with any of the Melbourne players afterwards, get out of the area.

That action has basically ended Gus's season, it certainly impacted our options in the game from that point on. Maynard got to play out the game, and to not even be cited would be borderline criminal.

1 minute ago, manny100 said:

Barrett on AFL website says its a football act therefore no suspension.

What an [censored]. Does that mean you can spoil in a contest and knock someone out every time?

The act of spoiling properly is ok but the act of knocking some one out is not.

The ball was likely past Maynard before he even launched. It was a reckless decision as contact was inevitable before he launched himself.

whats a tackle?  Technically a bump is a football act too, if thats the argument for suspension, anything is fair go, no one should be suspended on the field.

3 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

CHistian should his job. careless, high and severe impact. 3-4 weeks. Then let Collingwood make the next move.

ve. 

I was interested that it's now not just Christians call. Some AFL legal person is now involved in all referrals too?

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

I agree with above and my take in addition.

• There was no one else around the ball to confuse what happened, no one got pushed or jostled around.
• Maynard didn't just jump upwards, he was jumping as he was running at speed towards Brayshaw. He mistimed things horribly. Still on him.
• Brayshaw did not deviate or do anything to cause the motion of Maynard to hit him unexpectedly.
• It's severe and high impact, the intentional or careless is debateable, but Maynard acted knowing that it had the chance of contact with Brayshaw and he braced in the air to protect himself.... 
• I don't give a fat flying duck if it was a 'Footy Act' This almost enraged me more than anything else after it occurred, in that every damn commentator (including his uncle!!) used that as the excuse as to why Maynard should not be cited.  A tackle is a footy act, can be reported for not executing that correctly. 
• Having the pies chant Collingwood and cheer Maynard when he was near the ball just show what scum they are. If he was truly remorseful why remonstrate with any of the Melbourne players afterwards, get out of the area.

That action has basically ended Gus's season, it certainly impacted our options in the game from that point on. Maynard got to play out the game, and to not even be cited would be borderline criminal.

Well said.

Yes tge commentators couldn't defend him fast enough.

They knew he was guilty.

From a purely neutral perspective one can argue we don't know what Maynard's intent was.

OK but we we have a bloke stretchered off ...end of story.

Maynard  was was simply too high and fast and direct to know some impact would occur.  How could it not. It's physics. Newton's rule of motion.

 

Just now, leave it to deever said:

Well said.

Yes tge commentators couldn't defend him fast enough.

They knew he was guilty.

From a purely neutral perspective one can argue we don't know what Maynard's intent was.

OK but we we have a bloke stretchered off ...end of story.

Maynard  was was simply too high and fast and direct to know some impact would occur.  How could it not. It's physics. Newton's rule of motion.

 

Grrr Dangerfield commnents at the time. "Maynard has a duty of care to protect himself?" huh? no he doesn't no one has a duty of care to protect themselves!!! you have a duty of care to not injure other players THAT IS WHAT A DUTY OF CARE IS!

A duty of care is a legal obligation (that we all have) to take reasonable steps to not cause foreseeable harm to another person or their property.

Nothing that Maynard did aligns to a duty of care statement. If this clown is the best that the players association has, and they want him on the commission, the game's stuffed.

Some common football acts;

Kick, mark, handball, tackle, bounce, driving your shoulder into the face of an opponent at speed.

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

Grrr Dangerfield commnents at the time. "Maynard has a duty of care to protect himself?" huh? no he doesn't no one has a duty of care to protect themselves!!! you have a duty of care to not injure other players THAT IS WHAT A DUTY OF CARE IS!

A duty of care is a legal obligation (that we all have) to take reasonable steps to not cause foreseeable harm to another person or their property.

Nothing that Maynard did aligns to a duty of care statement. If this clown is the best that the players association has, and they want him on the commission, the game's stuffed.

If I had a duty of care to protect myself, I would have sued myself into bankruptcy.  Geez following this club is a clear departure from any such obligation.😄

It is possible to try to spoil a kick by jumping up straight and extending one's arms.

It is not necessary for the spoiler to be moving forward while in the air and make no attempt to stop before a collision with the kicker. Attempting, or pretending, to spoil a kick does not relieve the spoiler from the requirement to exercise discretion and care to avoid casing injury to the kicker.

In my opinion, based on watching replays, it was a deliberate act to attack the body of Brayshaw but it might not have been a deliberate act to hit the head. Still remains a careless, reckless and deliberate act of footy violence and catastrophic for Brayshaw. Malice, or absence of malice, does not enter into the consideration.

Minimum four weeks or the tribunal, if it hasn't already, will lose all credibility.

Remember, Kozzie got 2 weeks and the oppo player played on.

I don't know how the AFL can allow the precedent to stand. It essentially demonstrates a way to legally injure an opposition player without consequence, and this could be weaponised by every thug in the game. If the AFL are consistent and serious about protecting the head, then Maynard must go.

Unlike rule changes that have fundamentally altered the way players attack the ball and tackle, the changes that will come about as a result of a suspension here are negligible. Simply, if you are going to collide with a player who has no ability to protect himself, perhaps don't try to hit them as hard as you possibly can? Give that a go next time.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by wisedog

1 minute ago, Little Goffy said:

Some common football acts;

Kick, mark, handball, tackle, bounce, driving your shoulder into the face of an opponent at speed.

And height. The angle of incidence couldn't have been more deadly. It could have been neck breaking. Glad Gus seems OK but you never know with these things. I guess that why the Afl has been so aggressive on these acts this year. But tge cynic in me wonders if it's more  the legal action. Money moves. 

I do wonder if it cost us the game too bit Gus's health is more important. With his concussion issues he's a brave player and deserves some justice and consistency and clear boundaries in the rules.

4 minutes ago, tiers said:

It is possible to try to spoil a kick by jumping up straight and extending one's arms.

It is not necessary for the spoiler to be moving forward while in the air and make no attempt to stop before a collision with the kicker. Attempting, or pretending, to spoil a kick does not relieve the spoiler from the requirement to exercise discretion and care to avoid casing injury to the kicker.

In my opinion, based on watching replays, it was a deliberate act to attack the body of Brayshaw but it might not have been a deliberate act to hit the head. Still remains a careless, reckless and deliberate act of footy violence and catastrophic for Brayshaw. Malice, or absence of malice, does not enter into the consideration.

Minimum four weeks or the tribunal, if it hasn't already, will lose all credibility.

Remember, Kozzie got 2 weeks and the oppo player played on.

It's even possible to do it whilst running at the player.... watch Hunter, he does it pretty often, thing is he turns his body the other way after jumping which puts the leading shoulder outside of the incoming player, so at most it would be glancing. Maynard jumped and turned into Brayshaw to created contact. His he was trying to smother, but he was also trying to be as physical as he could be early in the game to put physical pressure onto the dees.  Just like Cox did at the first bounce to Gawn driving up the knee.

37 minutes ago, layzie said:

Who gives a toss? This does nothing for us. 

If you genuinely care about head safety then fine but if this is some exercise to place your blame and revenge then you're wasting your time and energy.

It's called doing the right thing, layz

Whether it helps us or not is irrelevant.  As a supporter of the sport, we can't have players taken out in an irresponsible way

Language warning, but these kind of sum up how I'm feeling about the AFL media at the moment;

 

 

3 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

Especially given Maynard came out in the press mid week saying how hard they were going to play. He was odds on going to make a big hit statement early in the game

Makes it premeditated which should double the penalty.  

3 hours ago, robbiefrom13 said:

It's a very public test case of all the AFL's sanctimonious rhetoric over the past year or so. And the concussion issue isn't going away.  But like a politician, Gil and his accountants will be in comfortable retirement by the time the final verdict on this is handed down.

Even if t is, say, 3 from the MRO Collingwood alumnus and even if the tribunal ratified this it will then go to court, pick a Magpie member judge -> nothing to see, and an apology demanded from Goodwin and Brayshaw.  

2 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

It's even possible to do it whilst running at the player.... watch Hunter, he does it pretty often, thing is he turns his body the other way after jumping which puts the leading shoulder outside of the incoming player, so at most it would be glancing. Maynard jumped and turned into Brayshaw to created contact. His he was trying to smother, but he was also trying to be as physical as he could be early in the game to put physical pressure onto the dees.  Just like Cox did at the first bounce to Gawn driving up the knee.

The front on camera replay does show very clearly that Maynard had the option to move his body in a way that could have avoided contact to the head. Instead he chose to drive his shoulder full force toward Brayshaw. Malice or no malice, doesn't matter. The outcome dictates a punishment. The guy has a bad disciplinary record. How can he possibly get off? Can you imagine if this had been Kozzie that did this to a Pies player. He'd be hounded out of the sport.

20 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's called doing the right thing, layz

Whether it helps us or not is irrelevant.  As a supporter of the sport, we can't have players taken out in an irresponsible way

And giving a fig about players like poor Gus the protection they need from unjustifiable agro acts . Everyone likes a good bump and hard tackle but hitting someone like a Mac truck at a 45 degree angle from above is not somthing I want to pay to watch. Unless it's on Maynard. No revenge motive here Layzie .

It's Maynard's claims of feeling really bad but saying he didn't mean it that wind me up. I actually  think he didn't mean it. He didn't want to knock Gus out. But he certainly wanted to make contact and admit it. (Dirty and dishonest). And that bad choice had serious consequences.  And those consequences must lead to Maynard accepting the penalty. You stuffed up mate be a man and own it. Unless of course your not sorry.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by leave it to deever

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

It's called doing the right thing, layz

Whether it helps us or not is irrelevant.  As a supporter of the sport, we can't have players taken out in an irresponsible way

You're doing the right thing but plenty of others are just taking their anger out on this and it's not going to make them feel any better.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by layzie

32 minutes ago, manny100 said:

Barrett on AFL website says its a football act therefore no suspension.

What an [censored]. Does that mean you can spoil in a contest and knock someone out every time?

The act of spoiling properly is ok but the act of knocking some one out is not.

The ball was likely past Maynard before he even launched. It was a reckless decision as contact was inevitable before he launched himself.

Where did this " football act " come from?

Was it just last week or have I not been paying attention?

Both possibilities are likely( smile)

2 hours ago, bandicoot said:

How can you see him avoiding the ban when you just said he had another option?

Because it's the AFL