40 minutes ago, layzie said:

So according to this thread tackling, smothering, marking contests and any sort of collisions should be outlawed. 

Honestly this game has 20 years left as we know it and I mean that sincerely. There's no way you are going to stop concussions completely and until there is some kind of technology that can pad the brain better then we'll obviously need to keep doing these kinds of measures. 

"Go hard, put pressure on the ball carrier but don't leave the ground or stop mid air or make the split second decision to turn the shoulder the right way"

"Don't go for a smother, let him kick the ball inside 50"

"Tackle hard but not too hard"

"Pull out of marking contests"

I care about protecting the head as much as the next person but this is getting out of hand if you want to follow the sport.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to smother.  It is his decision to turn, brace and lean his weight and momentum  into Gus' head with his shoulder.  There is no way on this earth you can tell me he had to do that and no way on earth he would have done that if it had been Nick Daicos there instead of Gus during match practice at training.

38 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Watch the MRO grade it as accidental, not high and medium impact and he gets a fine. 

Never mind that Gus has a black eye according to Goodwin and was knocked out.

 

And arguably cost us the game losing a player of his versatility and importance to team set up (including part of the forward line).

When you have some powerbrokers like Dangerfield say "there is nothing in this" and McLachlan say "the fact Brayshaw was knocked out will be a factor but not the defining factor", there is absolutely no hope for justice here

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

So Hunter got a week for 'hitting' Butters who went on to have 900 touches and win the game.

Maynard should get off tho because we should be letting players just play the game?

Plenty of spoils occur in footy every week. We had about 10 last night. None of them ended up with a player getting knocked out. 

 

Yes, but dont seriously believe that was Maynards intention? Otherwise you need a rule stating you cannot make contact with a player while in mid air. There is a no more punchable head in the league than Maynard but where do we draw the line on what is/is not intentional?

It's impossible to know the MRP process these days and the inconsistency of the tribunal. Why did Bedford get a week, why did JVR have to defend himself at the Tribunal over a football contest, why are some tackles dangerous and not others. not.

When do we find out

Praying that he misses the GF if they make it 

Just now, Jibroni said:

 

Yes, but dont seriously believe that was Maynards intention? Otherwise you need a rule stating you cannot make contact with a player while in mid air. There is a no more punchable head in the league than Maynard but where do we draw the line on what is/is not intentional?

It's impossible to know the MRP process these days and the inconsistency of the tribunal. Why did Bedford get a week, why did JVR have to defend himself at the Tribunal over a football contest, why are some tackles dangerous and not others. not.

No doubt the process is muddy and rubbish and inconsistent.

I think it's hard to argue that Maynard's intention was not to hurt Gus. As I said earlier, did he want to concuss him? Probably not. Did he want to hurt him? Absolutely.

He has form, a lot of it, he said during the week he is going to go hard and hurt us. Did he hope to impact the kick? Sure. Did he see an opportunity to smash into Gus hard at the same time by turning his body into him?  100% yes.

 

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

No doubt the process is muddy and rubbish and inconsistent.

I think it's hard to argue that Maynard's intention was not to hurt Gus. As I said earlier, did he want to concuss him? Probably not. Did he want to hurt him? Absolutely.

He has form, a lot of it, he said during the week he is going to go hard and hurt us. Did he hope to impact the kick? Sure. Did he see an opportunity to smash into Gus hard at the same time by turning his body into him?  100% yes.

 

Well said 

Edited September 8, 20232 yr by Billy

13 minutes ago, Macca said:

Specifically the first quarter? 

We were rattled and let them get away.  Effectively, that was enough but we nearly caught them

And they missed 3 very gettable shots in the first quarter

As for the rest of the game, we just blazed away with not enough purpose

I see the actions of Maynard and the way we stuffed up our opportunities to win the game as two completely different things Macca.

Whilst I do believe that this action caused a big disruption to the way we wanted to play the game, but it wasn't the reason we lost. 

Maynard did not have to make contact with the player. He chose to run directly at Brayshaw, jump into him and ultimately braced for contact.  Brayshaw had no opportunity and was exposed due to what Maynard did. This contact was 100% caused by Maynard and jumping at speed and making high contact was entirely on him. To say he wasn't responsible for his actions because it's "a footy act"  is wrong.

This is going to be hugely contentious either way. I honestly can’t believe that it will be, but it’s already obvious it is.

12 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

 

Yes, but dont seriously believe that was Maynards intention?

Do you seriously believe that he knew he wouldn't make contact with Brayshaw at top speed and by jumping that it wasn't going to be a hard hit?  C'mon really? Brayshaw didn't deviate, and didn't even see him coming (and he was facing him) 

Maynard didn't just jump up to spoil as if he's manning the mark, he jumped into Brayshaw.

Edited September 8, 20232 yr by Ouch!

I am astonished that some so-called commentators refer to Maynard's hit as a footy act.  Sure, attempt to smother/spoil, but he jumped and launched toward Gus and therefore the odds were he was going to impact the head.  If he gets off this, then there is no footy justice.

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

I see the actions of Maynard and the way we stuffed up our opportunities to win the game as two completely different things Macca.

Whilst I do believe that this action caused a big disruption to the way we wanted to play the game, but it wasn't the reason we lost. 

Maynard did not have to make contact with the player. He chose to run directly at Brayshaw, jump into him and ultimately braced for contact.  Brayshaw had no opportunity and was exposed due to what Maynard did. This contact was 100% caused by Maynard and jumping at speed and making high contact was entirely on him. To say he wasn't responsible for his actions because it's "a footy act"  is wrong.

I agree with everything you've said there, Ouch

So if we ignore the 'fake-arms-in-the-air-smother', Maynard just basically took Brayshaw out with a charge.  Used to be called a shirt-front

It was not a footy act and too many have bought into the bs smother story.  Because that's all it is ... a story

3 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

I am astonished that some so-called commentators refer to Maynard's hit as a footy act.  Sure, attempt to smother/spoil, but he jumped and launched toward Gus and therefore the odds were he was going to impact the head.  If he gets off this, then there is no footy justice.

Shots fired

shos fired

collingwood key back final campaign imperilled by cowardly act

quick Marshal the media response unit! All stations all channels

the Speed at which Maynard laid out that it was a football act clearly demonstrates his guilt 

2 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

I am astonished that some so-called commentators refer to Maynard's hit as a footy act.  Sure, attempt to smother/spoil, but he jumped and launched toward Gus and therefore the odds were he was going to impact the head.  If he gets off this, then there is no footy justice.

Must agree.. it was more of a front on tackle.

Feet leaving the ground is the clincher.... Do it at your own risk

47 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

No, you are off the mark mate.

You can be hard but fair.

We want players to avoid dangerous techniques while tackling, smothering or any other footy act. It is dangerous to their peers and themselves.

Appreciate your point but I dont believe I'm off the mark. You've openly admitted yourself to being new to the game within the last decade so with respect you may not fully understand how miniscule the difference is between being hard and fair and hard and reckless in this sport and what you learn at a young age. Every player that crosses the line understands the risks and if Gus Brayshaw who I love to death has reservations about playing because of his concussion history then he shouldn't be playing simple as that.

You will never eliminate frontal contact completely, not with the game in this form. This is a collision sport and while I'm coming around to it being reckless and possibly worthy of a 1-2 gane suspension I don't think you're going to save more concussions by making an example out of a football act gone wrong. 

 

Edited September 8, 20232 yr by layzie

AFL have already set a tone on these things

 

He has next to no chance of getting off

 

I can see 1 week ban so he has the chance to play in a GF (If they make it) 

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Must agree.. it was more of a front on tackle.

Feet leaving the ground is the clincher.... Do it at your own risk

Yup
Just watching the front on video footage again, Maynard at the last second changes the direction he is running ever so slightly before jumping off the ground. If he had continued on that original line he wouldn't have made contact like he did to Brayshaw.

11 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

I see the actions of Maynard and the way we stuffed up our opportunities to win the game as two completely different things Macca.

Whilst I do believe that this action caused a big disruption to the way we wanted to play the game, but it wasn't the reason we lost. 

Maynard did not have to make contact with the player. He chose to run directly at Brayshaw, jump into him and ultimately braced for contact.  Brayshaw had no opportunity and was exposed due to what Maynard did. This contact was 100% caused by Maynard and jumping at speed and making high contact was entirely on him. To say he wasn't responsible for his actions because it's "a footy act"  is wrong.

I think it's both a footy act and he should be responsible for his actions. 

Maynard will get nothing

All I want to see is how the team will respond, collectively - getting the ball

Faux bravado, jumper grappling, chest beating, does nothing for me

Win the contest, not the push and shove

1 hour ago, layzie said:

So according to this thread tackling, smothering, marking contests and any sort of collisions should be outlawed. 

Honestly this game has 20 years left as we know it and I mean that sincerely. There's no way you are going to stop concussions completely and until there is some kind of technology that can pad the brain better then we'll obviously need to keep doing these kinds of measures. 

"Go hard, put pressure on the ball carrier but don't leave the ground or stop mid air or make the split second decision to turn the shoulder the right way"

"Don't go for a smother, let him kick the ball inside 50"

"Tackle hard but not too hard"

"Pull out of marking contests"

I care about protecting the head as much as the next person but this is getting out of hand if you want to follow the sport.

Agree Laze.

13 minutes ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

I am astonished that some so-called commentators refer to Maynard's hit as a footy act.  Sure, attempt to smother/spoil, but he jumped and launched toward Gus and therefore the odds were he was going to impact the head.  If he gets off this, then there is no footy justice.

Absolutely. This was not a typical 'smother', and there were many other ways he could have reasonably attempted to apply a smother, which is what you usually see players do.

At best, this would have been a free kick for collecting an opponent late after disposing of the ball - which is not a football act. At worst, you get what we did with a concussion being the result. 

I just feel for Gus and his family.

His parents have had to watch Angus get so many head knocks and concussion after concussion, they've had to endure watching Andrew getting punched on the field and also I feel for Danielle Gus's fiancee who we all know lost her dad after endruing many head knocks cauisng him many health issues. 

All these love heart Instagram posts from our players referencing Gus is definitely not comforting me or leading me to believe that he’s ok. 
Fingers crossed he will be fine and this won’t impact his career like it has before. 

5 minutes ago, layzie said:

You will never eliminate frontal contact completely, not with the game in this form. This is a collision sport and while I'm coming around to it being reckless and possibly worthy of a 1-2 gane suspension I don't think you're going to save more concussions by making an example out of a football act gone wrong. 

Couple of things Layzie,

Correct you won't eliminate contact completely, but we expect contact in a contested ball situation. Brayshaw was disposing of the ball, and had Maynard launch at him, and he did change his line just before he jumped and he knew he was going to make contact with the player. No one is saying you shouldnt' be able to jump up and smother the ball?  (his apparent footy act) but jumping at a player knowing you are going to hit him high at speed?  Not sure about that

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

All these love heart Instagram posts from our players referencing Gus is definitely not comforting me or leading me to believe that he’s ok. 
Fingers crossed he will be fine and this won’t impact his career like it has before. 

pretty sure it's his season

3 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Couple of things Layzie,

Correct you won't eliminate contact completely, but we expect contact in a contested ball situation. Brayshaw was disposing of the ball, and had Maynard launch at him, and he did change his line just before he jumped and he knew he was going to make contact with the player. No one is saying you shouldnt' be able to jump up and smother the ball?  (his apparent footy act) but jumping at a player knowing you are going to hit him high at speed?  Not sure about that

That's fair enough. I'd like to see the change of direction part because I'm just not seeing it. All I see is is run straight and jump which admittedly is a bit careless. Would be happy to see some kind of walk through.