1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I almost want Collingwood to win the GF just so Maynard can live with this for years, particular if Gus pulls the pin.

Not win. Let’s not go that far. Make it and lose by 1 point because they missed Maynard. To Melbourne. 
SUCK IT!

Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I almost want Collingwood to win the GF just so Maynard can live with this for years, particular if Gus pulls the pin.

No, we're winning the flag against a filth team that doesn't include Maynard

And guess what?

Gus makes it back into the GF winning team whilst Maynard watches on

The above is a true story

 

8 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

That would be nice, wouldn’t it. But it’s not something that’s normally done. 

Do you do requests WCW? I'd like a banner with me and my dog Lucy on it. Happy to provide all the reference pictures you need 👍

1 minute ago, Macca said:

No, we're winning the flag against a filth team that doesn't include Maynard

And guess what?

Gus makes it back into the GF winning team whilst Maynard watches on

The above is a true story

Can I pre order the dvd? 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What Absolute Rubbish 

Maynard could have just as easily swung his body to the left to avoid a problem. He didn’t 

Exactly. He knew what he was doing.

17 minutes ago, layzie said:

I called it a footy action gone wrong. Doesn't mean I think he shouldn't be responsible for his actions. I also never said he should get off scott free.

While we're at it (and this isn't directed at you)  I understand people feel for Gus and the family but can people pick their words a bit more carefully when referring to his condition and what he might be suffering from? Someone said that Gus suffers from anxiety as a result of his concussions. You do not need to get a concussion to suffer from severe anxiety, let me assure you of that. Please don't pretend that this is some condition that only occurs in freak accidents because it's insulting to people who live with it daily.

Bravo post once again Laze. 

So sick of people calling others on here "heros" because they simply were trying to look at it at a different view in terms of a footy action that wasn't orchestrated well.

There were far worse and disgusting things said stemming from the Brayshaw incident.. funny that..

We all know that Maynard is one of thr biggest thugs in the game and we're all feeling sick in the stomach about Brayshaw. Maynard will cop his weeks and hope that means season over for him.

Great post once again.

28 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Garry Lyon had an interesting take …. Said that an action such as this could set a precedent where anyone can essentially jump into any player and hit them high,citing a footy action, and they have no control over their actions.

hadnt though that far,but it’s potentially true.

 

I think this is where it's important for the Tribunal to establish whether Maynard was jumping directly into the path of Brayshaw or not. If directly into Brayshaw's path then it has to be deemed rough conduct and with high contact and severe impact its 3 - 4 weeks. I'm of the view that concussions can and do occur through pure accidents, e.g. Bedford's sheppard a couple of weeks ago, and the Tribunal needs to consider this in determining whether Maynard gets at least three weeks or is free to play.

I think 3 weeks is soft, in finals, defenceless player, double it, 6 weeks.

And while I realise I'm preaching to the converted, but I still want to say, kicking in danger has always been a thing, the fundamental 'footy act', spare the excuses about the smother, that was just cover to put a hit on. I don't care if Maynard meant to knock him out or not his intent was to hit.

By the way, Laura Kane getting involved is huge news. Expect to see more about this.

53 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Will never happen. Don’t get me wrong… I’d be all for it - maybe not to the extreme of your idea 😁 - but one of the rules set by the AFL that applies to all cheer squads is no jibes at individual players. 

Don’t make it about Maynard 

make it about their club

 

sorry

im so so angry 

14 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I think this is where it's important for the Tribunal to establish whether Maynard was jumping directly into the path of Brayshaw or not. If directly into Brayshaw's path then it has to be deemed rough conduct and with high contact and severe impact its 3 - 4 weeks. I'm of the view that concussions can and do occur through pure accidents, e.g. Bedford's sheppard a couple of weeks ago, and the Tribunal needs to consider this in determining whether Maynard gets at least three weeks or is free to play.

I tried to make this point (poorly)

if he gets off, it’s open season in the kicker

jump, attempted smother, turn, destroy

THIS is the prosecutions case

broader context - is this the game the afl wants mums and dads putting their kids into - esp in states like NSW (I’m in the northern rivers - ex bayside and Macedon ranges) with huge soccer programs where the afl wants to pick kids up

btw the afl program in the northern rivers is pus. Put a pre season game back in Lismore Ballina or Byron !

3 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bravo post once again Laze. 

So sick of people calling others on here "heros" because they simply were trying to look at it at a different view in terms of a footy action that wasn't orchestrated well.

There were far worse and disgusting things said stemming from the Brayshaw incident.. funny that..

We all know that Maynard is one of thr biggest thugs in the game and we're all feeling sick in the stomach about Brayshaw. Maynard will cop his weeks and hope that means season over for him.

Great post once again.

Appreciate it Dazzle. 

It seems as like the people here that want to condemn Maynard feel like they are a united front. Well in the last few hours I've realised that they are actually in sub-categories. There's people who think the main fault is Maynard's choice to jump and leave the ground and whatever happened was his fault anyway, there's people who feel it is his decision to turn inwards instead of outwards and then there's people who are saying it has nothing to do with either of those but actually him leading with the shoulder and causing a 'bumping' act. None of these are bad opinions but they are not on the same page.

Oh sorry then there's the ludicrous Space lord stuff like suggesting that a if he's sprinting a hundred miles an hour at the ball carrier he should suddenly be able to jump straight up vertically in the air when he attempts the smother. Another one suggested Maynard took his eyes off the ball, it wasnt a marking contest, how the hell can you tell that when the guy he took out had the ball in his hands right up until the moment he left the ground??

I've been more than happy to hear sensible arguments for why he should go and thankfully there's been a few good ones here who were able to separate emotion and explain their stance rationally and respectfully. I'm not on some warpath to be correct, I'm here to say what I think, hear some well informed good views then move on. Whether people agree with me or not, no-one can argue that this place has been a frenzy of emotional and sometimes irrational jabbering this last 24 hrs.

Having said all of this I'm not some Maynard homer and if they are handing out a 4 game suspension I'm happy to see him rubbed out regardless. Thug life!

Layzie makes good points.

The action that has to be stamped out is jumping in the air and cannoning into a player. In the old VFA days I was taught don't jump when you make contact as you will lose momentum, be off balance and raise your arms for protection and balance and because you are in the air you will most likely hit someone in the head. The bump was when you ran into someone with your feet on the ground

The poor technique is jumping into the non marking contest and Maynard jumped high and lost his balance turned sideways and collected Gus. He didn't need to jump that high and straight at the oncoming player, I classify that as reckless. This is what Cripps did and don't forget he got suspended for that action but got off on a legal technicality, not because it was an accidental football act.  He was still found guilty.

Because of poor technique Maynard made forceful head high contact for which he will face the tribunal and in my opinion the tribunal need to make a stand and say stop jumping into packs or players. It may be categorised by the Pies as a footy act but it is a poor one that is dangerous and mostly performed poorly. And again  I Reiterate Cripps was guilty. 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by Older demon

55 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Firstly I wasn’t referring to you. It may have started as a footy action but it resulted in a horrible injury, which as you say should carry consequences. 

Secondly I haven’t seen anyone suggests what Gus suffers from. All I’ve ever said is that Gus’ fiancé buried her dad due to head injuries and her mother is suing the AFL. Both of which are on record. 

And you are right, anxiety and depression and a whole host of other mental health issues are more often than not totally unrelated to head trauma, and many people live with those awful conditions but have never copped so much as a ball to the head in a game of backyard cricket. But it has been proven that repeated head trauma can lead to both of those things sadly. Shane Tuck and Spud Frawley are the saddest examples of this. 

I know you weren't, all good 🙂

 

funny thing ... tackling is a "footy action"

get it wrong unintentionally and hit high with severe impact and guess what ... get a suspension, footy action or not.

we all remember jack trengove's tackle , right?

this undefined term "footy action" is a furphy.  you won't find it anywhere in the afl rules of the game or any other official afl documentation.

plenty of players get rubbed out attempting footy actions that they get wrong

the afl changed the rules re head high contact and duty of care. get a bump high  and you can't claim accidental. it's at the very least careless (which is the mro's ruling here).

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by daisycutter

48 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

 

By the way, Laura Kane getting involved is huge news. Expect to see more about this.

I didn't know who Laura Kane was an hour ago but all of a sudden i like her.

Seems part of her responsibilities include overseeing mental health and well being.

Bye Bye Maynard

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

funny thing ... tackling is a "footy action"

get it wrong unintentionally and hit high with severe impact and guess what ... get a suspension, footy action or not.

we all remember jack trengove's tackle , right?

this undefined term "footy action" is a furphy.  you won't find it anywhere in the afl rules of the game or any other official afl documentation.

plenty of players get rubbed out attempting footy actions that they get wrong

the afl changed the rules re head high contact and duty of care. get a bump high  and you can't claim accidental. it's at the very least careless (which is the mro's ruling here).

Agree.

"Footy action" is a ridiculous defence because the MRO specifically cites "careless" and "intentional". "Careless" clearly applies to a "footy act" carelessly executed and gone wrong. 

You don't carelessly punch a player in the head unless you were trying to punch the ball in a footy act. You don't carelessly kick a player in the leg unless you were trying to kick the ball off the ground. If you do either of these things outside that scope then it's "intentional" and that what that stricter interpretation is there for.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by old55

"The Match Review Officer and executive general manager of football Laura Kane graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact."

I totally agree with her.

3 minutes ago, Min Xie said:

"The Match Review Officer and executive general manager of football Laura Kane graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact."

I totally agree with her.

She's clearly given him a zoom and gone hang on buddy I know what you're going to do and let me tell you it's not happening on my watch. Very impressed with Laura Kane so far.

and one other thing

maynard attempted a smother where contact was inevitable.

this was his choice and is the primary reason why he cannot claim accidental.

there are other reasons in this case too, but he started out on a course of action including contact

his supporters claim he plays on the edge as if this is some sort of get out of jail card ... weird logic i think we all know he belongs to the old make them earn it club and be damned with any duty of care.

1 minute ago, Chook said:

She's clearly given him a zoom and gone hang on buddy I know what you're going to do and let me tell you it's not happening on my watch. Very impressed with Laura Kane so far.

move christian on ffs, if he has to be told that anyway, the dinosaur has been fumbling his way through it for way too long

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

funny thing ... tackling is a "footy action"

get it wrong unintentionally and hit high with severe impact and guess what ... get a suspension, footy action or not.

we all remember jack trengove's tackle , right?

this undefined term "footy action" is a furphy.  you won't find it anywhere in the afl rules of the game or any other official afl documentation.

plenty of players get rubbed out attempting footy actions that they get wrong

the afl changed the rules re head high contact and duty of care. get a bump high  and you can't claim accidental. it's at the very least careless (which is the mro's ruling here).

Spoiling a mark used to be a footy action too, until Chairman Gleeson said it wasn't, in the JVR Tribunal hearing.

 

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

But you just feel that way because you haven't played enough contact sport, remember! 😂

Not saying that tonight are they! Bunch of wannabes looking for any excuse to tell us they once played football.
WE DON'T CARE. 

I’d comment on this but I’ve never played a game of footy. 😭

This will be a fascinating watch if it’s true that Laura Kane has intervened here and forced the MRO hand. 
 

A lot of gender optics along with a new top dog stamping her brand and then listening to the crickets because nobody will be game to argue. 
 

I’m not trying to offend with the above - it’s just accurate. 

So Chrisso wanted to throw out the match report and Laura stepped in and sent it to the tribunal instead. Interesting 

Michael Christian has more than overstayed his welcome as MRO. The system is terrible with one person effectively making the decisions and only reviewing things that are brought to his attention anyway. He is a boofhead whose sole credentials are that he played for Collingwood and was a commentator post-career.