10 minutes ago, McQueen said:

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. 

Agree. I wouldn’t want to take Laura on. She’s both a sharp legal operator and the new head of the department. Tough position to be arguing against.

I wonder if there is truth to the whispers that Gus may not play again, if Laura intervened for fear of additional litigation against the AFL.
Brayshaw and Frawley are powerful footy names and given Anita is currently in active litigation with the AFL, this can’t be good for their case.

If Maynard is allowed to play because his is deemed a reasonable action, and Gus has to retire as a result of repeated head injuries, it only further weakens the position of the AFL in their ongoing legal battles. 

Gus did not put himself in a situation where brutal force could have been expected such as throw himself into a pack or run backwards for a mark. He was running with the ball in open space trying to kick it away. He has every right to expect to walk away from that without a severe head injury. 

Whether you think what Maynard did was intentional or just a footy action gone wrong, there is no doubt the consequences of his action could well be catastrophic. The AFL cannot just simply turn a blind eye or succumb to the pressure of the feral Magpie Army. There are far bigger chess pieces in play here. 

16 minutes ago, McQueen said:

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. 

What are the gender optics here?

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

They need a completely independent and impartial panel. Perhaps an ex umpire? It just needs to be overhauled. 

 

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

What are the gender optics here?

A woman doing things outside of the kitchen. How dare she! Footy is a men’s game. Man good. Woman bad. 
 

Maynard weighs 93 kg, Max Gawn is 111 kg. If Gawn did to Maynard what Maynard had done to Brayshaw, the impact could be even more severe.

4 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

What are the gender optics here?

Sorry, gender equality in high level management positions. 

4 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Sorry, gender equality in high level management positions. 

Should this still be here in 2023 ? (i know it will never disappear but ...)

I would have thought moron(competence) optics is a more important issue

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by RickyJ45

10 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

They need a completely independent and impartial panel. Perhaps an ex umpire? It just needs to be overhauled.

Someone like Ray Chamberlain would be fantastic in the role.  Completely impartial, fair and a well balanced person with zero bias

In fact, more of the umpires need to be kept on within the AFL ... and we need more women involved especially on the Commission

The boys club element and favouritism that goes on needs to be halted

Up until this bold and correct move by Laura Kane, the MRO has been a complete joke and a farce

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by Macca

Jon Ralph had the audacity to say tonight that Collingwood must be wondering ‘why them who has to be the test case for accidental collisions?’

No Jon. The person asking why them is Angus Brayshaw. There’s only one innocent party in this whole thing. He’s worked his entire career to be playing right now and he’s not able to play through no fault of his own.

The handling of this has really shone a light on the horrific pandering the football media does to the bigger clubs. Ratings doesn’t equal truth, no matter how they try and sell it.

2 minutes ago, RickyJ45 said:

Should this still be here in 2023 ? (i know it will never disappear but ...)

I would have thought moron(competence) optics is a more important issue

Can you explain your second paragraph a little more please. 

1 minute ago, The heart beats true said:

Jon Ralph had the audacity to say tonight that Collingwood must be wondering ‘why them who has to be the test case for accidental collisions?’

No Jon. The person asking why them is Angus Brayshaw. There’s only one innocent party in this whole thing. He’s worked his entire career to be playing right now and he’s not able to play through no fault of his own.

The handling of this has really shone a light on the horrific pandering the football media does to the bigger clubs. Ratings doesn’t equal truth, no matter how they try and sell it.

🍆🍆

I must say, all this is going to be cold comfort if we [censored] the bed against Carlton next week. 

 

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

Someone like Ray Chamberlain would be fantastic in the role.  Completely impartial, fair and a well balanced person with zero bias

In fact, more of the umpires need to be kept on within the AFL ... and we need more women involved especially on the Commission

The boys club element and favouritism that goes on needs to be halted

Up until this bold and correct move by Laura Kane, the MRO has been a complete joke and a farce

Ray Chamberlain would be great. Huge ego, massive interest in the game but no actual bias. Perfect for a role like this.

20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I wonder if there is truth to the whispers that Gus may not play again, if Laura intervened for fear of additional litigation against the AFL.
Brayshaw and Frawley are powerful footy names and given Anita is currently in active litigation with the AFL, this can’t be good for their case.

If Maynard is allowed to play because his is deemed a reasonable action, and Gus has to retire as a result of repeated head injuries, it only further weakens the position of the AFL in their ongoing legal battles. 

Gus did not put himself in a situation where brutal force could have been expected such as throw himself into a pack or run backwards for a mark. He was running with the ball in open space trying to kick it away. He has every right to expect to walk away from that without a severe head injury. 

Whether you think what Maynard did was intentional or just a footy action gone wrong, there is no doubt the consequences of his action could well be catastrophic. The AFL cannot just simply turn a blind eye or succumb to the pressure of the feral Magpie Army. There are far bigger chess pieces in play here. 

100%. This is one of the few times the Magpies are the smallest player in the room.

2 minutes ago, Chook said:

Ray Chamberlain would be great. Huge ego, massive interest in the game but no actual bias. Perfect for a role like this.

And he wouldn't embarrass himself trying to bounce the ball ever again.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by leucopogon

25 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Can you explain your second paragraph a little more please. 

Yes. Is the general failure of the MRO process more due to the "boys club" mentality or more due to the lack of the right process/skills/competence (which i loosely label as moronism). ?

Probably a bit of both but I presume more the latter...

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by RickyJ45

I can see this eventuating in a one-week suspension. I’m not saying it should. 
 

 

3 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

I can see this eventuating in a one-week suspension. I’m not saying it should. 
 

 

I don't think it can be one. It will be either 3+ or nothing.

15 minutes ago, Chook said:

Ray Chamberlain would be great. Huge ego, massive interest in the game but no actual bias. Perfect for a role like this.

Last week at our W round one match Razor led the umpires out onto the ground while we were waiting to raise the banner. We gave him a rousing reception, cheering and clapping and calling out “onya Raze!” It wasn’t long before his awww shucks face turned into his this is [censored] awesome face. He was absolutely loving it! 😂

6 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

I can see this eventuating in a one-week suspension. I’m not saying it should. 
 

 

One week seems fair. A lot of hyperbole about Gus ending his career here, I don’t disbelieve there’s a contract clause but I have no belief that’s a discussion at this early stage.

To my eye, Maynard tucked his shoulder for impact. That’s a difficult problem as turning side on for collision is what players are told. And it was a collision rather than a bump imv, which makes it a football incident.

Maynard plays hard, that’s what he brings and he overstepped.

But JVR also has some hardness, we love it. He swung and elbow and has a week, fair. But same action could’ve knocked the player out if he was less lucky.

If we penalise the action not the result, then I’d give JVR the longer penalty.

Maynard deserves a suspension, but one week of finals is surely worth three H&A.

Don’t know how they can adjudicate an outcome that’s not inline with the formula, but missing a PF seems right to me.

For the record, I don’t think JVR nor Maynard are ‘thugs’.

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think it can be one. It will be either 3+ or nothing.

It will be both. The process will more likely than not be the tribunal gives 3 weeks, there will be an appeal and he will get nothing. 
Reading between the lines MRO is weak as urine (not making a call but instead hand balling to the tribunal), tribunal makes a call (that makes the AFL appear to be doing the right thing about concussion taking into current / future litigation cases) and when the legals appeal and win, the AFL can say they tried to do the right thing but their hands were tied (and the Ferals are happy and tv ratings go through the roof).

Everyone is happy, well almost everyone.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by Wodjathefirst
Typo

1 hour ago, RickyJ45 said:

Yes. Is the general failure of the MRO process more due to the "boys club" mentality or more due to the lack of the right process/skills/competence (which i loosely label as moronism). ?

Probably a bit of both but I presume more the latter...

I just think it’s so broken and discombobulated that no one knows definitively what the judicial process is so it safer to hand it over the the lawyers to litigate the clubs out of any blame and I can imagine the effect it has on the ‘boys club’ sentiment.  
 

All just arze - covering. 
 

 

whoop

 

              whoop
 

 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by McQueen

He's in deep do-do

AFL is going to make a statement on this, ruled as Careless, High Contact and Severe Impact.

That's three games minimum but could be more. 

I knew they were going to take a tough stance on this. Its a test of Laura's leadership and they have to eradciate players getting knocked out like this. Football incident or not, it's not just a bad look, it will cost them dearly in court cases by ex players.

If you watch the final moments of the video you can see Maynard bunch up and turn into Brayshaw, that's the definitive moment and why he will not play again this year. If he had of turned the other way he may have had a chance to glance Gus's head and not knock him out. Or he could have brought his arms down and angled them into Brayshaws body so that the initial force of the impact was deflected. 

The Filth will appeal and argue it down. If they get it down to High Impact it's two weeks so no GF. No way they will get it down to Medium impact. He's done. 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by Hatchman

10 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Interesting to see if Melbourne fight Roos charge. I'd say he got off light and let it ride.

Light? Was Mcstay even hurt?