Remember when Lindsay Thomas came sliding in and broke Gary Rohans leg? At the time and by the letter of the law that was a “football act”.

 

46 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Sorry Binman but in not sure you can effectively ask players not to protect themselves in unavoidable contact or someone falling to the ground not to tuck their shoulders.

The turning of the body by Maynard might have been a biomechanical process that just happened naturally because he jumped off a certain foot. He didnt turn that much just a little. The contact and body turn may have been unavoidable. Brayshaw also came at Maynard from an angle after kicking the ball with his right foot (again a biomechanical issue and not his fault). Had he not kicked or kicked with his left he would have probably missed Maynard. There was no decision after the smother attempt, It could be a case of just bad luck for Gus.

The fact Maynard failed to touch the ball for me is key. If he had then it would be a smother that had incidental contact. That he didn't means this was a bump and nothing else. I don't care what his intent was - the action was a bump, late, to the head.

 

7 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

I think a suspension is fair (but wouldn't be surprised if JVR spoiling the Gold Coast bloke into oblivion is used as a precedent to let him off) but carrying on like he's the devil is a bit rich. If Brayshaw had KOed Maynard in the same circumstances this board would be full of Zapruder footage style analysis of why it wasn't his fault.

He horribly mistimed something, it had serious consequences but not going to hold a lifetime grudge against him over it.

Sure, doubtless there would be one-eyed supporters on here that might react differently if a MFC player did what Maynard did.  So what. It does not excuse Maynard's actions.

He didn't just mistime it - if so they'd be a few such mistimed smothers each round.  But there are not. Hence it is not so "rich" to infer devilish behaviour in this case.  Not so devilish to automatically assume he meant to knock him out, but devilish enough.

 

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

What a great bloke 🤮 Media will love it.

9 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

I think a suspension is fair (but wouldn't be surprised if JVR spoiling the Gold Coast bloke into oblivion is used as a precedent to let him off) but carrying on like he's the devil is a bit rich. If Brayshaw had KOed Maynard in the same circumstances this board would be full of Zapruder footage style analysis of why it wasn't his fault.

He horribly mistimed something, it had serious consequences but not going to hold a lifetime grudge against him over it.

With respect, this only happened a day and a half ago. Emotions are still running high. I have yet to see a post where anyone is saying or even just implying that they’re gonna hold a lifetime grudge against the thug. Posters need to vent, it’s one of the many reasons this site is so successful.

Also, I feel you’re insulting the intelligence of many posters with your hypothesis: had Gus KOed the thug in the exact same way, I don’t think DL would be unrealistically defending Gus. After all, from what I’ve seen and read here and from other Dees supporters, JvR was lucky to have received only one week. We’re not all blindly jumping in to say Rooey wasn’t at fault.  

10 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

"Thanks mate, that'll be great for my headaches."
"No worries - Wait…is that Tom Morris hiding between your couch cushions?"

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by Chook

36 minutes ago, BDA said:

I rarely listen to the commentary. Adds very little to the experience and normally just gets on my nerves

Turned Off the commentary before the game, the pregame was doing my head in as it was 

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

With respect, this only happened a day and a half ago. Emotions are still running high. I have yet to see a post where anyone is saying or even just implying that they’re gonna hold a lifetime grudge against the thug. Posters need to vent, it’s one of the many reasons this site is so successful.

Also, I feel you’re insulting the intelligence of many posters with your hypothesis: had Gus KOed the thug in the exact same way, I don’t think DL would be unrealistically defending Gus. After all, from what I’ve seen and read here and from other Dees supporters, JvR was lucky to have received only one week. We’re not all blindly jumping in to say Rooey wasn’t at fault.  

And very few posters, if any, defended Kosi’s actions in round 1 which didn’t even result in an injury. 

I thought his actions were very poor, despite him having absolutely no prior history and had he concussed Smith I would have had no qualms with him missing a month. 

The argument was always that the MRO grades on outcome and in Kosi’s case there was no impact to Smith.

If Gus walks up and walks off, Maynard wouldn’t be in trouble even tho his actions showed no duty of care and were very careless.

33 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I hear ya but let’s not fight fire with fire. 

yes we should,why did viney disappear from the game after that,must have been told to calm down ,why didnt Gawn wack him one .Iplayed alot of footy and he would never got away with a deliberate assult like that ,if you played the game you know it was a deliberate charge aimed to hurt

1 minute ago, forever demons said:

yes we should,why did viney disappear from the game after that,must have been told to calm down ,why didnt Gawn wack him one .Iplayed alot of footy and he would never got away with a deliberate assult like that ,if you played the game you know it was a deliberate charge aimed to hurt

Oh boy. Another ‘you’ve never played the game therefore you don’t know [censored] about it’ post.

👋 

35 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This isn't the 80's mate.

Carl was the before then ,standing up for your mates is not a dated thing its forever

1 hour ago, sue said:

So it's Gus' fault for daring to kick a ball with the wrong foot. FMD. 

Explain why players don't frequently get cleaned up like that in front-on spoil attempts. The answer is: because almost all the time their aim is to smother, not annihilate.

Of course it's not all I'm saying I don't think Maynards intention was to take him out.

5 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Oh boy. Another ‘you’ve never played the game therefore you don’t know [censored] about it’ post.

👋

and I thought you supported melbourne,I guess you think maynard should walk free.aND YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED THE GAME

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by forever demons
SPELL

36 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This isn't the 80's mate.

No, it's not the 80s and all that went with it, but it was inspiring to see - just like Viney after the Brayshaw crippling - one or two such as Ditterich, Neita and particularly the smaller Rodney the Grunter stand up for teammates, challenge the aggressor and take responsibility for the ensuing 'lesson' on the outcomes of initiating foul play or a cheap shot. A true mongrel would have smothered down at the boot, and thus, interrupted the Demon progress of the ball - not the head. Maynard was just not 'good enough' to achieve that outcome so he took the easy road as soon as the ball left the hand for the foot. 

 

 

Tackling is a football act. If you intentionally or unintentionally cause a player’s head to crash into the ground (concussion), no question, you do the time.

Attempting to smother a ball is a football act. If you intentionally or unintentionally smash into a player’s head and cause concussion, you should do the time.

For obvious reasons the rules of the game focus now is to protect the head. My guess a penalty will be applied, then appealed and he will get off. Hope I’m wrong.

1 minute ago, forever demons said:

and I thought you supported melbourne,I guess you think maynard should walk free.aND YOU HAVE PLAYED THE GAME

Day-drinking doesn’t suit some people. 

3 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Of course it's not all I'm saying I don't think Maynards intention was to take him out.

I know you didn't really mean that it was Gus' fault.  But you should stick to arguing Maynard's case, not saying if Gus had done this or that it wouldn't have happened.  It's not as if Gus changed direction etc.

As to Maynard's intentions - IMO his intention was to smother and run through Gus if the opportunity arose.  Evidence is in the vision and in the fact that this does not happen regularly with front-on smothers.  Maynard's history doesn't help either.

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Day-drinking doesn’t suit some people. 

Gee what great back,dare you tell lies about me on here.A very cheap shot by a very cheap person

29 minutes ago, The Corridor said:

What a great bloke 🤮 Media will love it.

So what still thug still at least / weeks no grand final for him

I wouldn't be so miffed it Maynard just owned his actions. It was deliberate intent. A rush of blood or premeditated makes no difference. 

So Gawn, Viney, May should have beaten Maynard up like Carl used to? Who would play in their places against Carlton?

1 minute ago, forever demons said:

Gee what great back,dare you tell lies about me on here.A very cheap shot by a very cheap person

Dude, I’d happily take day-drinking as an excuse for your grammatical shortcomings. 😉

1 hour ago, binman said:

Well that will be the Pies argument. And maybe it will be a winning argument. 

I would argue he had other choices to protect himself (and gus) - Kozzie spinning in the air to avoid hitting Hoskin Elliot is once such example. And as i said how would have Maynard be hurt if he hit gus chest on (his chest would have hit Gus's head) with arms spread wide? 

And since when do you instinctively turn your shoulder when falling to the ground to protect yourself from the impact of hitting the ground?

Instinct is you put your hands and arms out to brace a fall and protect yourself from being hurt not turn your body and slam into the ground shoulder first.

The problem for Maynard is that while he appears to be applying a smother he left the ground while moving at speed towards another player and it was therefore his own responsibility to not make high contact. I would you use my shoulder as he would protect my face and my body would not be as exposed, as we were taught as juniors.

If Viney had taken out Daicos i will expect the Pies would be shattered and angry to lose an important player in such a way. If Viney went over and spoke to Daicos shortly after the fact showing remorse and had a history of friendship with him then I'd believe that there was no genuine malice in it and 1 week off is sufficient as per this case.

Would you be angry at Viney if he did the same?

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by Jibroni

3 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

So Gawn, Viney, May should have beaten Maynard up like Carl used to? Who would play in their places against Carlton?

anyone with a heart for mfc