53 minutes ago, Chook said:

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.

Chook, you have simplified it as it should be. Ball had left the area and then a head high bump caused injury. Onus on Maynard.

4 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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

oh wow .Dude ,ha ha ha now your a yank

The nerve of the guy to go to Gus's house with a bottle of red wine. "No worries Brayden, you have given me a brain injury with possible lifetime repercussions, you also might of ruined my career, but thanks for the wine"

1 hour 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.

JVR had eyes for the ball..not the player & the player proceeded to play the game out. Maynard had eyes for Brayshaw..the ball had left his hands and he chose to turn his shoulder & he collected him ..shoulder to head. He also left the ground. He also publicly stated he was going to go in hard. He took out one of our best midfielders and completely changed the way we had to play our game especially with the use of Trac. Laurie is also a half forward not a midfielder. I have no problem having a lifetime grudge against him & very easy to extend the same courtesy to the entire club. Don’t even get me started on Mason Cox & the rockstar applause when Ginnivan came on. Noble would be justifiably aggrieved with his omission …

5 minutes ago, forever demons said:

oh wow .Dude ,ha ha ha now your a yank

Yep I’m a non-MFC supporting, football-playing, cheap yank and Maynard-apologist  😁

Hashtag there’s my new bio! 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Did Brayden Maynard ring Tom Morris to tell him about it or let the club make that call. If it meant anything he would have said keep it out of the press.

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by YearOfTheDees

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

thats purely a show for the MRO to prove there was no malice....

malice or not, footy act or not - as Goody said, the facts speak for themselves and it was intended or recklessly careless as a minimum

dont be swayed by the crocodile tears

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by RickyJ45

10 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Yep I’m a non-MFC supporting, football-playing, cheap yank and Maynard-apologist  😁

Hashtag there’s my new bio! 

yep

Yeah how does that grub Tom Morris know about Maynard going over to Gus’ house? 
I doubt Gus told him 🙄

Someone's been reading the Aaron Vandenberg playbook

Here’s a bottle of red Gus, can you let the media know I popped over

 

1 hour 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.

Good points, however - Maynard has form here and had other options and we know he had a duty of care. He’s a buffoon and if he wants play like he does, he has to wear the opprobrium. God imagine if this had been Greene on Daicos. The media would be baying for blood. 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Shots fired shots fired

Collingwood key backman’s final campaign imperiled by cowardly act

Mobilise all media resources - turn positive PR up to the max

gus Is a bigger man than I. 

7 minutes ago, Billy said:

Here’s a bottle of red Gus, can you let the media know I popped over

 

Here’s a bottle of wine, Gus. Yes I know you can’t drink for at least 12 days, but that’s of no importance since this is nothing more than tokenism.

I think an interesting adjunct to this story is Christian’s position. If it’s true he was disinclined to refer Maynard to the tribunal, or had some difficulty coming to that decision - compelling Kane to step in -when taken alongside the broader context of the current litigation against the AFL, Christian’s position appears untenable. 

He’s either hopelessly conflicted, or hopelessly incompetent, because this is a prima facie case for a lengthy on the spot sanction. 

Either way, he must go. 

A legal, ethical and PR nightmare. 

It’ll be interesting to see what happens there. If I’m Kane, I’m removing him at season’s end and reviewing the MRO. 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by Superunknown

I hope Maynard's case is heard during prelim final week like Toby had to wait for his

5 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Here’s a bottle of wine, Gus. Yes I know you can’t drink for at least 12 days, but that’s of no importance since this is nothing more than tokenism.

Gus should just end the friendship right then and there. Who would try to injure and endanger a friend's career?

Can't believe this thread.

It was an honest footy action, fractions of seconds of time to make decisions.

I saw lots worse in my playing days (long ago). 

What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

2 hours ago, Jibroni said:

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

Well I think it was deliberate, once you leave the ground it is deliberate and you cause ALL the consequences.

He may be a wonderful charming fellow  off the ground, but if you do the crime and get caught you do the time.

13 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Can't believe this thread.

It was an honest footy action, fractions of seconds of time to make decisions.

I saw lots worse in my playing days (long ago). 

What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

Hey everybody, Rollinson 65 saw lots worse than this in his playing days, so there’s nothing left to discuss and we should close the thread before we make him feel further ashamed! 
 

“What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?“

Just a question that might be worth you pondering: 

What contest? 

 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by Mel Bourne

7 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

 

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

You might feel more at home on the filth's blog site 65

5 minutes ago, 640MD said:

Well I think it was deliberate, once you leave the ground it is deliberate and you cause ALL the consequences.

He may be a wonderful charming fellow  off the ground, but if you do the crime and get caught you do the time.

I think that's where the mentality is changing. The excuse of not being able to change direction in mid air isn't cutting it now. Responsibility starts at the choice to leave the ground and the fact is that once you leave the ground you have very little control, just like if you choose to drive fast in the wet then lose control and hit someone.

That's the message I'm getting anyway. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

 

“What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?“

Just a question that might be worth you pondering: 

What contest? 

 

A player running wide open kicking inside 50 doesn’t deserve to lose consciousness as a result? 
Our game is so weak now. 

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

I think that's where the mentality is changing. The excuse of not being able to change direction in mid air isn't cutting it now. Responsibility starts at the choice to leave the ground and the fact is that once you leave the ground you have very little control, just like if you choose to drive fast in the wet then lose control and hit someone.

That's the message I'm getting anyway. 

 

Exactly. 
 

So many times now, I’ve read the question: how was he supposed to make the decision to avoid contact within a split-second? 
 

I’m more interested in this question:

Why was he in such a position in the first place?

The answer given to that question by his would-be defenders would be:

Trying to affect a smother. 

In my view, his case begins to crumble at this point. 

If you don’t know what he was supposed to do, watch the Kosi smother attempt on Hoskin Elliot in that same game. Exactly the same action but Kosi doesn’t barrel into him. He turns and avoids him. Easy done.