Jack Martin got two weeks for his action last night

If that deserves 2 weeks, then Maynard is absolutely [censored]

7 minutes ago, Billy said:

Get over your playing days, what’s that got to do with anything 

Have you seen the actions players are getting suspended for in the 2020s

Get over the tough man image, l played 25+ years ago & it would’ve been a dirty act then

 

49 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Fractions of seconds, people.

Fractions of seconds.

It is a contact game.

I am not playing the "I played and you did not" card but please consider.

Angus had the ball and was about to deliver a potentially dangerous kick. He is a dangerous kick, one of our best. Maynard saw the opportunity to smother and committed his body. His body.

Sometimes on the field, the mind takes a rest and the body takes over.

I am ashamed of some of the things I did on the field, but this was a football action, pure and simple. Maynard's past history is simply irrelevant. Ask any lawyer.

Sorry that's HAD delivered a potentially dangerous kick. It was post kick, stop making excuse for him.

A bit unreal to see people defending Maynard. He had other choices while still attempting the smother, which is why he'll face the tribunal.

As a side note, umpires paid a downfield free, which isn't going to help the "football act" defence.

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by bing181

19 minutes ago, BDA said:

it's a footy act dub. Have you not seen a shoulder smother before?

No and I played in tough Amos for 10 yeard and NEVER heard of a shoulder smoother EVER!

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Jack Martin got two weeks for his action last night

If that deserves 2 weeks, then Maynard is absolutely [censored]

The penny might have finely dropped for the AFL. Guess we will fine out for sure during the week.

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Jack Martin got two weeks for his action last night

If that deserves 2 weeks, then Maynard is absolutely [censored]

FRIGGEN GOOD GOD IM LIVID🤬

Initially I thought it was a football action, but in retrospect you have to consider that Maynard runs flat out a player in an attempt to smother the ball, but then turns his body to collect him in a classic shirt-front action.  

 

Given his actions a) is it reasonably foreseeable that Maynard would make forceful contact with Gus and b) did he have a duty of care to avoid that?  Yes, definitely on the first question and the second is what the tribunal must decide.   

Given the history of the player, the history of his extended family and the issues surrounding contact sports in general I'd be staggered if the AFL didn't use this as an opportunity to signal that they are taking the issue of concussion seriously.

People can say it is "unfair" and inconsistent, (not prime considerations generally for tribunal rulings) but the AFL constantly 'stage manage' tribunal decisions (sorry to disappoint anyone that thinks the tribunal is independent in its decision-making), just this time it isn't about ensuring players can win Brownlow's or play in GFs, but ensuring that the general footy public understand that it is doing something about an issue it is currently facing litigation actions in. 

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by grazman

Just now, YearOfTheDees said:

The penny might have finely dropped for the AFL. Guess we will fine out for sure during the week.

One way or another this goes to appeal. I hope it drags on and on and it impacts their preparation and Maynard is suffering from the nervous runs all week in the lead up. 

And then the appeal fails and the Magpie Army with their 7 brain cells and 3 teeth lose their mind. And I get to watch Maynard’s sad face in the stands on prelim day. 

 

Just now, rollinson 65 said:

 

Billy, you have to agree.

Back in the day, we had day jobs and were lucky to make it to training twice a week. No way we would have had the athletic ability to leap off the ground to affect a smother. 

It could never have happened back in our day, but I still say it was a pure football action. 

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Billy, you have to agree.

Back in the day, we had day jobs and were lucky to make it to training twice a week. No way we would have had the athletic ability to leap off the ground to affect a smother. 

It could never have happened back in our day, but I still say it was a pure football action. 

Doesn't matter. Football action has no standing in the rules. All acts in a game can be deemed football acts. Some just won't meet standards of play and scoring by mro.

Careless. High severe impact is all that will be argued by afl.

4 weeks. Maybe 3

55 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Fractions of seconds, people.

Fractions of seconds.

It is a contact game.

I am not playing the "I played and you did not" card but please consider.

Angus had the ball and was about to deliver a potentially dangerous kick. He is a dangerous kick, one of our best. Maynard saw the opportunity to smother and committed his body. His body.

Sometimes on the field, the mind takes a rest and the body takes over.

I am ashamed of some of the things I did on the field, but this was a football action, pure and simple. Maynard's past history is simply irrelevant. Ask any lawyer.

You're a brave bloke arguing a POV and I get your points, I just don't agree for the following reasons:

'Fractions of seconds' is all it took for Maynard to make choices to roll his shoulder, he already knew where AB was and was going. AB was predictable, Maynard had ~2+ seconds to make a plan, which he executed. AB didn't unexpectedly change direction.

There were two actions. The smother yeah that's fine. The shoulder to the face, not so much, the second action is not automatic to the smother attempt, i.e. like punching a ball and your momentum and the other players brings his head into your elbow. Maynard completed a second action that sees him miss the GF.

Fractions of a second is not relevant here, he had time to consider and execute two different actions.

Agree 4-6 weeks.

The AFL will make a political statement.

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

What has fractions of a second or football actions got to do with anything? A bump is a footy action, so too is a tackle if you execute either incorrectly and knock a player out cold then you have failed in your duty of care to that person. 
As others have said- after the smother attempt he had options. The easiest one was to keep his hands out in front and not harm Gus but he didn’t he dropped his should and twisted his body into Gus. Doesn’t  mater if he had a fraction of a second, 2 seconds or two minutes. It’s the action and the outcome that matter here

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by Colm

Apparently Brayden "the scumbag dog" Maynard went to the Brayshaw Household to give Angus Brayshaw a bottle of wine?!

Why would you give someone a bottle of wine who has had a concussion injury?! 🤦🏼‍♂️

It would be like giving a person who is scared of heights free tickets for bungee jumping.

Your fruitless attempt to "suck up" and apologise will fail Brayden Maynard you vile grub! 🤬🤬🤬🤬

They really are a bunch of classless morons down at Collingwood!

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by Supreme_Demon

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

I assume being a Collingwood player it was a bottle of yellowtail?

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by grazman

49 minutes ago, BDA said:

The argument is illogical.

He had 2 possible decisions to make. Maintain his smothering action. Or decide to turn his shoulder which he did. Both decisions required the same split second. Why preference one decision over the other? Because he did have time. And being a filthy thug, he decided to inflict damage on Gus. It’s obvious if you ask me.

The other nonsense argument is the footy act defence. I’ve never seen the shoulder smother ever before yet apparently it is a footy act.

if the afl is serious about concussion they will mount a very strong case including Maynard’s alleged comments to media outlining his intent to damage/cause hurt. That establishes motive/intent and removes any ambiguity about malice or lack thereof

1 minute ago, grazman said:

I assume being a Collingwood player it was a bottle of yellowtail?

It was a goon sack 

14 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Billy, you have to agree.

Back in the day, we had day jobs and were lucky to make it to training twice a week. No way we would have had the athletic ability to leap off the ground to affect a smother. 

It could never have happened back in our day, but I still say it was a pure football action. 

Rollo l know it’s your opinion but you need to quit while you’re ahead.

 

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Agree 4-6 weeks.

The AFL will make a political statement.

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

Misdirection/straw man. He wasn’t playing for us. I don’t feel sorry for him at all. Plays at the edge - live by the sword die by it. I would savour him missing a GF except I don’t want them to win it. 

39 minutes ago, Billy said:

Get over your playing days, what’s that got to do with anything 

Have you seen the actions players are getting suspended for in the 2020s

Get over the tough man image, l played 25+ years ago & it would’ve been a dirty act then

 

29 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Jack Martin got two weeks for his action last night

If that deserves 2 weeks, then Maynard is absolutely [censored]

Blessed day. 
 

This is the way - AFL has spoken.

7 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

I suspect this finals season has been the tipping point for a lot of people and their relationship with AFL broadcasting. I love going to the footy, but I can’t stand it on the TV.

For me Thursday nights TV was the pinnacle. Angus Brayshaw lay motionless in the middle of the MCG for an off the ball incident that will control the AFL media landscape for the next 2 weeks - but the broadcaster was showing us De Goey limping because he rolled his ankle.

Their pandering isn’t helping anyone, and least of all the game. If Kayo had the option to just watch the game with crowd noise I’m guessing 80% of the audience would watch it.

You can use SEN to sync audio somehow to your TV ... haven't used it, but it keeps popping up as an option.

12 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Agree 4-6 weeks.

The AFL will make a political statement.

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

SAD? Caryyyst could have killed him 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by picket fence

28 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Billy, you have to agree.

Back in the day, we had day jobs and were lucky to make it to training twice a week. No way we would have had the athletic ability to leap off the ground to affect a smother. 

It could never have happened back in our day, but I still say it was a pure football action. 

No, Pickett's attempt at a smother was a pure football action. Almost identical, but amazingly didnt attempt to knock  Hoskin-Elliott into next week.
Maynard shuffled before he jumped, and changed his angle at the last minute to line up Brayshaw. He had intent to make contact with the player.  

How many of these 'pure football actions' have you seen in the last 5-10 years where people attempt to smother the ball, and knock out the player kicking it?