18 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. :)

If you want to flip it around, 

Replace Brayshaw with one of the Daicos boys, and Maynard with Tom Sparrow.

Collingwood and the whole AFL media would be baying for a public execution.  To say otherwise is just bull and you know it.

20 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

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!

I wonder if he called Tom Morris prior to going to Brayshaws house to see if they could bring a camera down.  

42 minutes ago, bing181 said:

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.

Correct it was a late hit, oh wait.... a 'late' pure football action gone wrong. Ooops my bad.

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

I wonder if he called Tom Morris prior to going to Brayshaws house to see if they could bring a camera down.  

Tom Morris lives rent free in Gus’ bin

Regardless of intent, the act of connecting with the head in many instances of the game is a reportable offence these days and carries with it a penalty

Maynard could have avoided contact but even if it can be argued that he couldn't avoid slamming into Gus' head, he's still transgressed

So a charge/shirt-front best describes the head high contact.  Whether accidental or intentional makes no difference these days in many instances

On top of all that, the outcome is severe

In many areas of the game now, a player cannot accidently hit another player in the head and not expect to get suspended

That's the modern game

So ignore the dinosaurs and the footy code shared by many of the ex-players.  They're completely out of touch

The other important factor worth noting is that the AFL are in the midst of class actions involving head trauma.  If they let Maynard walk, the repercussions creates even more legal ramifications

Right now, in my view, those current class actions could easily cost the AFL a pretty penny.  Do they want even more?  I doubt it

This time around, they will find a way to make sure Maynard gets a decent sentence (not the other way around as what has happened previously)

21 minutes ago, Colm said:

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

Am sure we are in furious agreement, I don't disagree with anything you've said. My point about time goes towards intent, and that the 'footy action' taken, the smother, doesn't minimise the fact that Maynard hit AB as part of a plan. This incident started from the time Maynard started running at Gus, his intent is very bloody close to intentional.

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Gus should have belted him with the bottle and said “no worries” dropped a 6 pack of VB on his chest and dragged him out into the gutter to bleed for a while. Maybe call an ambulance a few hours later… maybe.

7 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

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? 

I see I have no support on this thread so I shall desist. I hope that the Tribunal sees the footage from all angles. As a retired lawyer, I think that must absolve Maynard from any penalty. But, as has been pointed out by deep thinkers on this thread, the Tribunal's decision may be political - not fair to player Maynard but politically correct. 

Regards to all and Go Dees,

Rollo

 

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Regardless of intent, the act of connecting with the head in many instances of the game is a reportable offence these days and carries with it a penalty

100% correct.

Tackles are a football act, but if the head hits the ground, or you don't exercise the duty of care TO THE OTHER player. You get a suspension. This is what infuriated me about Maynards comment, McRae's comment, and everyone in the media.... trying to play it down as if it's ok to do this. 

Also... if Maynard gets rubbed out, it's not going to stop people smothering the ball, it's not going to stop people jumping for marks, it WILL stop them from jumping up and collecting people in the head in the 'guise' of another action.

Andrew Gaff missed out on a GF due to him belting A. Brayshaw.

Hopefully Maynard suffers the same fate for assaulting A. Brayshaw. (Although hopefully the filth lose the Prelim.)

 

2 hours 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. 

 

Don't believe he was actually in a contest 

13 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I see I have no support on this thread so I shall desist. I hope that the Tribunal sees the footage from all angles. As a retired lawyer, I think that must absolve Maynard from any penalty. But, as has been pointed out by deep thinkers on this thread, the Tribunal's decision may be political - not fair to player Maynard but politically correct. 

Regards to all and Go Dees,

Rollo

 

haha love the not so subtle PC drive-by on your way out...

Head injuries awareness is new but it is real and here to stay... 

this is to all players' benefit

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by RickyJ45

4 hours ago, Wodjathefirst said:

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.

I think this is a sensible approach and pretty straightforward to adjudicate when one player has the ball.  It is obviously more complex when the ball is in dispute.  I've been in the camp where Maynard doesn't deserve to be suspension but would be comfortable if the AFL ruled that any high contact to the ball carrier where the defender has left the ground is deemed rough conduct, e.g treated the same as a bump.

Gary Lyon's summed it up pretty well.

“When you jump off the ground you take away any control.

“You can run and jump to spoil, and take someone out and knock ‘em out.”

Whether the Tribunal and Independent Judge (On Appeal) can uphold a charge would really depend on whether the panel can be satisfied that Maynard acted unreasonably. In any case I suspect the rules to change for next year so that actions such as Maynard's would be deemed rough conduct and treated the same as a high bump.

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned earlier here but both Patrick Dangerfield and Jason Dunstall incredulously protested in the SEN coverage, of Maynard’s innocence, and the former insisted it was in fact Angus’s duty of care to protect himself! 😱

14 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

Am sure we are in furious agreement, I don't disagree with anything you've said. My point about time goes towards intent, and that the 'footy action' taken, the smother, doesn't minimise the fact that Maynard hit AB as part of a plan. This incident started from the time Maynard started running at Gus, his intent is very bloody close to intentional.

Yeah I certainly wasn’t responding to you DF and don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. On the contrary I find most  of your post very good and think your one of the stronger contributors on here. 

14 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

100% correct.

Tackles are a football act, but if the head hits the ground, or you don't exercise the duty of care TO THE OTHER player. You get a suspension. This is what infuriated me about Maynards comment, McRae's comment, and everyone in the media.... trying to play it down as if it's ok to do this. 

Also... if Maynard gets rubbed out, it's not going to stop people smothering the ball, it's not going to stop people jumping for marks, it WILL stop them from jumping up and collecting people in the head in the 'guise' of another action.

And we've grown accustomed to the new way of thinking re the penalties for offences pertaining to the head area

Seemingly innocuous instances where the offender has done very little wrong along with no effect on the player being tackled or bumped are now readily accepted as carrying a suspension

But in this instance it was far from innocuous ... the offender had obvious intent and the victim was knocked out cold

It's at the higher end of the scale, not the lower end

And again, the coaches are teaching players how to tackle with a duty of care and in many cases, instruction players to not bump (to avoid suspension)

And here we are with Maynard slamming in to an unprotected player and it's somehow not deemed to be reportable? 

Someone might want to inform these dinosaurs that the times have already changed

All I know is that when I played for the Sandy Zebras Under 16s I saw some shyt, people. 
 

The horror. The horror. 

3 minutes ago, joeboy said:

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned earlier here but both Patrick Dangerfield and Jason Dunstall incredulously protested in the SEN coverage, of Maynard’s innocence, and the former insisted it was in fact Angus’s duty of care to protect himself! 😱

Joeboy, I hope you aren't riling me up by the Dangerfield duty of care [censored]. :)  You CAN"T have a duty of care to yourself. Dangerfield at the time said that Maynard had a duty of care to protect himself and that's why he braced, now he is saying Brayshaw had a duty of care to protect himself FROM Maynard?  Patrick Dangerfield is clueless, and a horrible actor in those AAMI ads to boot!
Even @rollinson 65 as a retired lawyer will back this part up ;)

https://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Personal-rights-and-safety/Injury-loss-and-compensation/Negligence-duty-of-care-and-loss

The law says we all have a duty of care to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable harm to other people or their property.

 

8 minutes ago, joeboy said:

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned earlier here but both Patrick Dangerfield and Jason Dunstall incredulously protested in the SEN coverage, of Maynard’s innocence, and the former insisted it was in fact Angus’s duty of care to protect himself! 😱

Your problem is listening to Dangerfield and Dunstall

I've heard stories from some senior Aussies about how rough it was when they played the game in their youth, and I believed what they shared. Times are changing, and we likely engage our minds more frequently in our daily lives today than in the past. For example, we can accomplish a multitude of tasks on the internet and connect with people worldwide. Looking ahead, having a healthy brain could become even more crucial for everyone.

Therefore, I fully support the AFL in taking measures to protect players from "high head contact." I understand that some former players may perceive this incident as part of the game, no big deal, but they have well-functioning brains that enable them to express their opinions. On the other hand, there may be former players still enduring the effects of brain injuries, rendering them unable to share their point of view.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Your problem is listening to Dangerfield and Dunstall

Unfortunately the local Balinese commentators weren’t available for the telecast 

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Your problem is listening to Dangerfield and Dunstall

you have a duty of care to yourself when you listen to them and to anyone else when you repeat what they say...

8 minutes ago, joeboy said:

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned earlier here but both Patrick Dangerfield and Jason Dunstall incredulously protested in the SEN coverage, of Maynard’s innocence, and the former insisted it was in fact Angus’s duty of care to protect himself! 😱

This would be laughable if not so seriously stupid. Are they seriously suggesting players can attack others and it is up to the victim to ensure they protect themselves at all times. Isn’t Dangerfield on the players union?

I hope Laura Kane is on the phone to him and all media bosses demanding a cease and desist on the incredibly unhelpful commentary. If nothing else it harms their litigation - here you have the media basically victim blaming ?!

Jesus wept the collingwood protection racket is worse the imagined

a decent silk prosecuting Maynard would be loving this. The systemic bias against the victim is incredible especially in the context of a Collingwood protection racket - which is what it is

This is a big test for kane

2 minutes ago, RickyJ45 said:

you have a duty of care to yourself when you listen to them and to anyone else when you repeat what they say...

grrrrr

7 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

All I know is that when I played for the Sandy Zebras Under 16s I saw some shyt, people. 
 

The horror. The horror. 

When I was playing under 16s as a 12yo undersized thing in the manangatang saints in the late 80s those Ouyen thugs (Demons colours) were knocking us out and that makes Maynard’s action actually really careful and showing ultra duty of care and then don’t forget we used to walk 10000km to school in the snow uphil and 200000km home also uphill with rocks coming downhill toward us before heading to the coal mines to work on the pyramids and we were lucky if we got fed once a year and ok boomer