6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

How can Gus sue on what grounds though?

He knew that playing footy from his history of concussion that he was putting himself at risk with every game he played.

I certainly think any talk of suing is certainly over the top. There be clause in his contract that if he were to take a hit and retire he'd get a payout immediately from the footy club.

Gus would only sue if he felt that club doctors did not prioritise his health as a priority and put him at risk by allowing him back playing against medical orders. 

In this case, I think the club hasn't handled this just fine.

Just the fact that Maynard would  receive a Statement of Claim for the results of the act by Registered mail is worth the effort. 

Iv'e seen it done and the recipient usually s___ts  themselves to put it colloquially.

If the AFL clears Maynard, its not an unreasonable step to take just fro the impact.  Similair to a criminal case being cleared , but the aggreived party then mounting a civil claim. Often successfully.

 

3 hours ago, deva5610 said:

With respect, that's not true at all. Play this video at .25 speed and you will clearly see Maynard jumps to attempt his smother before the ball even touches Brayshaw's boot.

That said - I don't think the fact he was legitimately attempting a smother absolves him of responsibility for his actions and their consequences so I think he should cop a few weeks for it. Running full tilt at a player and jumping is always going to carry the risk of an outcome like this and when that happens, you wear the punishment.

The breakdown of the vision speed clearly indicates selected impact trajectory (of otherwise several options for Maynard) who has elected to clean Gus up (priority 1) masked as a smother (priority 2) in order to enact his revenge for being ineffective against the final Gus kick (priority 2-3). Impact, nicely done, now plead innocence 'there was nothing else I could have done...' His defence - I am a motor moron with limited agility so that was bad luck for Gus.

24 minutes ago, Colm said:

I had thought suing is over the top but if Gus

Yes a bit tongue in cheek, but if this kind of action is justified by some and especially the tribunal, then they put themselves at risk of litigation.

Guys it's really not difficult 

He ticks boxes there is a penalty applied.

It's written down in the rules

Careless( probably), intentional ( probably not)high,severe impact( definitely)

After that the appeal and this new born " football action" fantasy shirtfronts the process of the last two(?) seasons regarding the sacrosanct  nature of the noggin.

Meanwhile the Dee's have more relevant matters to attend to

53 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

How can Gus sue on what grounds though?

He was assaulted outside the laws of the game that's why he could pursue legal action

Yeah, he signed up to play football, but not to be king hit

The easier avenue would be to sue the AFL and if he is forced to retire as the result of an illegal hit, he'd be confident of getting a decent payout

Ongoing pain and suffering etc etc.  An inability or restricted ability to earn money

It's why I believe the AFL will give Maynard a lengthy sentence... and we've seen the AFL instruct the tribunal before during the Essendon drug taking saga

And the AFL can appeal against a weak sentence much like they did with Toby Greene

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by Macca

4 hours ago, dice said:

 

"Every single one of them". Motive

Jeez, honestly reckon there’s another clip floating around somewhere. I distinctly heard Maynard say the word “Toey”………in the context of him being an enforcer. Sorry for harping on about it but I’m not imagining things……..I hope 🤓

If Gus is forced out of the game could Maynard be forgiven if he offered his own retirement? 

43 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

How can Gus sue on what grounds though?

He knew that playing footy from his history of concussion that he was putting himself at risk with every game he played.

I certainly think any talk of suing is certainly over the top. There would be a clause in his contract that if he were to take a hit and retire prematurely,  he'd get a contract payout immediately from the footy club.

Gus would only sue if he felt that club doctors did not prioritise his health as a priority and put him at risk by allowing him back playing against medical orders. 

In this case, I think the club hasn't handled this just fine.

Going down a little bit of a rabbit hole here that wasn’t really my intention. 
I’m not say Gus would sue the club. More so I was pointing out that there’s potential for him to be entitled to loss of earnings if he was to retire.  He might have a concussion clause as you say- I’ve never heard of such a clause but it might make sense both in the day and age and more so in his case.But then what- we pay out $3mil?! Does that come out of salary cap over next 5 years? Is it covered by insurance? If so who’s ? Ours, the AFLs or pies? Somebody has to write the cheque.

 

But the main point I was making is that this case that will go before the tribunal could have ramification down the track for this case and also if it sets a precedent and that being the case I can’t see anything other than a serious suspension for Maynard. 

1 hour ago, grazman said:

Except that he made a conscious decision to run full tilt at an opposition player and should have reasonably foreseen he would make forceful contact with that player as a result.  The end result is the shoulder connected with the head.

He got it wrong - plain and simple. 

Just to clarify, my comment was designed to state that it was in his character to hit Gus in the head with his shoulder instead of a less course reaction. I'm not defending Maynard other than he had thuggery instilled into him somewhere in his formative years.

Real eyes realise real lies.

14 minutes ago, DeeSince73 said:

Jeez, honestly reckon there’s another clip floating around somewhere. I distinctly heard Maynard say the word “Toey”………in the context of him being an enforcer. Sorry for harping on about it but I’m not imagining things……..I hope 🤓

you don't need to...it has been well documented his early game "intensity" is a barometer for collingwood's performances in the media, by the same people who are now protecting him... we should have had someone on him tbh but that is another thing....he runs straight lines at players and the ball is a secondary consideration ..."blind freddy" incl. Mcguire knows this... there is just a media windup of past players protecting their own legacies, pathetic un-principled hypocritical hangers-on like barrett,  and collingwood media influencers stirring the pot which is annoying

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by RickyJ45

1 minute ago, RickyJ45 said:

there is just a media windup of past players protecting their own legacies, pathetic un-principled hangers on like barrett,  and collingwood influencers stirring the pot which is annoying

It's like a riot where police stand by as looters take what they want.

44 minutes ago, Macca said:

He was assaulted outside the laws of the game that's why he could pursue legal action

CTE has now been known about for 20 years.

It has a foreseeable outcome (known for 20 years), there been negligence in the precautions and efforts to minimize (also duty of care), and is there is damage.

Foreseeable, negligent and damage, the three things required for litigation.

 

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by kev martin

1 minute ago, layzie said:

If Gus is forced out of the game could Maynard be forgiven if he offered his own retirement? 

Zero chance of that happening layz.  The visit to see Brayshaw I see as a cynical act

He doesn't want to miss out on a GF and that was his motivation in my view.  To gain favour before he has to answer to the trubunal

I can't help but compare this incident to when Matthews cleaned up an unsuspected Neville Bruns

Of course Matthews was de-registered by the league back then (6 weeks) but can't remember if there was any legal ramifications

It's a tough enough game to play but to be king hit when unprotected cannot be part of the sport

38 minutes ago, Macca said:

He was assaulted outside the laws of the game that's why he could pursue legal action

Yeah, he signed up to play football, but not to be king hit

The easier avenue would be to sue the AFL and if he is forced to retire as the result of an illegal hit, he'd be confident of getting a decent payout

Ongoing pain and suffering etc etc.  An inability or restricted ability to earn money

It's why I believe the AFL will give Maynard a lengthy sentence... and we've seen the AFL instruct the tribunal before during the Essendon drug taking saga

And the AFL can appeal against a weak sentence much like they did with Toby Greene

Lol he's not going to pursue legal action Macca.

Every game is a risk for any player to be knocked out by an opposition player. Players get knocked all the time

I know we are all over emotional about the circumstances but it really is over the top that you'd think Gus who's got a history of concussion and knew the risk that he was one hit away from career ending would personally sought legal action against that one particular player.

Name me the last player to pursue legal action against an opposition player for this particular case in the last 20 years?

None, because they simply don't have the ground to stand on. You put yourself at risk playing a contact sport.

Maynard will be dealt with appropriately. 

Gus won’t pursue legal action, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if Maynard isn’t suspended, his MIL will be using that in her own legal action against the AFL. 

You did nothing to help my husband, and you’re doing nothing to prevent these concussions now that my son in law is playing 3 decades later. 

19 minutes ago, DeeSince73 said:

Jeez, honestly reckon there’s another clip floating around somewhere. I distinctly heard Maynard say the word “Toey”………in the context of him being an enforcer. Sorry for harping on about it but I’m not imagining things……..I hope 🤓

Says "toey" at 6.30 in that vid. It's all jovial talk but we all knew he was going to beeline someone. Such a wannabee enforcer - shame he never played on someone like Andy Goodwin

13 minutes ago, kev martin said:

CTE has now been known about for 20 years.

It has a foreseeable outcome (known for 20 yeras), there been negligence in the precautions and efforts to minimize (also duty of care), and is there is damage.

Foreseeable, negligent and damage, the three things required for litigation.

If the player involved wasn't Angus Brayshaw,  the AFL mightn't be as concerned about the ramifications of a head high hit

But Gus has been knocked around previously so the AFL has to have a duty of care themselves to make sure he is not forced out of the game

They've got rules in place but Maynard has transgressed and crossed the line.  They can't and won't let him walk otherwise they are drawing a rod for their own back

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He's not going to pursue legal action

Did you read my post? I talked about him being possibly able to take action against the AFL

As numerous players are currently doing in 2 separate class actions

Specifically related to CTE & head trauma

 

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by Macca

I wouldn’t suggest anyone listen to Adam Ramanauskas view on the matter… he made comment on ABC sport this afternoon.

seriously… https://ab.co/3ldkTLQ

Adam reckons, Maynard was actually trying to protect Brayshaw with his action. And the tribunal should only be for when malice is involved…. Luckily Fly reckons there was only a “little” bit of Malice hey Adam? 
 

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by Ouch!

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Lol he's not going to pursue legal action Macca.

That is not what some media, legals and past players are saying. More to play through here I think.

Most are covered by workers insurance, so it is not out of pocket. Though volunteers, such as the board members are in an ambiguous position (not being fully covered). 

9 minutes ago, kev martin said:

That is not what some media, legals and past players are saying. More to play through here I think.

Most are covered by workers insurance, so it is not out of pocket. Though volunteers, such as the board members are in an ambiguous position (not being fully covered). 

Gus was possibly only one more head hit away from having to retire prematurely and even though his last head hit might have been some time ago, that next hit and the ramifications of that next hit was always a factor no matter when it happened again

And this was no ordinary head hit.  It was a king hit.  Gus is complaining about neck pain and in all reality, it's like he's been involved in high speed car accident.  On top of that we're being told he's in a bad way

My gut feeling after hearing the reports is that we won't see him back this season and he'll be seriously considering his future over the summer.  Is it all going to be worth it?  You only live once

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

My gut feeling after hearing the reports is that we won't see him back this season and he'll be seriously considering his future over the summer.  Is it all going to be worth it?  You only live once

I think you're right.

He would have a career in the media to fall onto.

2 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Fourth , the charge at Brayshaw ... took out one of our best and it prob changed the outcome in that  QF. Arguable but either way we lost a close final and probably ended our flag hopes.

Surprised that this hasn't been mentioned more. Apart from being strong as a mid, Brayshaw has been key to allowing Trac more forward time and as such, in the way the team is setup.

Losing that game will really cost us, and losing Brayshaw was a real factor in why we lost that game.

24 minutes ago, Macca said:

If the player involved wasn't Angus Brayshaw,  the AFL mightn't be as concerned about the ramifications of a head high hit

But Gus has been knocked around previously so the AFL has to have a duty of care themselves to make sure he is not forced out of the game

They've got rules in place but Maynard has transgressed and crossed the line.  They can't and won't let him walk otherwise they are drawing a rod for their own back

Did you read my post? I talked about him being possibly able to take action against the AFL

As numerous players are currently doing in 2 separate class actions

Specifically related to CTE & head trauma

 

My mistake, you're right I did misunderstand thr comment even though it was initially stated that it was again Maynard.

In that case, if Gus feels that he felt mistreated by the AFL around the way he was handled then yes he has every right to pursue legal action which we've seen now from past players.

24 minutes ago, kev martin said:

That is not what some media, legals and past players are saying. More to play through here I think.

Most are covered by workers insurance, so it is not out of pocket. Though volunteers, such as the board members are in an ambiguous position (not being fully covered). 

Yes I completely misunderstood the comment as it was initially stated that legal action would be pursued against Maynard himself.

I agree also, we're seeing a lot more ex players now taking action against thr AFL. This is why Maynard needs to be dealt accordingly by the tribunal.