Maynard must get at least four weeks

[Rednblueriseing 831]

How can I justify having my two boys grow up playing footy if Mahnard gets off because this is regarded as a legal 'football act'?

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

19 minutes ago, Redleg said:

And so has Mick Malthouse. Said he had other options.

Where was this comment / article Red?

[Demon17 5,211]

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

mate, you don't get it

it's not an issue of malice or intention to the mro in this case to warrant 3 weeks

it's simply whether it was accidental or careless (another word for reckless)

the mro found it was careless

careless - high contact - severe impact  which carries 3+ weeks suspension (no option of 1 or 2 weeks)

there is no issue on high contact or severe impact so it comes down to just the careless bit

(whether posters think it was deliberate, intentional or malicous is just their opinion and would be hard to prove. the mro has already gone with careless so that is all that is now relevant)

 

Well said. People including media who should be better informed just don't get it. 

[layzie 34,147]

47 minutes ago, pitmaster said:

Barrett's not really in the media. Not the independent media anyway. He's just a goose on afl.com.au. A boy's club [censored] and fanboy. Not a real journalist. A propagandist. A (wannabe) provocateur, unlike Kane Cornes who is an actual provocateur. Limp, like old lettuce, that's Barrett.

 

PS: Those who have not seen Offsiders (abc iview) should check it out. Roy Masters nails this issue with one sentence ("could have done more...(but) turned his shoulder" into Brayshaw.

Scroll to 15 minutes in.

Haven't seen it yet but where Rugby League journos are concerned I've always liked Roy Masters. Will check that one out cheers. 

[leave it to deever 17,546]

19 hours ago, binman said:

t's impossible to quantify the psychological impact on tracc and the rest of the team of seeing someone who tracc calls once of his best mates, a player with a terrible history of head knocks, knocked out cold 3 minutes into the game. They are not 

18 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.

I think the intent was there. Maynard's history and the fact it happened early. 

But agree the intent is a moot point. An experienced player would know a collision was inevitable going at that speed and height. It must be a mandatory 4 weeks with that impact. There must be a deterrent penalty otherwise this hit or footy act clause could be employed every week and we are back to square one protecting the head and neck.

 

[drdrake 3,187]

Interesting night at the tribunal, a bloke that elected to bump and knocked a guy out, plus another that hit a bloke in the head.  Both clubs will claim these are incidents that unfortunately happen in Footy, AFL will claim you hit them in the head with force and you had other options.

I get the feeling Maynard decision will be appealled either way by Collingwood or the AFL

[wisedog 352]

Probably the last comment I make because I’ve spent too long lurking in this thread expending emotional energy.

I just don’t understand why THIS is the flashpoint that emboldened so many past players to speak out… as if the soul of the game is at stake. Unlike other decisions and rule changes that have forced players to adapt their games - the decision to suspend Maynard will have virtually no affect on how the game should be played.

To me, it is so clearly an act of thuggery, that reading the weight of opinions to the contrary has been sickening. It all reeks of a boys club mentality between the 2000s era past players in the media and obsequious journos. So far the only past player I’ve heard in support of a suspension is Leigh Matthews. Although his own career was at times marred by accusation of thuggery he’s old enough and strong enough to not be affected by the likes of Kornes and Lloydo, Barrett and their Justice for Bruzz crusade.

Edited September 10, 2023 by wisedog

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

Anyone not angry enough yet listen to this [censored] from Buckley and Kane. 

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/10/why-buckley-believes-maynard-should-avoid-ban-for-brayshaw-collision/

Chocolates and Wine better let him off. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by YearOfTheDees
fix

[leave it to deever 17,546]

This from Sen...

" Nathan Buckley does not believe that Brayden Maynard could have done anything else in his power to avoid contact with Angus Brayshaw last Thursday ".

This is why he needs to be punished. It was a ludicrous and careless position to put Gus in. It was a deliberate decision that only had one outcome. He knew the contact with Gus would come and worsened by Maybard tucking in. Maybe he could have elected not to go full tilt at the bloke playing the game in the first instance. 

[spirit of norm smith 16,596]

Careless

High contact

Severe impact

Maynard will have to live with the consequences, hopefully through the right way, firstly suspension and in the court of public opinion. Let we not forget.  

We can only hope he feels remorse. 

I am sure Maynard is familiar with Shakespeare… “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? “

[leave it to deever 17,546]

3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Careless

High contact

Severe impact

Maynard will have to live with the consequences, hopefully through the right way, firstly suspension and in the court of public opinion. Let we not forget.  

We can only hope he feels remorse. 

I am sure Maynard is familiar with Shakespeare… “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? “

These violent delights have violent ends.

[pitmaster 3,583]

Next bloke who is confronted with Maynard or any other Collingwood player doing this should aim the Sherrin for the family jewels. That'll put a stop to it.

[Rhino 56]

16 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

This from Sen...

" Nathan Buckley does not believe that Brayden Maynard could have done anything else in his power to avoid contact with Angus Brayshaw last Thursday ".

This is why he needs to be punished. It was a ludicrous and careless position to put Gus in. It was a deliberate decision that only had one outcome. He knew the contact with Gus would come and worsened by Maybard tucking in. Maybe he could have elected not to go full tilt at the bloke playing the game in the first instance. 

Do Demonlanders remember when Brayden’s brother Corey played for Dees Big unit and had a 🏀 background Think in 80s 

[Ungarieboy 444]

21 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Anyone not angry enough yet listen to this crab from Buckley and Kane. 

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/10/why-buckley-believes-maynard-should-avoid-ban-for-brayshaw-collision/

Chocolates and Wine better let him off. 

I challenge both Buckley and Cornes to go back through the footage of their careers and produce just one example of them attempting the same footy act!!! 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Ungarieboy

[layzie 34,147]

10 hours ago, rjay said:

Look at the behind the goal footage.

If he was really attempting to smother the ball he would have jumped in line across the kick.

In the end he waved a right hand at it as it went past, he was nowhere near in line with the ball.

He ran directly at Gus.

His attempt was to put pressure on the kicker purely and simply...and he came unstuck.

I wish Kornes and some of the other past players would be just tell the truth and not come up with this football act garbage. It was an old football act to take out your opponent in play and that's yesterdays game thank goodness.

I've played and coached enough to know what he was doing.

Very well said Rjay, very well said.

I have no idea what he was thinking in the moment but after watching the footage over and over, seeing those little stutter steps at the start after he'd been running at full tilt I wouldn't be surprised if his intention was to become a flying projectile and if someone or something got taken out so be it. Adrenalin is a weird and crazy thing and while he may/may not have meant to hurt, he was out of control plain and simple. He probably didn't think he'd need to have any responsibility for his actions and he's dead wrong. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by layzie

[ElDiablo14 5,011]

Just now, Ungarieboy said:

I challenge both Buckley and Cornes to go back through the footage of their careers and produce just one footage of them attempting the same footy act!!! 

Best to stay away from SEN, Channel 7 and other media. They are disgusting.

[bandicoot 1,395]

I am a little bemused.

Are they saying it’s ok to jump full pace at a kicker, miss the smother, turn your shoulder, shirt front a defenceless player and knock them out? 

if that’s the case then every coach this weekend should be telling their players to do the same thing. Disguise a smother and clean out the opposition. 

no surer way to win the game. Last man standing. This is akin to royal rumble wrestling and not the afl 

[Kent 2,916]

31 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Interesting night at the tribunal, a bloke that elected to bump and knocked a guy out, plus another that hit a bloke in the head.  Both clubs will claim these are incidents that unfortunately happen in Footy, AFL will claim you hit them in the head with force and you had other options.

I get the feeling Maynard decision will be appealled either way by Collingwood or the AFL

we know how it goes 

2-3 weeks offered

appealed

nothing to see here 

Play on

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,892]

25 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Careless

High contact

Severe impact

Maynard will have to live with the consequences, hopefully through the right way, firstly suspension and in the court of public opinion. Let we not forget.  

We can only hope he feels remorse. 

I am sure Maynard is familiar with Shakespeare… “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? “

@spirit of norm smith . . . WTF makes you think a Filth player would have even heard of Shakespeare, let alone read him or understood him?

Edited September 10, 2023 by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

[dice 712]

15 minutes ago, Rhino said:

Do Demonlanders remember when Brayden’s brother Corey played for Dees Big unit and had a 🏀 background Think in 80s 

Father played for us in 1979 and brother in 2016

Edited September 10, 2023 by dice

[leave it to deever 17,546]

7 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Best to stay away from SEN, Channel 7 and other media. They are disgusting.

Dangers the "best"....

“There's nothing in this for me. Unfortunately in this game, there’s contact that occurs. He can’t protect himself in that position either (Maynard). He’s at the mercy of the oncoming player.”

To turn this around and have Gus who has the ball and playing the game as the oncoming traffic is wrong. It was Maynard who initiated the collision and akin to arguing that some bloke who veers across the wrong side of the road is a victim of the oncoming cars.

[Kent 2,916]

Just think what would happen if May cleaned up Daicos in a similar manner

You would hear the screams form here!

In fact if this is an example of a footy play there is nothing stopping it from becoming a regular feature in games 

Hope we play the pies again in the finals and put one of them in hospital while engaging in a football act

The commentary around this has been appalling  Tony Jones rebuked Goodwin for saying how it was at a press conference

I have never seen the old boys club close ranks so quickly ever over any previous issue

[Dr. Gonzo 24,368]

11 hours ago, Macca said:

It kinda did happen to them when the Hawthorn player cleaned up Daicos with a front on hit

So is there a connection?  Probably not but I don't necessarily believe in councidences

However, it will be interesting to see if that front on hit (which caused damage to Daicos' knee) is referenced during or prior to the tribunal case

And the Hawthorn player who came from front on wasn't smothering as Daicos and his opponent were attempting to mark

At the time, I thought the Hawthorn should have been cited for unduly rough play.  No hit to the head but it looked to me like the ribs were targeted.  Anyway, that's how the knee injury occured

I agree to an extent Macca, the one difference being that in the Daicos example it was a marking contest and so the ball was in dispute. This is often true for bumps gone wrong but the AFL has been clear for years that if you elect to bump you wear the consequences. Marking contests are different because both players are contesting the ball.

In this instance the ball was not in dispute, Brayshaw had clear possession and Maynard owed a duty of care - he can attempt to smother desperately, tackle, bump etc but once he elects to do so he must do it in a manner that is not reckless or careless as he has a duty of care to his opponent who was unable to protect himself. Recklessly jumping in the air to smother is fine, unless you happen to bowl over and concuss your opponent. Then you're in trouble.

[Young Angus 813]

Kane and Bucks occasionally make sense about something, but them pushing the "footy act" barrow on this really makes them sound pretty dumb.

[Jaded No More 68,974]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree to an extent Macca, the one difference being that in the Daicos example it was a marking contest and so the ball was in dispute. This is often true for bumps gone wrong but the AFL has been clear for years that if you elect to bump you wear the consequences. Marking contests are different because both players are contesting the ball.

In this instance the ball was not in dispute, Brayshaw had clear possession and Maynard owed a duty of care - he can attempt to smother desperately, tackle, bump etc but once he elects to do so he must do it in a manner that is not reckless or careless as he has a duty of care to his opponent who was unable to protect himself. Recklessly jumping in the air to smother is fine, unless you happen to bowl over and concuss your opponent. Then you're in trouble.

FFS Hunter got suspended for trying to win the ball in dispute against Butters in the pouring rain, with the ball on the ground. He accidently collected Butters, who went on to have 900 touches, 11 goals and win them the game, and he still got suspended.