Just now, rollinson 65 said:

No, changed my mind because of all the cheap shots.

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Kind regards,

Rollo

So, when do you turn 8? 

9 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I can't remember specifically remember the cases but Christian has let a few people off 'high contact' incidents on the basis of it "...was reasonable in the circumstances..."  It is my guess that this would have been his line before Laura Kane mercifully became involved.

I think Laura Kanes involvement is over stated. While as the Executive responsible for Football Operations she can ask for an incident to be referred to the Tribunal she does not sit on the Tribunal or have any authority to override the Tribunals decision. Additionally the appeals process should the Tribunal hand down a suspension allows for an independent panel, which Kane has no authority over, reviews how the Tribunal arrived at its decision and makes a final decision on the matter.  This incident would have always been referred directly to the tribunal.

I think Laura Kanes appointment is fantastic both in terms of her experience and transitioning from the old boys club to competent administrators, but to claim it will make a difference to the outcomes of this incident are unrealistic for the reasons above. The real impact Laura will have will start to flow through in the off season when changes are made to how incidents are reviewed and sanctions are graded and applied, in which test cases such as this one and the Van Rooyen one earlier this year, will provide valuable input.

after cripps got off last year at the appeals stage the afl stated it was unhappy with the reasoning and iirc said that they would tighten up the processes to avoid a repeat of "legal mumbo jumbo" loopholes.  after all the afl do set up the process parameters of the appeals board.

did that ever happen?

9 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Thanks in advance for desisting.

Wait, what’s this…

Look up “desist” in the dictionary, bruh. Coz you’re doing desisting wrong. 

Maybe he could throw in some ceasing.

11 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Admit the spelling mistake.

Even Hitler deserved a good lawyer. It is our system and a bulwark of our society.

I know I am repeating myself but the lawyers involved here will be looking at the real-time vision. Fractions of seconds mate, fractions of seconds. I don't care if Player Maynard gets banned for life. After all, he plays for the filth. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment. 

 

Yes.. he had a fraction of a second to turn and plow his shoulder into brayshaw. The first option would be to stick your arms out, get brayshaw in the chest and simply give up a free kick 

5 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Really?

1 minute ago, chookrat said:

I think Laura Kanes involvement is over stated. While as the Executive responsible for Football Operations she can ask for an incident to be referred to the Tribunal she does not sit on the Tribunal or have any authority to override the Tribunals decision. Additionally the appeals process should the Tribunal hand down a suspension allows for an independent panel, which Kane has no authority over, reviews how the Tribunal arrived at its decision and makes a final decision on the matter.  This incident would have always been referred directly to the tribunal.

I think Laura Kanes appointment is fantastic both in terms of her experience and transitioning from the old boys club to competent administrators, but to claim it will make a difference to the outcomes of this incident are unrealistic for the reasons above. The real impact Laura will have will start to flow through in the off season when changes are made to how incidents are reviewed and sanctions are graded and applied, in which test cases such as this one and the Van Rooyen one earlier this year, will provide valuable input.

Had she not intervened this likely wouldn’t have even gone to the tribunal!!!! That alone is enough for me. 

10 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

...

I know I am repeating myself but the lawyers involved here will be looking at the real-time vision. Fractions of seconds mate, fractions of seconds. I don't care if Player Maynard gets banned for life. After all, he plays for the filth. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment. 

 

I don't think you are. Many of us who disagree with you as to the nature of the incident are quite prepared for disappointment thank you very much without your condescension. 

And no you won't be proven right (as you claim in an earlier post) as to the nature of the incident if he gets off.  It will just confirm our suspicion that the AFL and the boot-licking media are corrupt and stupid.

5 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I think Laura Kanes involvement is over stated. While as the Executive responsible for Football Operations she can ask for an incident to be referred to the Tribunal she does not sit on the Tribunal or have any authority to override the Tribunals decision. Additionally the appeals process should the Tribunal hand down a suspension allows for an independent panel, which Kane has no authority over, reviews how the Tribunal arrived at its decision and makes a final decision on the matter.  This incident would have always been referred directly to the tribunal.

I think Laura Kanes appointment is fantastic both in terms of her experience and transitioning from the old boys club to competent administrators, but to claim it will make a difference to the outcomes of this incident are unrealistic for the reasons above. The real impact Laura will have will start to flow through in the off season when changes are made to how incidents are reviewed and sanctions are graded and applied, in which test cases such as this one and the Van Rooyen one earlier this year, will provide valuable input.

The bold part is what I was referring to as she reportedly overruled Christian in wanting to not lay any charges. 

Agree she plays no direct role on the Tribunal but the AFL can appeal a Tribunal decision

Edited September 11, 20232 yr by Lucifers Hero

8 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

He had another option… his other option was to put his hands out and brace for contact. The first option isn’t to turn and throw your shoulder into a defenceless player. That’s all the argument will need to be. Not sure what the rest of your argument is

he also had an option earlier when he embarked on a smother attempt, in such as a manner, where a collision was inevitabe.

that's 2 options and that's why it was graded as careless

Edited September 11, 20232 yr by daisycutter

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

he also had an option earlier when he embarked on a smother attemp,t in such as a manner, where a collision was inevitable.

Yep: when the word 'smother' comes up, I associate a player standing next to or close to the kicker pushing both arms down towards the kicker's boots. In other words, if you're a few meters in front of the kicker and you turn your shoulder into the oncoming kicker after he has kicked the ball is simply assault in my book.

9 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Yes.. he had a fraction of a second to turn and plow his shoulder into brayshaw. The first option would be to stick your arms out, get brayshaw in the chest and simply give up a free kick 

All this stuff about "what could he do?" as if he had no choice once committed to the jump. He had an opportunity and time not to turn his shoulder.

An Olympic diver can change from a pike to a somersault in mid-air and control their fall to enter the water head and arms first, all in fractions of a second.

 

One thing is for sure, the page count here is really going to blow put

55 minutes ago, dice said:

Lower centre of gravity - more like a bulldozer than a flying cannonball lol

And Viney only hits people in fair contest, not when they are defenseless.

Just to be absolutely clear - the AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law.

There's a specific AFL document that sets out its conduct:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

On P.18 in examples of reportable offences, the Maynard charge of Rough Conduct: Careless Conduct, Severe Impact, High Contact the example is Patrick Dangerfield on Jake Kelly E1 2021:

Remarkably similar to the Maynard on Brayshaw incident.

15 minutes ago, chookrat said:

I think Laura Kanes involvement is over stated. While as the Executive responsible for Football Operations she can ask for an incident to be referred to the Tribunal she does not sit on the Tribunal or have any authority to override the Tribunals decision. Additionally the appeals process should the Tribunal hand down a suspension allows for an independent panel, which Kane has no authority over, reviews how the Tribunal arrived at its decision and makes a final decision on the matter.  This incident would have always been referred directly to the tribunal.

I think Laura Kanes appointment is fantastic both in terms of her experience and transitioning from the old boys club to competent administrators, but to claim it will make a difference to the outcomes of this incident are unrealistic for the reasons above. The real impact Laura will have will start to flow through in the off season when changes are made to how incidents are reviewed and sanctions are graded and applied, in which test cases such as this one and the Van Rooyen one earlier this year, will provide valuable input.

Correct but the decision to refer was from her on a press release. Never been done this way and suggested she had a chat to the mro to set him straight. So as it stands today Maynard's getting 3 weeks.

Unless there's a compelling case against it. And I don't mean the football act, you haven't played the game garbage. Etc.

6 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Imagine a world where Kane fing Cornes doesn't exist!

Agree he’s reprehensible Part of Dinosaur Club

5 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Strange but when he retired yesterday thats the first thing I thought about.

I’d play Rodney Grinter on Maynard!!!

17 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

No, changed my mind because of all the cheap shots.

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Kind regards,

Rollo

I'm sorry you feel that way. You obviously see the situation differently to many here. But I think any negativity you received be looked at with the same  rationality that you feel you have applied to this incident. This is a Dees fan forum who most are  closing ranks against a substantial ammount of noise out there. So its fair to assume some backlash . It's wrong if it's been personal but passions are understandably high, given there are more than enough defending Maynard already.

I have lost faith in humanity.

Now the rabid Collingwood mob is blaming our doctors for letting a player wearing a helmet play. They are suggesting he got concussed in a previous play. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

9 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Correct but the decision to refer was from her on a press release. Never been done this way and suggested she had a chat to the mro to set him straight. So as it stands today Maynard's getting 3 weeks.

Unless there's a compelling case against it. And I don't mean the football act, you haven't played the game garbage. Etc.

a lot of commentators have said she overrode christian and that christian was not even going to make any charge.

i can see that this could be deduced but there are other possible explanations too

afaik no one at the afl (including christian) has actually made any statement on these claims. 

24 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't think you are. Many of us who disagree with you as to the nature of the incident are quite prepared for disappointment thank you very much without your condescension. 

And no you won't be proven right (as you claim in an earlier post) as to the nature of the incident if he gets off.  It will just confirm our suspicion that the AFL and the boot-licking media are corrupt and stupid.

OMG straight out of the Trump playbook.

The Appeal (if it even proves necessary) will be independent and Rules-based.

If you don't believe in the Courts as the third arm of government in this Country, God help us all. 

36 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

No, changed my mind because of all the cheap shots.

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Kind regards,

Rollo

Yikes. 

10 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I'm sorry you feel that way. You obviously see the situation differently to many here. But I think any negativity you received be looked at with the same  rationality that you feel you have applied to this incident. This is a Dees fan forum who most are  closing ranks against a substantial ammount of noise out there. So its fair to assume some backlash . It's wrong if it's been personal but passions are understandably high, given there are more than enough defending Maynard already.

 

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

OMG straight out of the Trump playbook.

The Appeal (if it even proves necessary) will be independent and Rules-based.

If you don't believe in the Courts as the third arm of government in this Country, God help us all. 

hey, leave mythical creatures who live in the sky out of this