9 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Sounds remarkably like the current AFL media. Kane Cornes basically inferring that unless you've played the game you have no idea what you are talking about when you comment about this.  Which made it nice to hear Gerard Whately's comments this morning where he pointed out Dermie's take on the matter.

How dare Whately have an opinion on this, given he hasn't played the game. /sarcasm.

But it's a spot on opinion.

41 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions ...

Irrelevant. No-one has to prove that for him to be suspended.

6 minutes ago, BDA said:

malice or intent does not apply.

was the action careless or not is the question for the tribunal to ponder.

If you think it is not careless please explain why

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

Irrelevant. No-one has to prove that for him to be suspended.

Read the Toby Bedford decision.

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Only a lawyer can have an opinion on the interpretation of this?!  FMD

As for The Toby rationale, on the basis of the past behaviour of all things AFL, why would anyone not think the AFL might go hard or not in an appeal on the basis of other agendas. 

23 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

This just makes me angry. Really angry. 

Tom Browne Twitter (X) comments 

“There is no suggestion Maynard jumped off the ground to knock Brayshaw out. 

He jumped off the ground to spoil. A football act”. 
 

“A lot of people are talking about Maynard turning his shoulder.

Jump up on the spot, and see how much decision time you have, when suspended in the air with your feet off the ground. Very little.

Maynard just braced at the last moment, which is reflex in the circumstances”. 
 

Tom Browne is the son of Collingwood chairman and president Jeff Browne. 

Surely he needs to declare a direct conflict of interest here and not comment directly in such a one sided basis in his media role.  It is quite sickening.

The truth is : 

it was careless (he had options, but he chose to turn to bump not brace) 

it was head high

it was severe impact 

there was a duty of care 

4 weeks suspension is the final word. 

When i read this post, i noticed his comments were blocked. Real rock solid piece of reporting there. They are going full media blitz with this. 

On 9/9/2023 at 6:55 PM, rollinson 65 said:

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. :)

 

2 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

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

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Kind regards,

Rollo

 

1 hour ago, rollinson 65 said:

The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive.  :)

 

It's unsurprising that you are Maynard's greatest advocate since it seems you see the solution to all issues through the prism of violence.

You're probably suffering from PTSD from a lifetime of associating with career criminals through your legal practice.

Seek help before it's too late.

3 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

not as simple as that

it depends whether maynard had options or not. so no intent required. Duty of care is important where maynard had options (choices)

as i've said before

1. he took option to smother, in a manner, where collision was inevitable

2. after failed smother with impact imminent he took option to change his stance and bump with his shoulder. he had other options

neither of these 2 options are new to afl deliberations

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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

WCW, Michael Christensen graded the incident as careless, severe impact and high impact and under the Tribunal Guidelines all reportable severe impact incidents are automatically referred to the Tribunal. Here is the link to the actual match review as reported by the AFL.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1026111/match-review-collingwood-magpies-defender-brayden-maynard-learns-fate-over-angus-brayshaw-collision

The above directly contradicts the false narrative that Michael Christensen did not deem the incident as reportable.  If I were to speculate the reason for the joint report is that Laura is backing in and supporting the MRO in what is a very high profile incident, while the media is looking for the best headline.

30 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

This just makes me angry. Really angry. 

Tom Browne Twitter (X) comments 

“There is no suggestion Maynard jumped off the ground to knock Brayshaw out. 

He jumped off the ground to spoil. A football act”. 
 

“A lot of people are talking about Maynard turning his shoulder.

Jump up on the spot, and see how much decision time you have, when suspended in the air with your feet off the ground. Very little.

Maynard just braced at the last moment, which is reflex in the circumstances”. 
 

I just tried jumping on the spot in a smothering motion. I found it impossible to have time to change my body shape into a dangerous bumping shape leading with my shoulder.  This is pretty impressive by Maynard. and indicates it is not a reflex but premeditated

Arguing with these ****wits is starting to be like arguing with anti-vaxxers. they are so belligerent they don't even listen to other views 

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

Remember also, Butters dove head first towards the ball.

In no way Hunter was culpable of that contact yet he got the suspension.

Malice or no malice is irrelevant.

Do I need to be found to act with malice while DUI to receive a punishment? Wouldn't think so.

The sad part is it doesn't matter at all what the MRO or tribunal say. We know they will appeal.

can we just skip to the appeal? the rest is all BS.  Not until 11pm on thursday night will be know anything

Just now, DubDee said:

The sad part is it doesn't matter at all what the MRO or tribunal say. We know they will appeal.

can we just skip to the appeal? the rest is all BS.  Not until 11pm on thursday night will be know anything

Well the tribunal may still find him not guilty. I doubt it but they could. 
As you say tho, the appeals board is the problem. How much influence does the AFL have over them? Because we know the tribunal is just a puppet show run by the chief. 

Seems a few of the Dees weren't too pleased with Maynard's visit

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/11/melbourne-teammate-left-angered-by-maynards-awkward-brayshaw-visit/

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by Mickey

9 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

Jaded there is no rule, either in the laws of the game or tribunal guidelines, about leaving the ground. The Tribunal Guidelines specifically refer to high bumps being automatically graded as rough conduct but does not distinguish between whether player has left the ground. Similarly there is no reference to whether a player must have eyes for the ball.

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by chookrat

2 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Seems a few of the Dees weren't too pleased with Maynard's visit

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/11/melbourne-teammate-left-angered-by-maynards-awkward-brayshaw-visit/

No doubt that teammate was Viney and he had to excuse himself from dropping that piece of dog [censored] to the ground and pouring the goon sack he brought over on his head. 
 

0 good intentions in that visit. Just a pathetic PR exercise. 

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by Jaded No More

11 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Read the Toby Bedford decision.

You read the Toby Bedford decision. Not even a mention of "intent", it was all about the level of force (and thus the grading).

You really should stop.

"We accept it was open to the Tribunal to find that there was contact by the body of Bedford with Fisher’s head, however in our view neither the evidence nor the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was “forceful” as required by the AFL regulations.

Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Tribunal."

So if Maysie does the same to Little Nicky next year, the Pies fans will say it was OK?

1 minute ago, chookrat said:

Jaded there is no rule, either in the laws of the game or tribunal guidelines, about leaving the ground. The Tribunal Guidelines specifically refer to high bumps being automatically graded as rough conduct but does not distinguish between whether player has left the ground. Similarly there is no reference to whether a player must have eyes for the ball.

It might not be in the written rules, but it’s been used many many times to get players suspended. 
When you leave the ground or you don’t have eyes for the ball the tribunal more often than not will say you didn’t act with a duty of care. 

23 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I’m pretty sure if Bedfords action had led to the Blues player being knocked out cold for 2 minutes he’d of got 3 weeks. 

18 minutes ago, old55 said:

 

 

It's unsurprising that you are Maynard's greatest advocate since it seems you see the solution to all issues through the prism of violence.

You're probably suffering from PTSD from a lifetime of associating with career criminals through your legal practice.

Seek help before it's too late.

Don't give a [censored] about Maynard, mate.

Let's not shirk the major question. Contact sport versus concussion. Give us an opinion.

29 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Careless requires intent to be careless.

You don't need intent to be careless. It's like having an intent to be an i d i o t

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by mauriesy

27 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

Careless requires intent to be careless.

Nonsense. This from the Tribunal itself. After reading it, delete your post.

"A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the
Player to all other Players."

8 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

So if Maysie does the same to Little Nicky next year, the Pies fans will say it was OK?

Little Nicky is a great nickname. 🤣