Maynard must get at least four weeks

[rollinson 65 181]

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

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. 

Not the point, mate. Read the decision and the reasoning. If necessary, get your lawyer to explain it to you.

[rollinson 65 181]

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

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."

Just read the Bedford decision. Please.

[ElDiablo14 3,491]

2 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Little Nicky is a great nickname. 🤣

Who remembers the movie? 🤣

[adonski 9,300]

Reports are that Maynard's lawyer has just called in Joffa as a character witness at the tribunal 

Edited September 11, 2023 by adonski

[Brownie 5,448]

19 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/

I wish there was a further paragraph that read "it was at this point as Maynard was leaving the residence that he tripped on the front door door frame and somehow fell head first into the brick letter box in the front yard several times. Maynard had to have surgery to remove the metal letterbox plate from his broken jaw. Multiple Melbourne players were able to verify the details of the unfortunate accident".

Quote from Jack Viney "I gave the poor bugger a soft pat on the back with both hands to console him, similar to the pat on the back that Ed Langdon got running into an open goal which made his kick miss and go through for a point in the third quarter. Nothing in it really. It all happened so quickly, we had no time to react to Maynard's head being rammed into the brick fence repeatedly. It was a pure domestic accident (sic act)"

Surgeons hope to save at least two of Maynard's remaining teeth.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Brownie

[JTR 2,680]

From a FB group...

Quote

Just listening to SEN with Corn and Healey. Reports are that Maynard’s visit to Gus with Flowers and Wine went down like a fart in a spacesuit.

A number of our guys were already there and apparently you could cut the air with a knife. One of them (not named but no prizes for guessing) was so angry he had to excuse himself from the room.

Edited September 11, 2023 by JTR

[bing181 8,228]

Just now, rollinson 65 said:

Just read the Bedford decision. Please.

Jesus H Christ. Not only did I read it, I posted the conclusion in this thread. There is no mention of intent in the Bedford decision, it turns on how much force was used.

[Superunknown 3,510]

17 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

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. 

Woweeee

Whomever is running PR for Collingwood has a gig at Qantas!

[drysdale demon 4,227]

8 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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

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

I will be surprised if the AFL don't use this case as a precedent for future reference, 3 to 5 weeks. If I am incorrect then they are just full of [censored] regarding concussion injuries.

 

[TRIGON 4,719]

25 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

 

38 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.

 

Careless; not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors.

[rollinson 65 181]

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

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

Sorry, but it is as simple as that. Read the Bedford decision FCS. 

[Deebymistake 658]

1 hour ago, speed demon said:

 

In 2017, cardiothoracic surgeon Patrick Pritzwald-Stegmann was punched in the head by a patient at Boxhill Hospital. A month later he died of his injuries, leaving behind a wife and two young children as well as all the people that could have benefitted from his knowledge and skills over the remainder of his career. 

Violence towards healthcare workers was already on the increase but the response had been inadequate. Following the enormous publicity around Patrick’s death (as opposed to the non-existent publicity about daily episodes of violence with less extreme outcomes) the Victorian government invested an extra $20 million in security for public hospitals and initiated the “violence against health workers is never OK” (depressing that some people need to be informed of this message). Of course, the problem still persists. However, these changes had an immediate and lasting beneficial impact.

Although, thankfully, the two cases are not on the same scale, there are parallels here to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. This is perhaps the highest stakes concussion in AFL history. In the early stages of a final between Victoria’s best teams watched live by over 800,000 people, a reputed enforced cannonballs into the head of a helmeted player with a history of concussion. A player whose fiancé’s father died affected by CTE. A generous interpretation is this was an attempted smother performed carelessly. An alternative view is this was an intended hit masquerading as a smother. The outcome of the final was influenced, a player’s season is likely over, his career possibly ended prematurely and his long-term well-being jeopardised.

The AFL, in the middle of a billion-dollar class action for compensation for the impact of concussion, is in a fierce spotlight. Lawyers watch with interest. Parents wonder about their children playing AFL if actions such as Maynard’s leading to outcomes such as Brayshaw’s are not disincentivised; “maybe soccer instead? Weren’t the Matilda’s great!” 

Will the AFL shrink away or take a stand? The recent appointment of Laura Kane, footballer, lawyer and advocate, as executive general manager of football is opportune. Like Patrick’s death, the Brayshaw/Maynard incident will be an inflection point in institutional responses to occupational violence. The tribunal’s finding – and the AFL’s response – will shape the conception of “duty of care” in football in Australia.  

You make so much sense.  I wish the same could be said for the AFL.  Profit and brand protection ooze from every decision they make.  The length of suspension and appeal outcome will come down to what best serves the profit and brand of the AFL.  I love my mighty demons.  I despise the AFL.  

[YearOfTheDees 3,118]

7 minutes ago, adonski said:

Reports are that Maynard's lawyer has just called in Joffa as a character witness at the tribunal 

Joffa your KIDDING.

[Brownie 5,448]

Just now, drysdale demon said:

I will be surprised if the AFL don't use this case as a precedent for future reference, 3 to 5 weeks. If I am incorrect then they are just full of [censored] regarding concussion injuries.

 

Mmmm 3 to 5 weeks, flowers choccies and a bottle of wine.

If Maynard misses the granny, I will start a GoFundMe to allow all Dlanders to contribute 10cents each towards delivering him a cask of coolabah and a bunch of stinging nettles and some laxettes.

[beelzebub 22,376]

3 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

How does he think Viney plays?

An interesting question. There are vast differences in motive and techniques.. but at a distance some might ask.

Basicly Viney simply plays very hard.  He doesn't play vindictively.  Maynard looks and waits for opportunities to disguise wayward play for hits.

[adonski 9,300]

Gus will have a compelling addition to a law suit against the AFL post career should Maynard get off

[Supreme_Demon 3,020]

All I will say about Brayden "the thug" Maynard is that if he ever crossed the road in front of me and I was driving my car then I might "accidentally" slip my foot onto the accelerator pedal instead of the brake. Whoops! Sorry! Just an accident! 😇

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Supreme_Demon

[Brownie 5,448]

10 minutes ago, adonski said:

Reports are that Maynard's lawyer has just called in Joffa as a character witness at the tribunal 

Gold!

[old55 21,748]

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Not the point, mate. Read the decision and the reasoning. If necessary, get your lawyer to explain it to you.

The AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law - your continued insistence that the rules of law courts apply is erroneous.  It has its own documented processes and procedures:

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

Page 10

"Careless conduct

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. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

Maynard breached his duty of care to Brayshaw.

 

 

[bing181 8,228]

3 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry, but it is as simple as that. Read the Bedford decision FCS. 

Just what are you on about. Post here whatever it is from that decision that illustrates the points you think you're making.

Though to save you the trouble ...

"Reasons for Appeal Board decision:

We recognise in coming to this conclusion that the Tribunal faced the most difficult case in all circumstances and for that reason we propose to hand down written reasons in the near future.

In essence, we accept the submissions made by Ihle (Giants) on behalf of Bedford relating to the evidence or the lack of evidence that was before the Tribunal.

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."

[Mel Bourne 3,881]

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry, but it is as simple as that. Read the Bedford decision FCS. 

Some of us have been a little too distracted reading your threats of violence, rather than the Bedford case. 
 

You’re the worst case I’ve ever seen in six years of posting here. I know you’re no longer employed as a lawyer, but maybe you should go chase an ambulance for old time’s sake. 

[YearOfTheDees 3,118]

What are the rules around appeals. Surely you can't just appeal you must need some kind of grounds.

[rollinson 65 181]

1 minute ago, old55 said:

The AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law - your continued insistence that the rules of law courts apply is erroneous.  It has its own documented processes and procedures:

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

Page 10

"Careless conduct

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. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

Maynard breached his duty of care to Brayshaw.

Just another poster who really (really) needs to read the Bedford decision.

 

 

[sue 8,479]

Consult my lawyer?!  If the example we have here really is a lawyer I’d rather consult my barber. 

[old55 21,748]

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

 

You typed your reply as an addendum to my post.  You're way out of your depth.