5 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Once again, you’ve literally threatened violence against people here. 

While nobody here takes that threat - or you - seriously, you did it nonetheless. 

So as for “let’s get a grip”, you’d be best following your own advice. 

I don't know where any of you people live and the Benalla Bikies are very wimpy old guys.

I have been insulted and abused on this thread for trying to make you understand the legal process by which Player Maynard will be acquitted. Somebody has even suggested that I am a Pies troll !!

Shall this be tolerated? It shall not.

This thread is becoming loopy. It's should not be about collision sports and concussion, it should not be about Brayshaw's history, it should not be about dumb comments by so-called self styled "experts" or "commentators".

It should be only about what happened to Brayshaw in an unprovoked, deliberate act of unjustified violence against his body and head.

The thug deliberately hurt him and no amount of excuses (he was only spoiling, Brayshaw could have avoided him) can mitigate the extreme brutality of the offence. He was off the ground and tucked his shoulder, purportedly to brace himself against a collision that he created, but in reality to hurt an opponent.

What a farcical situation. I am starting to believe that unless he gets minimum four weeks (if not more) then our great game of footy is fatally doomed.

It is that serious.

GO DEES

 

3 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I don't know where any of you people live and the Benalla Bikies are very wimpy old guys.

I have been insulted and abused on this thread for trying to make you understand the legal process by which Player Maynard will be acquitted. Somebody has even suggested that I am a Pies troll !!

Shall this be tolerated? It shall not.

How about because you are so sure he will be acquitted, that if he is not acquitted you could be banned from this forum for 4 weeks?

Probably been said on here, but I am yet to hear it in the media.

If Maynard could twist right to hit his shoulder into Brayshsw's head, why couldn't he twist left and possibly miss his head?

6 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I don't know where any of you people live and the Benalla Bikies are very wimpy old guys.

I have been insulted and abused on this thread for trying to make you understand the legal process by which Player Maynard will be acquitted. Somebody has even suggested that I am a Pies troll !!

Shall this be tolerated? It shall not.

Ahhhhh, I see! It was a joke!

It must have gone completely over my head because, I dunno, it wasn’t remotely funny or something. 
 

  

 

On 9/8/2023 at 11:45 AM, Stiff Arm said:

Like it or not, footy will become less and less of a contact sport due to concussion liabilities. Knee to head in marking contest will go at some point. Not if, but when

It is possible to train out these habits. We've trained out the deliberate hip and shoulder, we've trained players to turn their bodies to avoid head-on contact.

In 15 years time, what is acceptable now will look like a 1980's biffs, bumps and brawl VHS video

I know plenty of parents who are nervous about their kids playing footy due to concussions. The AFL will change the game to respond accordingly 

Yet we have boxing and MMA still.

I don't know how those sports get around it.

But completely agree with you

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

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.

I’m sorry, I let emotions get the better of me. I guess I was just desperate to find anyone who even remotely seems to be on ‘our side.’ Coz it feels as though nobody is taking this as seriously as they should be. Thank you for patiently explaining. 

 i believe the chances of Maynard being suspended are somewhere between nil and zero.The AFL is not even proceeding in good faith .They have made the referral a joint referral rather than a review officer referral which is unprecedented and then  leaked to the media that Christian did not want to proceed  with any charge .It is tantamount to a prosecutor telling a jury that "we dont think the accused is guilty but you can convict him in any case" .This is just a show trial and nothing more. Afterwards The AFL will  then say "concussion is a big issue and we are there to  protect the player so we are disappointed by the result.."A complete load of [censored] .

15 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

 

I have been insulted and abused on this thread for trying to make you understand the legal process by which Player Maynard will be acquitted.

And here was me thinking the reason you made your initial post was to tell us how “ashamed you were to be a Demonlander”. 

9 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

The talk from some posters here about May or Viney “taking out” Maynard if we’re in the fortunate position of playing the Pies again is very misguided and I simply can’t stand by it. 

It should be Hibbo. 

Game over . . . post of the year right here.

Garry Lyon got this right tonight on On The Couch. It’s good viewing. He knows they’ll change the rules to legislate this out.

Buckley and Brown tried to argue that Maynard had no other option. There’s a disgraceful amount of victim blaming happening in this incident. Talking  about Brayshaw moving off his line. Absolute rubbish. 

I kept screaming at the TV every time they said it was a ‘football act’ to show me one single example of a player doing this in a game in the last 20 years. Players run out of the front of a centre bounce 10 times a game. Thats 35,000 example in 20 years. It’s never happened.

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

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.

The Media have dug a very big grave, they will need to have an exit strategy. plausible deniability.

3 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

 i believe the chances of Maynard being suspended are somewhere between nil and zero.The AFL is not even proceeding in good faith .They have made the referral a joint referral rather than a review officer referral which is unprecedented and then  leaked to the media that Christian did not want to proceed  with any charge .It is tantamount to a prosecutor telling a jury that "we dont think the accused is guilty but you can convict him in any case" .This is just a show trial and nothing more. Afterwards The AFL will  then say "concussion is a big issue and we are there to  protect the player so we are disappointed by the result.."A complete load of [censored] .

That’s the way I see it going.

No chance Maynard gets rubbed out, unfortunately.

7 hours ago, OhMyDees said:

Barrett is a peanut! 

And drives a Mustang. Nuff said.

19 minutes ago, tiers said:

This thread is becoming loopy. It's should not be about collision sports and concussion, it should not be about Brayshaw's history, it should not be about dumb comments by so-called self styled "experts" or "commentators".

It should be only about what happened to Brayshaw in an unprovoked, deliberate act of unjustified violence against his body and head.

The thug deliberately hurt him and no amount of excuses (he was only spoiling, Brayshaw could have avoided him) can mitigate the extreme brutality of the offence. He was off the ground and tucked his shoulder, purportedly to brace himself against a collision that he created, but in reality to hurt an opponent.

What a farcical situation. I am starting to believe that unless he gets minimum four weeks (if not more) then our great game of footy is fatally doomed.

It is that serious.

GO DEES

 

Succint...and correct .

48 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago.

Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower? 

Please, please, per favore, bitte, don't make assumptions. I have meant to ask are you related to Trevor Rollinson, who I used to watch . I know the name of most Melbourne players - indeed from 1960 until the late eighties used to watch Melbourne play regularly. I began to follow them when I went to my grandmother's house one Saturday in September 1958 when I was eight. A game of football was on the tellie and I began to barrack for the losing team - part of my 'sympathy for the underdog' nature - and, of course, it was the Grand Final. I knew absolutely nothing about Aussie Rules at that stage, being the son of migrants who arrived in July 1956. 

Not many players from the big clubs end up getting suspendef.

I still reckon that Kozzies hit was the same as this one without the concussion

6 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

 i believe the chances of Maynard being suspended are somewhere between nil and zero.The AFL is not even proceeding in good faith .They have made the referral a joint referral rather than a review officer referral which is unprecedented and then  leaked to the media that Christian did not want to proceed  with any charge .It is tantamount to a prosecutor telling a jury that "we dont think the accused is guilty but you can convict him in any case" .This is just a show trial and nothing more. Afterwards The AFL will  then say "concussion is a big issue and we are there to  protect the player so we are disappointed by the result.."A complete load of [censored] .

i really, really hope it is not as cynical as that

but i've seen the afl do worse

2 hours ago, sue said:

The difference between a lawyer’s expert advice and a bricklayer is that we all have views on issues of justice and fairness but not on mortar.  If not for non-lawyer input we’d still have the Star chamber and transport for forming a union in Dorset.

Sorry that you seem to feel lawyers can’t be challenged except by other lawyers. (I’m guessing you don’t really believe that but you come across like that)

I have a history in the law and in building. So I have strong views on both lawyers and mortar. There are some similarities.

2 hours ago, layzie said:

What's going on here?

The bloke is as mad as a snake

Threatened violence 3 times now so he won't last long

28 minutes ago, tiers said:

This thread is becoming loopy. It's should not be about collision sports and concussion, it should not be about Brayshaw's history, it should not be about dumb comments by so-called self styled "experts" or "commentators".

It should be only about what happened to Brayshaw in an unprovoked, deliberate act of unjustified violence against his body and head.

The thug deliberately hurt him and no amount of excuses (he was only spoiling, Brayshaw could have avoided him) can mitigate the extreme brutality of the offence. He was off the ground and tucked his shoulder, purportedly to brace himself against a collision that he created, but in reality to hurt an opponent.

What a farcical situation. I am starting to believe that unless he gets minimum four weeks (if not more) then our great game of footy is fatally doomed.

It is that serious.

GO DEES

 

That about covers it ty Tiers

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i really, really hope it is not as cynical as that

but i've seen the afl do worse

I, like your goodself...and many others know where it should go... however we probably know where it will probably go. 

Look at the narrative.... who's running it.

It's the AFL... not about right or wrong.

AFL cant walk and talk ...sadly..

6 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I have a history in the law and in building. So I have strong views on both lawyers and mortar. There are some similarities.

Are you referring to 'as thick as bricks'?

1 hour ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sigh again./ football act

No, it is an Appeal "as of right". The grounds must be presented, sure, but not to justify the lodging of the Appeal itself. The Senior Counsel preparing the grounds will have plenty of time. My best guess is that the Filth will go simple. Fractions of sections/ football act/ look at Bedford.

ordi

See you in court one day Perry

16 minutes ago, Travy14 said:

Yet we have boxing and MMA still.

I don't know how those sports get around it.

But completely agree with you

Agree. Kids don’t play organized MMA though. 

Those knockouts are brutal. Brutal. (Having grown up on van Damme etc. I still like watching UFC for it’s skill but my interest is starting to fade maybe)

Also agree re: if Maynard gets suspended it’s only a matter of time for speccies to be next. Maybe all of this - speccies, tackles, hip and shoulder - has to be informed by the result on the other player…you can do it, but you’re risking suspension.

It’s tricky…