Maynard must get at least four weeks

[Willmoy1947 4,099]

Also for the first time this year it did  look like the Umpiring was letting things including play ons go from the outset.

[Deefender 232]

The Maynard incident reminds me of Mark Yeats shirtfronting an unsuspecting Dermott Brereton in the ‘89 Grand Final.

Both incidents were in the opening minutes, as if planned.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

34 minutes ago, Macca said:

I'm baffled that so many have convinced themselves that Maynard's actions was a footy act so therefore he should get off

Have they not noted the 60+ plus players who have been suspended this season for bumping & tackling.  These are also footy acts

And the consequences of all those suspensions from all those footy acts were not as drastic as the Gus concussion

But that's if it was a footy act.  All the tackles and bumps looked like footy acts but Maynard's was a fake smother.  Token and designed to confuse.  A con

I am astounded how the smother action is so front and centre in the discussion, especially by former “Old Guard”footballers. All the precedents thrown up by the Old Guard about footy actions often involve a footy in dispute, a marking contest, a collision of players hunting a bouncing ball. 
In this case we have a ball carrier being taken out at high speed, front on by a player who made a bee line for him. It’s a front on charge. Forget the jump in the air that is only relevant in that it made the collision worse, it does not excuse the result. Let us be honest it was a case of White Line Fever, three minutes into a do or die final, gone astray with dire consequences for Brayshaw. Maynard failed to show a duty of care for his opponent in this case.
 

No doubt the lawyers will differ. 

[Macca 17,009]

1 minute ago, Earl Hood said:

I am astounded how the smother action is so front and centre in the discussion, especially by former “Old Guard”footballers. All the precedents thrown up by the Old Guard about footy actions often involve a footy in dispute, a marking contest, a collision of players hunting a bouncing ball. 
In this case we have a ball carrier being taken out at high speed, front on by a player who made a bee line for him. It’s a front on charge. Forget the jump in the air that is only relevant in that it made the collision worse, it does not excuse the result. Let us be honest it was a case of White Line Fever, three minutes into a do or die final, gone astray with dire consequences for Brayshaw. Maynard failed to show a duty of care for his opponent in this case.
 

No doubt the lawyers will differ. 

Yep, I saw it exactly the same way right from the outset

And what makes the narrative even more confusing is that those advocating the whole footy act bs are often quite cynical and a fair bit street-smart

The ex-players should be seeing through the whole charade

But again, they also (in my view) fall into the redneck view ... "What are they turning the game into" (with the usual, lame reference to netball)

So that's what we're up against, EH

[monoccular 17,432]

45 minutes ago, Bystander said:

To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions on that real-time footage is IMO impossible.

There is no requirement to prove malice or intent - reckless which it was, though the AFL have softened their language to careless, with high comtact and high outcome = 4+ weeks, minimum.

[monoccular 17,432]

12 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

ball carrier being taken out at high speed

Angus was actually no longer the ball carrier - he had kicked it and it went over Maynard's head well before contact was made, forcefully, high, with devastating consequences.

[Earl Hood 6,086]

Just now, monoccular said:

Angus was actually no longer the ball carrier - he had kicked it and it went over Maynard's head well before contact was made, forcefully, high, with devastating consequences.

The ball was not in dispute, that is my point, it was not in the air or bouncing around unpredictably, it was in Angus’ possession until he belatedly was able to get foot to ball. 
It’s the same if a ball carrier passes off by hand but is taken out, front on by an opponent coming at them. Free kick and reportable if it is high with severe consequences. 

[Macca 17,009]

Where's he gone?

Nanna nap?

[DubDee 25,918]

Good to hear the media narrative change a bit

there might be a chance a suspension holds up to appeal after all

[Redleg 40,974]

Scott and Lyon both saying in reality he is guilty. Scott said at training, would he do that and then take out a team mate?

[Jaded No More 68,966]

My most hated narrative of all is that Gus should have protected himself. I literally can’t. 

[ElDiablo14 5,000]

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

My most hated narrative of all is that Gus should have protected himself. I literally can’t. 

Even worse Jaded, some idiots are saying our doctors shouldn't let him play because of a previous concussion in the first minute of the game.

Or that a guy wearing a helmet should know the risk or don't bother playing in the AFL at all.

Collingwood mob is really something else.

[KLV 1,765]

7 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Even worse Jaded, some idiots are saying our doctors shouldn't let him play because of a previous concussion in the first minute of the game.

Or that a guy wearing a helmet should know the risk or don't bother playing in the AFL at all.

Collingwood mob is really something else.

Buckley said that on On the Couch 🤮

[jacey 333]

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Scott and Lyon both saying in reality he is guilty. Scott said at training, would he do that and then take out a team mate?

Exactly. Maynard didn't mean to concuss Angus but he was looking to collect a body on the way down. 

Old school clumsy Shane Mumford style. Make sure to collect a body on the way through. 

[bing181 9,246]

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

All they’ll need to prove is that he had another option. Instead of turning mid air with his shoulder he had the option of landing with hands forward in a bracing motion. 

The other other option was not to charge full pelt at Brayshaw and launch into the air in the first place. Duty of care, likely to lead to a reportable offence etc.

[dazzledavey36 55,001]

Kudos to Garry Lyon on On The Couch who's the only who with a brain on that show.

Did a special shout out to the Brayshaw and Frawley family and that trauma this would be bringing them, only to then put up with Brown and Buckley who were on the opposite end of the table in their argument. 

 

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

3 hours 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.

No - it was mentioned on the footy media circuit that he wanted it thrown out and would put his job in the line. Took 5 hours of discussion with the GM to reach an agreement.

 

Corporate speak for your sacked but you have 4 weeks notice so look busy and we’ll announce at the end of the season. 

[brendan 3,437]

25 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Scott and Lyon both saying in reality he is guilty. Scott said at training, would he do that and then take out a team mate?

Was it just me or did Ross Lyon seem drunk 

[Demonsterative 3,020]

1 minute ago, brendan said:

Was it just me or did Ross Lyon seem drunk 

Mad Monday??? 🤪

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

3 hours 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/

Should have left him with concussion protocols. 

[gs77 4,254]

15 minutes ago, KLV said:

Buckley said that on On the Couch 🤮

What a flagless f-stick.

[Redleg 40,974]

2 minutes ago, brendan said:

Was it just me or did Ross Lyon seem drunk 

He is always like that.

He has a sort of mumbly disjointed speech delivery.

Met him and Roos in a cafe and mentioned I was a former Dees Official. Lyon was engaging and very nice, while Roos acted like I disturbed his honeymoon evening, totally rude and dismissive.

 

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

16 minutes ago, KLV said:

Buckley said that on On the Couch 🤮

That for me was a step too far. I lost what little respect I had for him and actually couldn’t believe it tbh. 

Browny was Browny trying to play the mediator and was arguing the rules around smothering and that Maynard would be unfairly done by being called out on something that wasn’t written in the rules.

Christ Scott was more accepting of the suspension and that he personally doesn’t see it has a suspension but that he would coach his players not to do that knowing that’ll likely be a suspension in the current game. As others have said I think Lyon was drunk as I had no idea what he was in about. 

[Earl Hood 6,086]

58 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yep, I saw it exactly the same way right from the outset

And what makes the narrative even more confusing is that those advocating the whole footy act bs are often quite cynical and a fair bit street-smart

The ex-players should be seeing through the whole charade

But again, they also (in my view) fall into the redneck view ... "What are they turning the game into" (with the usual, lame reference to netball)

So that's what we're up against, EH

Yes the old players are the most likely people to understand what goes on in a final. They would know the players who can get “white line fever” and what it can lead to. That is what happened 3 minutes into a final. 

[rjay 24,991]

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

You can't get away from the fact he ran at full pace and jumped at Gus's body and then shouldered him in the head.

The behind the goals footage shows he was nowhere near the ball nor was he going for the ball. In fact you can see him run straight at Gus

It is malicious, dangerous and reckless. So much so it hasn't happened in the last 20 years that I am aware of (except for maybe the Cripps incident which we all know was a joke because he was Brownlow favourite)

...been saying this for a while 'jnrmac'...it's obvious his intent was to put pressure on the kicker. 

If he was trying to smother he would have jumped toward the ball which was on his right hand side.

He didn't he just waved a hand at it.

...then carried on to his original target, Gus.

I'm not saying that he deliberately wanted to knock him out, but I'm pretty sure he wanted to let him feel it.

Edited September 11, 2023 by rjay