19 minutes ago, Macca said:

Where's he gone?

Nanna nap?

Nah, Macca, been more agreeably engaged.

I have purchased this thread from Demonland. It cost me $14.

As the new owner of this thread, here are the Rules:

One. Anyone who disagrees with me once receives a  censure. 

Two. Anyone who disagrees with me twice, will be executed.

Three. Anyone who disagrees with me three times, will be tortured before execution.

Four, Anyone who disagrees with me more than three times will be dug up out of their grave and drawn and quartered before reburial in 4 different States.

 

Seriously, who cares about Maynard? He will get off IMO. Should we not be turning our attention to our next game against the Baggers?

I have a love/hate relationship with this thread. It has reminded me of the cut and thrust on Demanology  all those years ago. So many memories, so many grudges to be carried to the grave.

The last post on this thread now belongs to me. Bring it on !!

 

Would recommend those struggling with this all to listen to this by the boys at the Dee Brief. Think they did a terrific job on behalf of all dees fans - I certainly found it cathartic. 

https://twitter.com/The_DeeBrief/status/1701055886683423095?t=ocpknwzeFrSM7FBSkbSS8g&s=19

WTF?

1 hour ago, bandicoot said:

ead the room mate.. there is no possible way the AFL will let Maynard off. Brayshaw was defenceless and lay unconscious on the ground for 2 minutes in front of an audience of 1m people. 
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

I do genuinely hope you prove to be correct and that i am completely incorrect .That would be such a fabulous outcome .But your reasoning is based on your believing that the AFL acts with integrity.That is like believing in the tooth fairy.

 

16 minutes ago, brendan said:

Was it just me or did Ross Lyon seem drunk 

Ha ha, he was wearing sandals. I mean sandals are fine on a warm day on a day off, they just looked a little nqr tonight.

 

2 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

I do genuinely hope you prove to be correct and that i am completely incorrect .That would be such a fabulous outcome .But your reasoning is based on your believing that the AFL acts with integrity.That is like believing in the tooth fairy.

 

You have been censured, mate.

The point is that this is now in the hands of the lawyers. Your opinion and mine count for naught. 

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

Nah,Macca

For the benefit for those who have put you on ignore, I've edited your post accordingly

Give it a rest old boy, you've made the same point at least 20 times whilst not adding anything new

Most would be skimming past your diatribe now. 

And why do you speak in such a violent way?  What are you so angry about?  Are you ok? 

You don't make any sense and you have no support.  None

 

I can see.  Red cards and yellow cards will come in.

I can also see the outcome of collisions and football incidents as being of more importance than anything else.
 

like having a car accident driving at 5km an hour and 95 kms an hour, both accidents

but the outcome determines the penalty.   If any

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

For the benefit for those who have put you on ignore, I've edited your post accordingly

Give it a rest old boy, you've made the same point at least 20 times whilst not adding anything new

Most would be skimming past your diatribe now. 

And why do you speak in such a violent way?  What are you so angry about?  Are you ok? 

You don't make any sense and you have no support.  None

 

Macca, you have been censured. Read the new Rules, dolt.

His brother sums is up pretty well:

Edited September 11, 20232 yr by Jibroni

1 minute ago, Jibroni said:

 

Say it louder for the morons at the back Hamish!

3 minutes ago, 640MD said:

I can see.  Red cards and yellow cards will come in.

I can also see the outcome of collisions and football incidents as being of more importance than anything else.
 

like having a car accident driving at 5km an hour and 95 kms an hour, both accidents

but the outcome determines the penalty.   If any

Escaped censure, but beware.

1 minute ago, 640MD said:

I can see.  Red cards and yellow cards will come in.

I can also see the outcome of collisions and football incidents as being of more importance than anything else.
 

like having a car accident driving at 5km an hour and 95 kms an hour, both accidents

but the outcome determines the penalty.   If any

The league should have or could have brought in an order off rule decades ago ... even just as a fail-safe method

If the QF had have been a GF, then we'd look back at the result being possibly decided by a violent act.  And that's no way to win or lose a GF

The 1973 GF was arguably decided by 4 blatant, violent acts.  The bloodbath GF in 1945?  There's been plenty of moments for change

The 1989, 1990 & 2000 GF's?

30 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Should have left him with concussion protocols. 

Caro Wilson said on Footy Classifieds that the flower never made it to a vase.  That he only got in the door because Gawn was there and that Maynard rang Angus's mum and she hung up on him. or something to that effect. She also added that Christensen wanted no charge and Gil, Laura and Andrew Dillion and said straight to the tribunal. She also said the AFL let Goodwin remarks go unfined due to what had happened.

1 minute ago, Macca said:

The league should have or could have brought in an order off rule decades ago ... even just as a fail-safe method

If the QF had have been a GF, then we'd look back at the result being possibly decided by a violent act.  And that's no way to win or lose a GF

The 1973 GF was arguably decided by 4 blatant, violent acts.  The bloodbath GF in 1945?  There's been plenty of moments for change

The 1989, 1990 & 2000 GF's?

Don't like the idea of a Red card but you watch all these types of event stop if they did.

16 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Macca

Edited for the benefit of others

Such crude language coming from a so-called well educated lawyer.  You're reducing yourself to name calling? 

And by the way, your pathetic attempts at humour just doesn't work

How are you even still here?

You may as well take the opportunity to say your goodbyes before you get turfed

Old man who shouts at clouds gets banned from a fan site.  Now that's funny

 

Edited September 11, 20232 yr by Macca

Maynard visits Gus and brings wine as a gift for his victim. Alcohol is a neurotoxin. Was he trying to finish the job?

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Caro Wilson said on Footy Classifieds that the flower never made it to a vase.  That he only got in the door because Gawn was there and that Maynard rang Angus's mum and she hung up on him. or something to that effect. She also added that Christensen wanted no charge and Gil, Laura and Andrew Dillion and said straight to the tribunal. She also said the AFL let Goodwin remarks go unfined due to what had happened.

Yes watching FC as well and Caro is fighting on alone. Cornes throws up 3 examples where players got off when someone was concussed, but all 3 were where the ball was in dispute, either in the air or bouncing. Then Cornes showed multiple examples of knees to the head in marking contests, again irrelevant. Again the Maynard case is about taking out a ball carrier just after he disposed of the ball. The smother attempt is irrelevant to this case. 

6 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

The smother attempt is irrelevant to this case. 

Particularly as it was a lame attempt...or should I say poorly disguised.

27 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

His brother sums is up pretty well:

Interesting.

Footy classified played a brief grab from him but didn't include this part.

Didn't make it past the editing floor I guess.

42 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Would recommend those struggling with this all to listen to this by the boys at the Dee Brief. Think they did a terrific job on behalf of all dees fans - I certainly found it cathartic. 

https://twitter.com/The_DeeBrief/status/1701055886683423095?t=ocpknwzeFrSM7FBSkbSS8g&s=19

Thanks fr_ap. Unfortunately I couldn't open the link. But I found and could open this one with what looks like to be the same podcast: https://omny.fm/shows/the-deebrief/analysing-maynards-bump-that-concussed-gus

6 minutes ago, Lou C. Fur said:

Thanks fr_ap. Unfortunately I couldn't open the link. But I found and could open this one with what looks like to be the same podcast: https://omny.fm/shows/the-deebrief/analysing-maynards-bump-that-concussed-gus

Thanks for the fix! Recommend all listen 

2 minutes ago, rjay said:

Particularly as it was a lame attempt...or should I say poorly disguised.

And if the lame attempt at smothering was dismissed out of hand (as it should be) then Maynard would be up for not only high contact with a severe outcome but also, the careless action could be replaced with malicious intent

6 or 7+ weeks

It will be interesting to see how hard Gleeson goes as he has gone hard before (if Gleeson is the prosecution officer in this case)

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

And if the lame attempt at smothering was dismissed out of hand (as it should be) then Maynard would be up for not only high contact with a severe outcome but also, the careless action could be replaced with malicious intent

6 or 7+ weeks

It will be interesting to see how hard Gleeson goes as he has gone hard before (if Gleeson is the prosecution officer in this case)

No doubt the boys at AFL house will have Eddie act for the prosecution 

2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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. 

WCW no need to apologise, go back a few pages and I was saying Maynard should have no case to answer which on reflection is off the mark.  I think the toughest part of all of this is the emotion of one of our own being injured and then all of the commentary around the incident and the PR machine going into overdrive.

Re taking this seriously, I don't think the AFL media take anything seriously as they are primarily interested in click and views. Today I read an article from a journo quoting another journo about their knowledge on a footy matter, rather than quoting an actual source.  Damien Barrett was once a respected journalist who would ask good questions, now he offers his own opinions on everything and refers to Maynard as Bruz.

I have no doubt the AFL will take the Maynard case very seriously and will want a suspension if the rules and tribunal guidelines allow for it. Even if Maynard is not suspended the AFL will change the Laws of the Game and/or Tribunal Guidelines at season end to prevent similar actions next year.