29 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

Interesting discussion also on 360 with Scott & Lyon.

Whilst neither directly threw Maynard under the bus you could read between some pretty pointed lines.

AS for the comments made by many about him not having time to react...Lyon made a comment along the lines of have you seen how quick these guys make decisions in tight spaces these days.

Scott commented that if it was at training do you think he would have knocked out his teammate.

Pretty sure it's Robbos lack of reflective intelligence(  " reflective" may well be  contestable )

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

SEN This morning saying Maynard was reluctantly let into the Brayshaw house bringing flowers, chocolate and wine. An unamed Melb player was there with Gus at the time and was so angry at Maynard, he had to leave the room. Fair to say the the Brayshaw and Frawley families are not happy with Maynard. I suspect they will be furious when his hearing is over

There are 3 levels of care / apology 

1  text ...this like Carey saying if she was upset then  I apologise

2 make a phone call  ..which helps if you want to get a sense of what to defend at the tribunal ( probably on the advice from the Club)

3 Front up in person ....no matter how uncomfortable it might be,because you understand it could've been you and you feel sorry another player has been badly hurt

9 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Yes (have never seen it done).. the question is what happens to substitutions.

Seems hardly fair just to even up the game and say you've both got to put in your sub player

You'd have to play one short as it is in the NRL or in soccer (and rugby union) 

So it would be 17 on the field instead of 18 if a player is sent off in the case of the AFL (if the send off rule is introduced)

But the league is often very slow on change

Good examples are the Barry Hall & Gaff incidents.  There's no question that both players would have been rightly sent off if that rule existed

Maynard could easily have been sent off as he was reported by the umpire on the spot

As would have JVR as well.  In our sport not only can you not throw an elbow but you can't shirtfront and take out an unsuspecting and unprotected player

7 minutes ago, IRW said:

Pretty sure it's Robbos lack of reflective intelligence(  " reflective" may well be  contestable )

This has been a necessary thread, allowing us all to vent our anger and frustration.

But some posts have been thoughtful about this concussion crisis in our game.

As a result of this thread, I have two suggestions:

First, the AFL establishes a fund to compensate past and future players for the consequences of concussion.

Second, a red card system to be given a trial - a player is sent off for striking or a dangerous tackle, reducing the team to 17 players for a defined period.

Coaches and players would soon adapt. Stacked backlines, recruitment of American-style punters, the rebirth of the torp etc etc. Most importantly, the dangerous tackle would disappear overnight on coach's instructions. 

Good on Caro for her views on all this .

I'm sick of the political hit job the cfc and the media have done on this to get this dog act off 

She also mentioned that Michael Christian threatened to resign.

 

I’d accept this was a footy act if he had affected the kick. He was late, which is why it was given a downfield free kick. Take the “smother” out of the equation and this a bump. 

And it’s a bit rich for Collingwood supporters to say get over it when they still boo Langdon for saying all duck no dinner. 

If the dog gets off at the Tribunal, I presume/hope that the AFL will appeal. Obviously the filth will appeal if he is suspended.

So given the likelihood (inevitability) of an appeal hearing, the decision of the Tribunal hearing may be largely irrelevant. Except perhaps to give the filth an additional ground of appeal on technical grounds (as per the Cripps case, when the appeals tribunal ruled that the Tribunal had misdirected itself).

FWIW, if the appeals tribunal upholds a suspension, it is inevitable that the filth will take the matter to court given the huge stakes. 

19 minutes ago, Macca said:

You'd have to play one short as it is in the NRL or in soccer (and rugby union) 

So it would be 17 on the field instead of 18 if a player is sent off in the case of the AFL (if the send off rule is introduced)

But the league is often very slow on change

Good examples are the Barry Hall & Gaff incidents.  There's no question that both players would have been rightly sent off if that rule existed

Maynard could easily have been sent off as he was reported by the umpire on the spot

As would have JVR as well.  In our sport not only can you not throw an elbow but you can't shirtfront and take out an unsuspecting and unprotected player

Maynard   Red card

JVR  Yellow    warning only   his opponent needed not much help

 

Two diametrically opposed examples

1 hour ago, Wrecker46 said:

Don't get me wrong i am furious at Maynard but the Pies supporters chanting COLLINGWOOD while Brayshaw was out cold and getting a neck brace secured on was even more sickening

Agreed.  Crowds are usually eerily quite when a player is knocked out cold, with concern and respect.  And usually fans of both teams clap the player off.  The pies fans continued to chant while he was carried off.  They are just morons and bogans. 

What surprised me is that only Moore went to Gus as he was being stretched off and offered a hand of support.  Not much but at least he did.  I didn't see any other Pies player offer support.

I think Moore is a great captain but he missed a trick by not hushing the crowd.  Moore and his leaders only need to go stand in front of the cheer squad and Ponsford stand and quieten them.  Letting them go feral (and we were along side the cheer squad bay and surround by pies' fans🤮 ) has fed their hysteria since. 

Edited September 12, 20231 yr by Lucifers Hero

25 minutes ago, Macca said:

You'd have to play one short as it is in the NRL or in soccer (and rugby union) 

So it would be 17 on the field instead of 18 if a player is sent off in the case of the AFL (if the send off rule is introduced)

But the league is often very slow on change

Good examples are the Barry Hall & Gaff incidents.  There's no question that both players would have been rightly sent off if that rule existed

Maynard could easily have been sent off as he was reported by the umpire on the spot

As would have JVR as well.  In our sport not only can you not throw an elbow but you can't shirtfront and take out an unsuspecting and unprotected player

Good point mate

Cards need to come in from 2024 so teams don't get an unfair advantage. 

Will be interesting to see as the narrative on this has changed a little with it coming out that Gus is not in a good way and there is the chance of him never playing again. If all reports were that he was fine and good to go come the prelim (should we make it) I reckon they would be coming out even harder with it being an accident/football act etc etc

On saying that, I have no doubt he will get off, be it tonight or on appeal. 

Maynard's problem is he went from a football action in smothering to a non-football action by changing his body shape.

That said, he will be suspended tonight and it will be reversed on Thursday night, but the rules will be changed so if this exact action happens again, it will not be overturned on appeal. For you MFCSS sufferers, it will be one of our players to be first to cop the 2024 outcome.

1 minute ago, 640MD said:

Maynard   Red card

JVR  Yellow    warning only   his opponent needed not much help

 

Two diametrically opposed examples

I disagree

The act has to be punished as JVR is guilty and will have to wear a suspension

So any suspendable act could be grounds for a sending off

However, An elbow thrown compared to incidental high contact caused by a tackle or bump is different again

What they could do are the do's & the dont's.  A heiness act down to an elbow thrown or an obvious thrown punch ... off you go

Other, more minor offences?  Probably not sent off

But that's only my view ... I'd bring the send off rule for red card offences only.  Not the sin bin for 10 minutes

There is a reason the AFL has brought in the front on contact rule. Its dangerous.

Maynard was a fully fledged front on charge. The closing speed of two players was very high. Damage was always going to result. 

Trying to claim it was a spoil attempt is disingenous, obfuscating and actually irrelevant.

You can't do anything you want on the football field.

If he does get off I hope Gus sues him.

The Melbourne PR machine are taking it up to Collingwood in the background. Snippets have popped up in the news everywhere in the past 24hours. The medical report for the tribunal tonught will be rightly savage

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

On 360 Monday, Whately revealed that Maynard was immediately reported by the umpire and Robbo interrupted him saying he paid a free kick. This happened 2-3 more times with Whately trying to get the report point across about the report and Robbo interrupting about the free kick.

Was this deliberate by Robbo, or is it just his inability to comprehend and listen to an intelligent discussion?

think he is unwell

2 hours ago, Jibroni said:

Macca, as a fan of the round ball game what do you think the outcome would be if a goalkeeper did a similar action?

Oh have I got the example for you!

1982 World Cup Germany vs France. Goalkeeper Shumacher comes out and nails French outfield player Patrick Battiston. Battiston was taken away on a stretcher.

Unbelievably there was no foul and the ref called goal kick! These days I'd imagine this would be red card and lengthy suspension..

 

Edited September 12, 20231 yr by layzie

1 hour ago, drdrake said:

Some of the reporting around this incident is just plain stupid.  Deal with this action and get off the band stand about this will change to game.  

Each week in the AFL there are hundreds of body collisions, only a very small percentage cause injury and those ones need to be dealt with by the tribunal or mro.

To say if Maynard gets weeks it will change the game, bring in high marks and other contacts into the discussion is just stupid.

The AFL already has a couple of class actions pending for concussions.  That is at AFL level, there will be the next wave of state league footballers, followed by local footballers all that at the time of playing would have had insurance policy through the relevant league appointed insurers.

Changing our thinking on protecting the head is vital to ensure the game is a product that a company will continue to insure the participants.

Deal with the incident at hand, he went past the ball, turned a smother into a bump hit a player high and knocked him out.  

What a shame as well, no matter what happens tonight everyone is talking an appeal, if the appeal fails for Collingwood we are hearing court action.  Meanwhile you have a bloke not playing with a chance he may never play again.  

Is Collingwood willing to take it to the supreme court then? What a clown club.

As I understand the process, should the thug be deservedly suspended for 4+ matches and seeks to appeal, then the appeal will be only on questions of law, not facts or opinions.

So long as the AFL and the tribunal on Tuesday apply the correct legal procedures (procedural fairness including the correct wording of the charge) then the thug's anticipated suspension should be upheld on appeal.

(OTOH should the tribunal fail to carry out its duty to our great game of footy, then the AFL will have to find a legal basis for its appeal to the appeal board).

Let's all hope (and pray) that the lawyers get it right, the thug is suspended and there are no grounds for a successful appeal.

Our Angus deserves nothing less than this.

If Maynard does get suspended tonight, I'm looking forward to Howe's reaction on AFL 360 tonight.

Given Maynard's the heart and soul of their club, it will be interesting to see if Collingwood's premiership chances live and die by the tribunal's and/or appeal's board's eventual decision.

Good onya Caro. I take back any negative comments ive tossed your way recently.

The media love for Collingwood and Maynard is sickening. Hardly anyone in the media has shown any sympathy or empathy for Gus whatsoever. Its as if Maynard is the real victim. Brayshaw may have to retire. Media care ??

The gesture of a bottle of wine and even flowers (ffs)  is pathetic. I bet those flowers went straight down the toilet along with the wine.

Christian might resign?  Good !!   F  off.

Unfortunately it looks like Collingwood will win the day and Maynard walks after an appeal.

Only Tricky Gil, Dillon and the new woman footy boss can swing it.

 

7 minutes ago, layzie said:

Oh have I got the example for you!

1982 World Cup Germany vs France. Goalkeeper Shumacher comes out and nails French outfield player Patrick Battiston. Battiston was taken away on a stretcher.

Unbelievably there was no foul and the ref called goal kick! These days I'd imagine this would be red card and lengthy suspension..

 

 

Yeah if a keeper did that today it would be a straight red; I doubt his team would complain too much about it.

Thinking about sports like Rugby I think they have a "duty of care" rule and far greater punishments for player negligence resulting in head contact, its time the AFL did the same.

 

26 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

.....

FWIW, if the appeals tribunal upholds a suspension, it is inevitable that the filth will take the matter to court given the huge stakes. 

Maynard is no Daicos, so why are the stakes for C'wood so huge?  I suggest because having run this absolutely absurd PR campaign they will look foolish and lose respect if they don't win in the end.