2 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Are they setting up for the appeal.

No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced. 

Except that has NEVER been the case. Duty of care has been a key argument in a lot of football acts including tackling, and spoiling. 

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Er, looks like you just did.  

Only a Pies troll would ask such a question.

Your posts on this thread have been very questionable. I am referring you to the Mods.

At least that a step up from threatening violence.

Very glad Woods asked this question:

Woods: Other options that were available were he could have made a more upright jump … that's an obvious example where you could lessen impact.

What's with the mini ball "Update: The mini rubber football is now in Brayden Maynard's right hand."?   A security blanket?  or maybe the coached answers are written on it.

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Except that has NEVER been the case. Duty of care has been a key argument in a lot of football acts including tackling, and spoiling. 

Not when marking or spoiling (JVR).

Though this should set the presendence, as the outcome was unacceptable. I hope. Also believe, intention to hurt was there.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by kev martin

Me try get ball, no get ball, then hit guy. football act

 

have a juice box and sit down Braydon. Don't strain yourself

13 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Looks like the Pies are going with. Not Guilty on the grounds of insanity.

you gotta work with what you have

7 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Er, looks like you just did.  

Only a Pies troll would ask such a question.

Your posts on this thread have been very questionable. I am referring you to the Mods.

Well, now I’m showing you the door, Poster Rollinson. You’re about as welcome here as Maynard was at Gussy’s on Friday. 

1 minute ago, sue said:

What's with the mini ball "Update: The mini rubber football is now in Brayden Maynard's right hand."?   A security blanket?  or maybe the coached answers are written on it.

They wanted something in his hands so he didn't shirtfront Gleeson.

7 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Are they setting up for the appeal.

No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced. 

Of course it is. 

But Maynard was reported for this, as well as giving away a downfield free. i.e., his actions were outside the rules, so not sure where "football act" comes into it.

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Well, now I’m showing you the door, Poster Rollinson. You’re about as welcome here as Maynard was at Gussy’s on Friday. 

i cant wait for this peanut to be wrong, and have to apologise to everyone

15 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Wrong, mate, I think. Witness coaching gone right IMO. Lends strength to the way I think the Pies submissions will go - football action, fractions of seconds, live footage. 

Maynard is a perfect example why Mason Cox's mates invented the filth amendment. 

4 minutes ago, sue said:

What's with the mini ball "Update: The mini rubber football is now in Brayden Maynard's right hand."?   A security blanket?  or maybe the coached answers are written on it.

One side of the ball says yes, the other side no

19 minutes ago, Pipefitter said:

Makes the remorseful bottle of wine seem disingenuous when he blatantly lies about touching the ball. 

Apparently when Braydon handed Gus the bottle of wine, Gus tried to grab, misjudged where it was and spontaneously hip and shouldered the bottle. The Bottle fell to the ground and shattered

Social act. His intention was to grab the bottle, then it came out of nowhere.  Gus will visit the winery tomorrow to apologise to the grapes

4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Of course it is. 

But Maynard was reported for this, as well as giving away a downfield free. i.e., his actions were outside the rules, so not sure where "football act" comes into it.

He is claiming the collision was due to a football act.

JVR got off his offence. Duty of care was lessened in a marking spoiling act.

I think it is a problem and this adjudication and following appeal (if) will be about football acts and the relation to duty of care.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by kev martin

Over-gelled hair, a mini football in hand and no idea of his actions.

We're dealing with a real mind here..

Melbourne has just released a medical report: “There’s no set timeframe on when Angus will return this year, it’s based on how he progresses through the protocol and also on the advice from the experts around his concussion management.”

6 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Are they setting up for the appeal.

No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced. 

Yes, Kev. I think they are. On Appeal - football action, fractions of seconds, live replay. I would guess the remorse card will not be played. It was too brazen and smacks of penalty rather than exoneration.

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Too late. We all saw and heard it. I’m happy that it was said. 

Why would he retract it? Bit of honesty in this world would be super (and currently unknown!)

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by Superunknown

Just let you guys know this link as well: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-tribunal-news-2023-live-updates-hearings-blog-results-brayden-maynard-bump-on-angus-brayshaw-collingwood-vs-melbourne/news-story/3325b4ccac342990b87342ddfb510c0b

5 minutes ago, Tracca said:

i cant wait for this peanut to be wrong, and have to apologise to everyone

Except he won’t apologise. He’ll just disappear into the ether, only to return for next year’s trolling season. 

17 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Are they setting up for the appeal.

No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced. 

I agree.  its all they have.

terrible argument though

I went to shepperd the bloke and accidently elbowed him in the head.  that ok?

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

guess the remorse card will not be played.

That for me is the most disappointing thing.

It will follow number 4, for a long time.

Cannot apologise to family, as he does not contrite.

CTE maker as an enforcer.

Time to be a man , and apologise. 

Biomechanist: I do not believe Maynard's body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision

Why?

I know it's been mentioned/discussed already, but holy hell the comments on David Zita's Twitter are obscene. 

The Magpie army have well and truly disgraced themselves. Not that they would know what that means, or likely care. They would probably wear the label as a badge of honour.

It's actually pretty deflating stuff to know there are such inconsiderate human beings out there. They're parents, educators, your co-workers etc. 

Gross.