Maynard must get at least four weeks

[Dee-monic 620]

If Maynard is cleared it sends a loud message to the mothers of Australia: don't let your sons or daughters play Aussie Rules, the code that couldn't care less if they get their head smashed and hides behind legal technicalities to protect offenders.

[layzie 33,022]

Alright I'm back, what did I miss?

[rjay 24,616]

8 minutes ago, Red But Mostly Blue said:

While he said Maynard would not have had any time to react

He seemed to have plenty of time to turn his body and bump.

If he had no time to react he would have run straight into Gus with his arms  up in the air trying to smother.

[Chook 14,998]

There was a decision to bump. The moment Maynard left the ground, there was no other outcome. Like when you throw a frisbee once it has been thrown there's no taking it back.

[DEE fence 4,925]

8 minutes ago, Chook said:

https://go.arena.im/live/fox-sports-australia/e34cFA9?v=2

Can we fund/buy a Russian troll workshop to combat the ferals posting? Should be able to buy a few thousand clicks for a couple of dollars 

[Clayton van Oliver 1,806]

AFL did not argue that it was a bump, so bump provision doesn't apply. He's gonna get off 🤦‍♂️

[WalkingCivilWar 39,264]

Ihle (Collingwood): When you look at how far forward the jump was ... it's no more than one or two metres. It's one stride length.
 

BIG difference between one and two metres, no?

[Green Demon 820]

Just watched CH10 news, some biomechanics expert said

 Once he's airborne, he's essentially a projectile. He's like a frisbee with arms and legs.

So, how did he become airborne? He jumped. It is completely his own actions that caused this event. It was a dangerous act that cannot be allowed to go unpunished. I just wish all the Pies supporters and media people would admit that you don't judge the event from the moment before impact, you judge it from the moment that Maynard decided to jump forward towards a  defenseless player.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Green Demon

[layzie 33,022]

Just now, AmDamDemon said:

AFL did not argue that it was a bump, so bump provision doesn't apply. He's gonna get off 🤦‍♂️

Sounds like the loophole has formed.

[Tracca 786]

1 minute ago, AmDamDemon said:

AFL did not argue that it was a bump, so bump provision doesn't apply. He's gonna get off 🤦‍♂️

they said that even if it wasnt a bump its still careless.... still 3 weeks

[Monbon 1,787]

2 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

Can we fund/buy a Russian troll workshop to combat the ferals posting? Should be able to buy a few thousand clicks for a couple of dollars 

Sounds more like we need a Trump or a Biden Troll...

[Chook 14,998]

1 minute ago, AmDamDemon said:

AFL did not argue that it was a bump, so bump provision doesn't apply. He's gonna get off 🤦‍♂️

I'm afraid of this too. I think the AFL cooked this one arguing for the wrong thing. I think they should have argued that the moment he left his feet with that amount of force and that level of uncontrollability, there was no possible outcome other than what amounts to a bump. The 'spoil' component of this has got next to no bearing on it imo.

[Tracca 786]

Just now, Chook said:

I'm afraid of this too. I think the AFL cooked this one arguing for the wrong thing. I think they should have argued that the moment he left his feet with that amount of force and that level of uncontrollability, there was no possible outcome other than what amounts to a bump. The 'spoil' component of this has got next to no bearing on it imo.

they literally said even if it wasnt a bump its still careless

[Diamond_Jim 12,367]

It was Gus' fault,,,,

Ihle (Collingwood): Although we're not critical of anyone moving or deviating from a path, that seems to be a factor that has contributed significantly to there being a collision.

[Jaded No More 67,822]

We all know they’re leaving loopholes on the table so he can get off on appeal. 
 

This is the worst episode of Judge Judy ever!

[layzie 33,022]

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

It was Gus' fault,,,,

Ihle (Collingwood): Although we're not critical of anyone moving or deviating from a path, that seems to be a factor that has contributed significantly to there being a collision.

They should play back the moment Maynard stutter steps and deviates from his path in the leap.

Edited September 12, 2023 by layzie

[Nicko 1,377]

Ihle (Collingwood): Although we're not critical of anyone moving or deviating from a path, that seems to be a factor that has contributed significantly to there being a collision.
 

its all Angus’ fault…..wow!!

[kev martin 9,514]

5 minutes ago, Green Demon said:

you judge it from the moment that Maynard decided to jump forward towards a  defenseless player.

Defenseless player is it.

Acts of footy such as marking and spoiling, the players are aware of contact.

When kicking the ball, your body is open, not much you can do to mitigate the impact. The entire collision and its outcome is determined by the one without the ball.

Basic umpiring, protect the player with the ball, nether alone the Tribunal, as it must stamp this out.

Edited September 12, 2023 by kev martin

[Superunknown 4,074]

Collingwood are laying all their cards out here - an AFL appeal can pull this all apart 

[Diamond_Jim 12,367]

The Football Act....

Ihle (Collingwood): Maynard was entitled to come forward off his player, he was entitled to jump when he saw Brayshaw about to kick.

[WalkingCivilWar 39,264]

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

Sounds like the loophole has formed.

This is EXACTLY what I’ve been worried about. I keep getting told this is different to Cripps’ outcome so it won’t end the same way. Well, here we are.

[Nicko 1,377]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

when he saw Brayshaw about to kick.

Can the AFL dude use this or has he said his piece?!? 

[Neil Crompton 5,312]

30 minutes ago, Chook said:

The biomechanist seems to be proceeding on the basis Maynard didn't know Brayshaw was there. That's false at the least, and indicates recklessness at the best. He's smothering the ball from front on - he has to know where the kicker is and therefore has far longer than 400 milliseconds to react - his "reaction" is the smother - seconds worth of time to plan and execute.

Chook, it's funny how cricketers only have less than half a second when facing fast bowling, to play or let it go, to go forward or to go back, to defend or to attack the ball. There are 3 decisions at least to be made in that time and then to execute that decision all in less than half a second. Maynard had about the same time to make one decision - do I evade him or do i hurt him? And he doesn't have time to do that? What BS.

[rollinson 65 181]

At the risk of being yelled at again, I really need you guys to be ready for disappointment.

Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal. This is my best legal analysis and not shared by a second lawyer on this thread, so you should all hope I am wrong.

[Diamond_Jim 12,367]

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

This is EXACTLY what I’ve been worried about. I keep getting told this is different to Cripps’ outcome so it won’t end the same way. Well, here we are.

Interesting

As a prosecutor you generally prepare a list of the components you must prove to to get a conviction. AFL Counsel presumably knows what must be proved