5 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

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.

No, not jump at Gus, jump at the ball.

If he had done that, then he would have gone across the path and lower of Gus.

There was an intention to collide as he braced, and the biomech expect, said his brace must be premeditated. 

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by kev martin

10 minutes ago, Green Demon said:

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.

That is exactly correct. 1000% agree. Why aren't the AFL arguing on that basis? They seem to be letting Collingwood define the argument.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by Ollie fan

5 minutes ago, kev martin said:

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.

Not sure I get your point. Gus was the defenseless player. Maynard decided to jump towards him.

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

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.

Objection: speculation.

Channel 7 suggesting pies lawyers will seek an injunction if maynard gets suspended

Looks like he’s gonna get off here. That was a weak submission from the AFL. Pies defense picking it apart now.

These tribunal hearings are some seriously braindead representations. How are these people paid professionals? I feel like a first year uni student can mount a better case than these clowns!

13 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

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?

Sure is @WalkingCivilWar. Every inch counts.

1 minute ago, Lord Travis said:

Looks like he’s gonna get off here. That was a weak submission from the AFL. Pies defense picking it apart now.

These tribunal hearings are some seriously braindead representations. How are these people paid professionals? I feel like a first year uni student can mount a better case than these clowns!

dont be too pessamistic yet. afl get to come back after this :)

2 minutes ago, Green Demon said:

Not sure I get your point. Gus was the defenseless player. Maynard decided to jump towards him.

Of course, Gus is the defenseless one, and ball carrier.

Number 4 was the instigator of the collision. 

I've always heard the umpires saying they protect the person with the ball, time for the Tribunal do do that.

1 minute ago, Lord Travis said:

Looks like he’s gonna get off here. That was a weak submission from the AFL. Pies defense picking it apart now.

These tribunal hearings are some seriously braindead representations. How are these people paid professionals? I feel like a first year uni student can mount a better case than these clowns!

It goes how the AFL wants it to go. 
Maybe it’s a weak case because they know he will appeal and get off. Perhaps they don’t want to deal with the fall out of suspending a Pies player ahead of finals. 
 

In the end the AFL always gets what it wants. Until it gets dragged into a real court and the AFL loses billions of dollars.

It is not careless to protect yourself from a hit, it is careless to hurl yourself at a player or a contest in the way Maynard did. That wasn’t really argued which I dont understand.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by Jibroni

6 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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

I’ve been reading your posts for days. I know all about disappointment.

1 minute ago, Tracca said:

dont be too pessamistic yet. afl get to come back after this :)

They've already closed their submissions no?

I understand fans of certain clubs can let their passion get in the way of a little empathy but caring more about whether their player gets suspended or not over the welfare of an opposition’s players health whose career might be potentially over is just sad & a tad pathetic if you ask me.

We all love our footy but some fans need to remember it’s just a game at the end of the day.

"Ihle (Collingwood): He's jumped off two legs. That's allowed him to jump higher and it slowed his forward momentum without completely removing it."

Why does he want to jump higher, he needed to go right, if he was playing the ball.

Higher, just has him coming down on Gus with more force.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by kev martin

8 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.

Yep, the premeditation here is all from the AFL.

We'll go hard, suspend for 3 weeks but here's a get out of jail card under the table for the appeal. 

Because AFL ❤️ Collingwood.

Because AFL ❤️ controversy

Because AFL ❤️ their broadcast partners and will protect them at all costs.

This league is corrupt and a waste of time.

Do not rejoice at the suspension. It will get overturned.

7 minutes ago, Satan said:

Channel 7 suggesting pies lawyers will seek an injunction if maynard gets suspended

They'll go through the appeals process first.

If Maynard is suspended, and the appeal is dismissed, they will definitely go to court. Zero doubt about that.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by Winners at last

9 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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.

Very considerate of you to get us ready for disappointment.  Perhaps you haven't noticed that most people here think is he guilty but will get off one way or another.  We are well and truly prepared for disappointment without your condescension.

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by sue

2 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Sure is @WalkingCivilWar. Every inch counts.

I wanna meet that person whose stride is two metres in length. Must be quite the man-mountain.  

He’ll get 2 weeks. Appeal and get 1 to play in GF. You know Collingwood will appeal to clear him with everything they’ve got. 

Ihle (Pies) says Maynard's hands go to the right, but his centre of mass does not move to the right. He says at this point a collision is "not inevitable" and "not even likely". It is Brayshaw's movement inward that changes this, he says.

 

 

this is bs maynard literally jumps to the right

1 minute ago, Tracca said:

Ihle (Pies) says Maynard's hands go to the right, but his centre of mass does not move to the right. He says at this point a collision is "not inevitable" and "not even likely". It is Brayshaw's movement inward that changes this, he says.

 

 

this is bs maynard literally jumps to the right

watching again over and over he literally take a step towards gus

And there it is. Blame Brayshaw. 

Gotta love the victim blaming by Collingwood, really says a lot about the Filth.

5 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

That is exactly correct. 1000% agree. Why aren't the AFL arguing on that basis? They seem to be letting Collingwood define the argument.

Yes, funny about that. Politics ??

And I ask again, why did the media shy away from asking the CEO why the MRO's decision on the day was overruled?

What is going on the the corridors of power closed always to the unwashed?