Didn’t the afl just need to prove that Maynard had other options but to bump? 

I wonder if the AFL will appeal the decision if he’s let off 

Just now, kev martin said:

 

Duty of care before he launched. 

This is the issue and where I think the AFL has stuffed up. Allowing the 'he had a right to launch' argument gives Collingwood exactly what they need. He did not have a right to contest the ball in that way, just as players don't have the right to tackle with a slinging action or bump in a way that hits a player high.

Maynard being suspended won't kill the spoil, like some are claiming. But it will stop people like Maynard acting like a human cannonball

No worries Gleeson! It’s open season on the head fellas!!! Have at it! Maynard yours is next bro! 
 

If he gets off, and the AFL doesn’t appeal (with a half decent lawyer), I am done with the sport including membership. Done. 
 

It’s soccer tennis and golf for my kids

How's the mini footy in Maynard's hand going?

Textbook guilt behaviour.

Just now, bandicoot said:

Didn’t the afl just need to prove that Maynard had other options but to bump? 

Don’t you see? The AFL deliberately presented a very weak case. That way, he’ll get off, which is what they want, but it will look as though they tried to have him convicted. 

2 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Didn’t the afl just need to prove that Maynard had other options but to bump? 

They didn't even try to argue that he bumped. That's where this case is IMO - it's arguing that intent to bump doesn't mean yelling "I'm gonna bump you", it's acting in a way that results in a bump due to the nature of the action. 

There needs to be an uprising if he gets off. This is like a police brutality case right now.

1 minute ago, Superunknown said:

No worries Gleeson! It’s open season on the head fellas!!! Have at it! Maynard yours is next bro! 
 

If he gets off, and the AFL doesn’t appeal (with a half decent lawyer), I am done with the sport including membership. Done. 
 

It’s soccer tennis and golf for my kids

Exactly how I a feeling. My sipport for MFC is unwavering, but I'm not sure I can continue taking my family to AFL if the leaguecondones this. I already buya Melb United 3 game membership in the NBL. Maybe I'll extend that

3 minutes ago, layzie said:

How's the mini footy in Maynard's hand going?

Textbook 

 

2 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Don’t you see? The AFL deliberately presented a very weak case. That way, he’ll get off, which is what they want, but it will look as though they tried to have him convicted. 

It’s not in the afl interest that Maynard gets off.. it’s a bad look for the game and they will want to stamp it out and not encourage it. Plenty of parents are already concerned about concussion. They need to show an example of this 

"The likelihood of a collision changed because of what Brayshaw did."

What was that ... run in a straight line and kick the ball?

 

 

1 minute ago, layzie said:

 This is like a police brutality case right now.

Not your best post. 

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

 

I love that film Deever!

1 minute ago, BoBo said:

Not your best post. 

not at all

The Emperor has no clothes on, but the Tribunal will buy the duck that isn't a dinner, leading to us having the motivation to get to the GF.

Just now, layzie said:

I love that film Deever!

Bogie at his best mate.

4 minutes ago, HardBallGet said:

Exactly how I a feeling. My sipport for MFC is unwavering, but I'm not sure I can continue taking my family to AFL if the leaguecondones this. I already buya Melb United 3 game membership in the NBL. Maybe I'll extend that

My hope is tge Afl reads all these genuine posts of concern.

So the filth are arguing that Gus veered slightly to his right as he kicked the ball ... that's a natural movement when kicking on your right foot (same goes when kicking on your left)

To go to your left when kicking on your right would unbalance you (unless you were kicking the ball to the left)

And Maynard would know that ... every footballer knows the movements

5 minutes ago, layzie said:

I love that film Deever!

Forgot to say I think it's still on sbs.

I reckon he’ll get off.
 

It’s moments like this that can galvanise a team. 12 quarters of footy. That’s all we’re asking for and left. Do it for Gus and beat them fair and square - unlike what they did to us.

1 minute ago, Macca said:

So the filth are arguing that Gus veered slightly to his right as he kicked the ball ... that's a natural movement when kicking on your right foot (same goes when kicking on your left)

To go to your left when kicking on your right would unbalance you (unless you were kicking the ball to the left)

And Maynard would know that ... every footballer knows the movements

Hopefully the ones sitting on the tribunal do too, Macca. 

14 minutes ago, Mickey said:

This is the issue and where I think the AFL has stuffed up. Allowing the 'he had a right to launch' argument gives Collingwood exactly what they need. He did not have a right to contest the ball in that way, just as players don't have the right to tackle with a slinging action or bump in a way that hits a player high.

Maynard being suspended won't kill the spoil, like some are claiming. But it will stop people like Maynard acting like a human cannonball

Exactly. They should have graded it with intent because he DID intend the KO.

Ihle (Pies) says Maynard is Car A and Brayshaw is Car B. He notes if Car B veers into Car A’s lane and a collision occurs, it is not blamed on Car A.

 

This has given me unsettling Year 12 maths flashbacks.
 

wtf

If you believe in karma like I do, then the Collingwood football club will get theirs.

If not from us, then from someone else. What goes around comes around.