Hope the players are not as invested in this as we are. We still have a game to win on Friday.

Isn’t Ihle the lawyer who we had for JVR when I’m he got off the two?

Just now, YearOfTheDees said:

Hope the players are not as invested in this as we are. We still have a game to win on Friday.

I sure hope they're paying it no attention. I'm on holidays, so I've got an excuse but no sane person should be giving this as much attention as we are.

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

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. 

There may be a few ‘smothers’ handed out in the first quarter of the prelim.  If I was coaching I’d advise players to ‘smother’ the Daicos boys early in the game.  
A football act…

 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

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. 

Not in a corrupt AFL it doesn't Jaded.

It's a circus that's very massaged and controlled towards producing preferred outcomes and results as we are about to witness (again... Crippa brownlow, Barry Hall...Premiership!)

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

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

That's my concern

So Maynard knows that Brayshaw will veer slightly to his right as he was kicking on his right and lined him up accordingly

Basic footy 101 and as you said, Steve, the tribunal members need to know the natural movements

saying maynard had no time to react also says that gus had no time to act, when Maynard came at him like a launched missile or frisby. and that is clearly not the case. Maynard seemed to hunker down and turn his shoulder into gus, so he had time to take action. he had other options, he could have put his arms out and pushed him, tried to catch chest on to him but he did not. this bull about him not bumping, how many players have been found guilty of hitting someone, raising their arm, etc and hitting someone that were not deliberate actions. its the action that counts not the aledged intent that cannot be proven. to say it was not a bump is nonsense, what are they calling it a smother. you smother the ball not the other player. 

18 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

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 

 

25 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

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

You’re right… the AFL had many valid arguments that weren’t used. Why wouldn’t they use, for example, the one to which you refer (above)?

 

edit: and the post above this one! @Deecisive brings up yet another great point that should’ve formed part of the AFL’s argument. This thread is full of compelling evidence that just wasn’t presented. Why?!!

Edited September 12, 20231 yr by WalkingCivilWar

At the start of this I liked Woodsy then realised he is no idea. Never trust a first impression.

28 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

I’m not wasting anymore time on this cluster-[censored]. I should’ve known better than to cling on to a little sliver of hope that justice would prevail. So disappointed and angry… but not surprised. 

I saw a dark horse in GWS up-and-coming, they might be capable of knocking PA and the pies out of the finals series. Just be patient.

if he gets off all the kids will be out this weekend practicing a "maynard"

4 minutes ago, Chook said:

I sure hope they're paying it no attention. I'm on holidays, so I've got an excuse but no sane person should be giving this as much attention as we are.

Perhaps explains why there are so many Pies supporters voting on the live blog.

Now for the 1 hour deliberations 

9 minutes ago, Min Xie said:

I saw a dark horse in GWS up-and-coming, they might be capable of knocking PA and the pies out of the finals series. Just be patient.

I agree. I think they’re a huge chance especially if Hogan, Riccardi and Greene and Green get off the leash. Man I’d love to see Greene Maynard Maynard in a football act. Then Cox. Rest of their team, I don’t mind. If they could take out 90% of their supporters the world would be a better place.

Really hard to get a read on what the AFL would want here. They need to disincentivise such hits as chook said, plus there’s the litigation, and I’m sure they don’t want Viney conducting tactical Maynards next week and the week like some sort of Exocet Maynard but they’d want a CFC CFC GF. Their lawyer’s arguments weren’t as clinical or forensic in their examination of options, nor did they appear to draw on other options and the training Players must receive in avoiding big hits? Shouldn’t they retain someone or have a couple of go to’s to prosecute these? Woods is a commercial lawyer first and foremost right?

Edited September 12, 20231 yr by Superunknown

The filth showing the behind the goals vision might be to their own detriment if the Tribunal members are switched on in terms of knowing the natural movements of the player kicking the ball (on the run)

2 of them played footy yeah?  Has Gleeson played? 

In the meantime you may care to read this article on the baseball team known as the Savannah Bananas

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/sep/12/savannah-bananas-future-of-sport

Perhaps they are the future after all

The fix is in. It’s crystal clear to me that the AFL went to Christian and said “don’t worry mate, we will send this to the Tribunal, will prosecute it for a few minutes and Maynard will get off. Christian withdraws his threat to resign.

Money talks.

 

I think we're setup for disappointment. The good bloke verdict is imminent and the 'football act' will live. 

Even if upheld Collingwood are ready to go tooth and nail to court, real Cripps feeling about it.

13 minutes ago, Satan said:

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

Particularly if car A is airborne. 
 

What a ridiculous analogy. 

4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

WTF are you talking about, I even posted the Appeal decision in this thread!! 

Not that that decision has anything to do with this one, even though you keep rabbiting on about it. You've also failed to indicate what it is from the Bedford decision might be relevant here, even though you've been asked to do so on a number of occasions.

You have some serious issues.

Mate, tell us where you got your law degree.

You actually need to READ the Bedford decision and UNDERSTAND it. Your lawyer may be able to explain it to you in kindergarten terms. 

Explaining to non-lawyers how one legal decision affects another is just about impossible. Just think why it takes 4-5 years of study to become an apprentice lawyer. Do you think they just teach us how to twiddle our thumbs?

If you are really serious, I suggest we set up a separate thread - "Bedford Decision" - and I can educate you over the next 4 months or so. Other lawyers on here may well pitch in. 

I do have serious issues with the arrogant ignorant. 

This seriously can't be our medical report? Adelaide buried Jack Trengove in 2011 with their medical report

If Maynard gets off I can see a whole new way to take players out and you can argue the case the AFL says it's OK.

1 minute ago, McQueen said:

Particularly if car A is airborne. 
 

What a ridiculous analogy. 

It's a good analogy but flawed in its premise. Car A was the one in the wrong lane.

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

The filth showing the behind the goals vision might be to their own detriment if the Tribunal members are switched on in terms of knowing the natural movements of the player kicking the ball (on the run)

2 of them played footy yeah?  Has Gleeson played? 

I hope they zero in on that stutter step and question it