What’s the fine for a run-thru (banner) with a few choice words on it.

Reckon we could get a pretty good go fund me going to cover any costs :.)

 

Jeff Gleeson instructions before deliberating: 

We should judge the evidence fairly and impartially in the light of their (Tribunal members) common sense, their experience of life and where appropriate their experience as footballers. 

No one should be under any misapprehension that, despite the fact we've been going for almost three hours with a minute analysis of this matter, this will be decided on the basis of common sense, a sensible and fair viewing of footage. 

I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that this has taken nearly three hours.

A footballer was concussed and stretchered from the MCG in a final, another footballer has got a couple of pretty important games he’ll either play in or miss depending in part on what we decide tonight.

As importantly as any of that, there are footballers playing today, next year and in the decades to come who need to understand the basis on which this decision was made and the basis on which we approach these matters generally.

It ought not be assumed that this is going to be some watershed moment in the announcement of the duty of care. 

There'll be an analysis of the duty of care specific to this incident. 

One thing I think we've all appreciated from hearing the evidence tonight is that none of us can quite think of a specific factual circumstance that’s identical. 

That's almost always the case. So many of the cases have subtle but important differences from the others.

We're here to analyse this matter and this evidence presented to us tonight and we will take no regard whatsoever of the many and various views that have been quite understandably circulating about the matter.

We’ll decide it only on the evidence.

There's been a common ground about the high bump provision. I just want to make quite clear and give this instruction to myself and my fellow panel members.

When we come to consider the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, it was fairly and appropriately acknowledged by Woods (AFL) that, in order for us to find that this was a bump, there needed to be a voluntary bump, not a bumping into someone, but a bumping of an opponent.

 

THIS IS WRONG. NOT A DECISION BASED ON WHETHER IT WAS A VOLUNTARY BUMP. MAYNARD CHANGED FROM A SMOTHER TO A BUMP  

IT WAS CARELESS. IT WAS HEAD HIGH. IT WAS SEVERE IMPACT. THATS 4 WEEKS.  

11 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Suspect we'll see some rule changes next season.

 

Such as?

I feel so sorry for Gus.

He was totalled by a thug and he’ll get no justice.

2 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Really starting to question whether I can be bothered following this competition any more. So disillusioned with the double standards to the point of corruption where the power brokers in the AFL manipulate everything from the draw to the tribunal outcomes to maximise profits. This is a prime example.

I thoroughly recommend watching our Women's team chook.

They are wonderful to watch right now.

https://www.afl.com.au/aflw/video/1030305/aflw-match-replay-gws-v-melbourne?videoId=1030305&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1694379600001&references=AFL_MATCH:5758

4 minutes ago, BoBo said:

However frustrated you and I feel, wishing physical harm on a player is not called for. 
 

Reverse the roles an imagine what you would say if other teams wished harm on one of our players. 

I didn’t say injure him I said test it out. Exactly the same way Cox tested out Gawn’s ribs and Trac’s knee and not one [censored] person at AFL house blinked an eye. 

If it’s fine to run full speed at a player and jump and collect their head, then surely it’s fine to test out the injury of an opponent on the field. AFL says everything is fair game. 

I dont why anyone is the least surprised .It was always only going to be a show trial and as I said previously the chance of the charge being sustained were between nil and Zero the moment Christian said he wasnt prepared to charge Maynard .Told that to anyone who to spoke to.The remainder of the charade became window dressing for the AFL .The next statement will be Maynard saying the only thing that matters to him is Angus health .So cynical and predictable .

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm glad I moved to Byron Bay where no one gives a [censored] about AFL and I can forget about football for a while. 

That is not true, they have an AFL hub up at Cavanbah (a couple of k's out of town). 

Perhaps you feel that way because of the Gold Coast link and area,  

Edited September 12, 20232 yr by kev martin

Jvr should just rock up and play. 

Would be the ultimate statement about this. 

A big fu to the Afl that they truly deserve. 

I'm sorry I thought you threw out all the rules.

2 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Are you fair dinkum? Did he say that?

Gleeson barracks for Collingwood too

Let's focus on Friday.  It was always going this way.  The rules will change next year.  That's done now.  The best way we help Gus is to win Friday night.

This may have already been said, so apologies as I am SO angry now I can't read all posts. If I'm a Melbourne player, I am obsessed with getting to the GF to meet that team, and THAT player again. I may only see my kids on visiting days, but Maynard will remember me. 🤬

6 minutes ago, BoBo said:

However frustrated you and I feel, wishing physical harm on a player is not called for. 
 

Reverse the roles an imagine what you would say if other teams wished harm on one of our players. 

I wish harm on Maynard and cox. I’m a game of course shirt front broken ribs will do

Gerard Whateley interviewing Toby Greene tonight on 360:

Whateley: So Toby, let’s start with the Maynard case. Did you have empathy for him throughout the week, with all the scrutiny he had to put up with.

Greene: No.

Its just common assault.

He should be charged.

Would like to remember what people look like. Are there any decent memory joggers around that would clear the memory.

 

What an absolute [censored] disgrace!

Brayden "the thug" Maynard got off with nothing?!

Talk about Collingwood bias!

The AFL is corrupt!

I hope Angus Bradshaw talks to his lawyers and sues Brayden Maynard!

I am soooo [censored] angry right now!

Screw the AFL! Screw Collingwood! And screw Brayden Maynard! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

The Melbourne Football Club should make a public statement against this utterly reprehensible perversion of justice!

Get over guys…I am angered, but we have a game of football to win. MFC, if they are fair dinkum, will channel the aggression on Friday night and win. I’d be happy to win and get a few suspensions, just to make a point. Practice the flying smother bumps this week

Just now, gregdemon said:

I wish harm on Maynard and cox. I’m a game of course shirt front broken ribs will do

And Michael long for 2000 grand final l do not forgive or forget

Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Gerard Whateley interviewing Toby Greene tonight on 360:

Whateley: So Toby, let’s start with the Maynard case. Did you have empathy for him throughout the week, with all the scrutiny he had to put up with.

Greene: No.

Say what you like about Greene, but man I love his honesty. 
If he did that he’d be gone for 9 weeks. 

11 minutes ago, Seraph said:

The fact that the AFL themselves (Gleeson) instructed the tribunal to consider the fact that Maynard may miss finals/important games says all you need to know about the whole case.

In clearing Maynard, chairman Jeff Gleeson said it was reasonable for Maynard to expect some impact when he decided to smother, but it was not inevitable.

"We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact, or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw, was inevitable, or even likely," Gleeson said.

 

Are these clowns for real?

1 minute ago, gregdemon said:

I wish harm on Maynard and cox. I’m a game of course shirt front broken ribs will do

HNMMM after much thought..... I am the same Parrk Filth and all they stand for!!

3 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Jeff Gleeson instructions before deliberating: 

We should judge the evidence fairly and impartially in the light of their (Tribunal members) common sense, their experience of life and where appropriate their experience as footballers. 

No one should be under any misapprehension that, despite the fact we've been going for almost three hours with a minute analysis of this matter, this will be decided on the basis of common sense, a sensible and fair viewing of footage. 

I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that this has taken nearly three hours.

A footballer was concussed and stretchered from the MCG in a final, another footballer has got a couple of pretty important games he’ll either play in or miss depending in part on what we decide tonight.

As importantly as any of that, there are footballers playing today, next year and in the decades to come who need to understand the basis on which this decision was made and the basis on which we approach these matters generally.

It ought not be assumed that this is going to be some watershed moment in the announcement of the duty of care. 

There'll be an analysis of the duty of care specific to this incident. 

One thing I think we've all appreciated from hearing the evidence tonight is that none of us can quite think of a specific factual circumstance that’s identical. 

That's almost always the case. So many of the cases have subtle but important differences from the others.

We're here to analyse this matter and this evidence presented to us tonight and we will take no regard whatsoever of the many and various views that have been quite understandably circulating about the matter.

We’ll decide it only on the evidence.

There's been a common ground about the high bump provision. I just want to make quite clear and give this instruction to myself and my fellow panel members.

When we come to consider the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, it was fairly and appropriately acknowledged by Woods (AFL) that, in order for us to find that this was a bump, there needed to be a voluntary bump, not a bumping into someone, but a bumping of an opponent.

 

THIS IS WRONG. NOT A DECISION BASED ON WHETHER IT WAS A VOLUNTARY BUMP. MAYNARD CHANGED FROM A SMOTHER TO A BUMP  

IT WAS CARELESS. IT WAS HEAD HIGH. IT WAS SEVERE IMPACT. THATS 4 WEEKS.  

And brayshaw was knocked out as well as concussed.

Relax my friends, the AFL will appeal this decision. 

Melbourne  will come out on Friday with fire . Take out Carlton.