10 minutes ago, Macca said:

Further to the above, the tribunal members are strongly intimating that Gus shouldn't have moved to the right in the kicking action but that natural movement is all that he could do

They have to appeal just on that vital piece of information.  But here's the problem ... some people who have watched the game for decades don't understand the biomechanics so will those high up at the AFL know that the biomechanic's info was flawed

Let me guess, should have zigged instead of zagged?

Righto.

1 minute ago, leucopogon said:

Okay Hibbo then.

He's on 197 games with potentially 3 games to go in the season to reach 200 games. Next ...

Where’s Marcus Seecamp when you need him?

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

He's on 197 games with potentially 3 games to go in the season to reach 200 games. Next ...

 

I’m confused about the conflicts of interest here - these have been laid bare through Christian’s conduct and Gleeson’s concern for a player potential missing finals, noting Gleeson is apparently a Collingwood supporter. Oughtn’t our club be raising these concerns?

28 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

More important to teach kids not to be like the thug or his mate Cox.

We need to uproot this type of behaviour on the field.

Why not ? Its rewarded?

Let's keep politics out of footy threads.

2 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

I’m confused about the conflicts of interest here - these have been laid bare through Christian’s conduct and Gleeson’s concern for a player potential missing finals, noting Gleeson is apparently a Collingwood supporter. Oughtn’t our club be raising these concerns?

Yes but i doubt they will as all clubs have their head in the trough.

Nothing will change unless the club's stand up and shout.  Which they won't. 

They all just fall in to line behind the Circus master.  Same with most of the media morons.  They know who butters their bread.

Edited September 13, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

Yep, AFL is sending a clear message here that for all wannabe thugs, forget boxing and MMA, footy is the game for you. You get to smash heads from up high just like Randy Macho Man Savage off the top rope. Look out!

Edited September 13, 20232 yr by leucopogon

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

Edited September 13, 20232 yr by AzzKikA

1 minute ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

I'm with you.  Just didn't want to put it out there

4 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

I welcome your views and differing opinion - please keep posting. 

11 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Red it wouldn't have mattered what Mayfart said...

The circus act was already in play as soon as the siren went.  He was always getting off.

It was just a matter of how and then coming up with the script / screenplay.

Maynard seems to be saying he 'smothered' a phantom ball, kicked by a phantom who disappears the split second after the kick.

This thread is exactly why I don't post here often.    Only one side of the story is taken into consideration.   Crazy

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

Let me guess, should have zigged instead of zagged?

Righto.

Well, in the end, if the tribunal has a modicum of sense, they would have realised that Brayshaw has no choice but to move to his right when kicking

It seems to me that Maynard was found not guilty on a technicality when an overall technicality should have incriminated him

We only got half the story on the biomechanics

10 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Yep, AFL is sending a clear message here that for all wannabe thugs, forget boxing and MMA, footy is the game for you. You get to smash heads from up high just like Randy Macho Man Savage off the top rope. Look out!

Only if youre a 'name player' from a big club like Carlton  Collingwood Geelong or Richmond.

Cripps high impact concussed opponent....cleared to play

Maynard high impact almost broke Brayshaws neck.... cleared to play.

AFL went after Toby Green and piled on the weeks.  GWS? a zero club.

Melbourne players will get suspended if they rough up Carlton.

AFL is totally corrupt.

 

10 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

What has malice got to do with it? Do you think all playing outside the rules is based on malice? Wow. Lets just get a cold hearted recruit with a clinical violent streak to create damage and defend him by saying he is not malicious

32 minutes ago, KysaiahMessiah said:

The solution to our goalkicking ?  Still legal I believe ? 😉

No, not legal anymore I believe.  Anyway, the 30 second clock put paid to that idea anyway

22 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Why not ? Its rewarded?

For Integrity sake?

Really disappointing to read some of the responses to @AzzKikA take.

Just because he has a different view on the situation doesn't mean he has to be blasted or put down for having his own opinion, purely because he doesn't have his rosy red and blue glasses on. He's just looking at it from a broader sense. 

You dont have to agree with his take or any other, but then when you're reading some of the personal insults last night directed even at @BoBo in my head we're no different to Carlton and Collingwood supporters.

I'd rather talk about how we beat Carlton on Friday night..

Edited September 13, 20232 yr by dazzledavey36

16 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

i agree that he didnt have malice, however i think he could have protected gus more by opening his body up instead of dropping the shoulder. i think it was careless. it would have been awkward and they would have gone for a tumble but he could have done more to alleviate the damage so to speak. imho.

21 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. 

Why does everyone keep harping on about malice? It has nothing to do with it. You carelessly jump towards a player and turn yourself into a projectile resulting in a severe head injury, you should get rubbed out.

If one of our players was to do this, I would be disappointed but fully expectant of due punishment.

Edited September 13, 20232 yr by leucopogon

14 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

I think it was Mundy that said if it was Pendlebury and not Gus, Maynard would have had a different approach to his fall and no one would have been concussion. 
 

There is definitely a level of malice to Maynard’s action. 
 

Good logic and view from Mundy! 

24 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Oh ok so we insult someone with a different view, how mature of you all.

There is a lot of viewing through red and blue glasses here. I guarantee with 100% accuracy if it was gus jumping into Maynard all of your opinions would be reversed. I hate Maynard and think he is a dirty player but in this instance I don't not believe there was malice. I also don't believe either player is to blame hence the football act.

Don't know why I am bothering as you all will only see it 1 way. Next time I'll keep my opinion to myself so I don't get jumped on for having a differing one.

Everyone's entitled to their opininion and i respect yours.

I also put weight on the Brayshaw family's opinion. This isn't their first Rodeo but they haven't been outraged like this before. 

8 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to read some of the responses to @AzzKikA take.

Just because he has a different view on the situation doesn't mean he has to be blasted or put down for having his own opinion, purely because he doesn't have his rosy red and blue glasses on. He's just looking at it from a broader sense. 

You dont have to agree with his take or any other, but then when you're reading some of the personal insults last night directed even at @BoBo in my head we're no different to Carlton and Collingwood supporters.

I'd rather talk about how we beat Carlton on Friday night..

I thin’ there was a lot of emotional posting last night Dazzle. Therefore most were not their usual selves. I didn’t read anything that was out of hand. 
 

 

18 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Maynard seems to be saying he 'smothered' a phantom ball, kicked by a phantom who disappears the split second after the kick.

And this is the absolute Ludicrous interpretation which got this thug of!! What did he jump at ??? A bloody Shadow? Hows the line, I didn't know he was there! Well why jump you meathead!?? Totally flawed logic here. Surely the AFL MUST appeal this and if not, just wait and watch the carnage unfold when blokes line those that are in process of kicking or handballing get absolutely poleaxed !