I think this was a con job.

It has all been about what can you be expected to do, when you are off the ground, attempting a smother.

The biomechanist was even wheeled in.

The whole decision was centred around what can reasonably be expected of a player who is in the air, in the act of smothering.

The con that I see, is that it was never a smother, it was a deliberate hit, to make a player earn it the hard way, with hands up at the start, to make it look like a legal act, a smother. 

I am not saying he meant to knock him out, but rather deliver a hard hit, making him earn it and that would affect him and rattle his team mates.

Maynard said as much during the week, that he would make us earn it.

We have been conned, they looked at it from the point of view of a smother in the air, instead of a deliberate hit.

That is how he got off, when coupled with a pretty poor prosecution of the case.

To me the whole thing has the look of being stage managed, which is borne out by the refusal to Appeal. That of course is probably my MFC bias speaking.

1 hour ago, McQueen said:

 

We had a fatality at work today. 
 

 

That is horrible. Hope you are ok.

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think this was a con job.

It has all been about what can you be expected to do, when you are off the ground, attempting a smother.

The biomechanist was even wheeled in.

The whole decision was centred around what can reasonably be expected of a player who is in the air, in the act of smothering.

The con that I see, is that it was never a smother, it was a deliberate hit, to make a player earn it the hard way, with hands up at the start, to make it look like a legal act, a smother. 

I am not saying he meant to knock him out, but rather deliver a hard hit, making him earn it and that would affect him and rattle his team mates.

Maynard said as much during the week, that he would make us earn it.

We have been conned, they looked at it from the point of view of a smother in the air, instead of a deliberate hit.

That is how he got off, when coupled with a pretty poor prosecution of the case.

To me the whole thing has the look of being stage managed, which is borne out by the refusal to Appeal. That of course is probably my MFC bias speaking.

Going by the things Jeff Gleeson said, it sounded like a satire 

Rob Sitch and UTOPIA crew really should take on portraying the comical incompetent that is the AFL/MRO/Tribunal in a new series.

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by John Demonic

Mundy puts it quite succinctly IMO

(apologies if this has already been posted)

 

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by rolling fog

58 minutes ago, No. 31 said:

I had SEN on during part of the day in the background when working and caught the take of some Rugby League bloke on the Maynard "footy act". Very interesting comments, said unequivocally that if in Rugby League, Maynard would definitely be rubbed out for 4 weeks! Interesting viewpoint from north of the Barassi Line.

Did anyone else catch these comments?

Its an instant red card offence in union. 

1 minute ago, biggestred said:

Its an instant red card offence in union. 

The AFL will never introduce a Red Card system because they wouldn't be able to control the narrative.

12 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

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.

Because the clubs ceded control to the AFL. The AFL controls the purse strings for almost all clubs now who are beholden to them. Not to mention "punishment by fixturing".

38 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think this was a con job.

It has all been about what can you be expected to do, when you are off the ground, attempting a smother.

The biomechanist was even wheeled in.

The whole decision was centred around what can reasonably be expected of a player who is in the air, in the act of smothering.

The con that I see, is that it was never a smother, it was a deliberate hit, to make a player earn it the hard way, with hands up at the start, to make it look like a legal act, a smother. 

I am not saying he meant to knock him out, but rather deliver a hard hit, making him earn it and that would affect him and rattle his team mates.

Maynard said as much during the week, that he would make us earn it.

We have been conned, they looked at it from the point of view of a smother in the air, instead of a deliberate hit.

That is how he got off, when coupled with a pretty poor prosecution of the case.

To me the whole thing has the look of being stage managed, which is borne out by the refusal to Appeal. That of course is probably my MFC bias speaking.

This x 1,000,000. It was an obvious premeditated charge in disguise of a smother.

The commentary on 360 tonight about these actions will almost be impossible to replicate is such [censored]. It will be extremely easy to replicate. Just line up someone running full tilt from a contest with ball in hand and jump at them with your arms up in a token attempt to smother and then turn and brace for impact. 

Surely it's open season on front on contact to the head now. At least until Kane's end of season review.

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by leucopogon

11 hours ago, Diamond Tim said:

Anyone viewed the footage of McGuire at an eatery last night post the tribunal decision? What a massive preeck.....

Someone posted it, I wouldn't pollute my mind watching it.

21 minutes ago, Redleg said:

 

To me the whole thing has the look of being stage managed, which is borne out by the refusal to Appeal. That of course is probably my MFC bias speaking.

No need to talk about MFC bias Red. I was confident what would happen given the past "management" of these matters. It's all about the timing and the team. Do you remember Barry Hall getting off so he could play for Sydney in a Grand Final? The facts are below and the salient point bolded.

After an incident involving a punch to the stomach of St Kilda's Matt Maguire in a 2005 preliminary final match,^[11] Hall was reported for a level two striking and offered a one-week suspension for a guilty plea. This suspension would have meant missing the next week's grand final. Hall's representation successfully argued that the incident was 'in play' despite the ball being 50 metres away. As a result, the charge was reduced to a level one offence which reduced the penalty to a reprimand and he went on to captain the Swans to their first premiership in 72 years.

It's a Jedi Master trick that the AFL is known for. It will be scrutinised in Court soon and their latest admissions may well lead to much larger payouts, not that that is much consolation to someone with brain damage.

10 hours ago, waynewussell said:

I've stopped listening to SEN, I've stopped watching Ch7 & Ch9 news, I've stopped reading The Age (stopped reading The Herald Sun years ago). 

Me too Wayne, I did this over a year ago though. The only media I really engage with now is Demonland pod, Deebrief pod, Junktime pod (a comedy AFL podcast) and occasionally On The Couch, First Crack or 360 and I generally skip through most of those watching on delay to get to the Demons parts. 360 is a mess these days (probably already was) and I hardly watch any of that anymore.

It's so much less angst listening to these pompous buffoons manufacture drama and push the AFL narrative. I've disengaged even from watching other games not involving Melbourne, I hardly watched Friday games this year and would check in with scores for other games and maybe catch the last 10 minutes if it was close. It's just not entertaining anymore and the corruption of the league ruins the enjoyment.

10 hours ago, daisycutter said:

just an interesting aside ---

maynard was found not guilty because his action was instinctive and not conscious because of the small time interval. so sub-conscious not conscious and therefore accidental not careless.

now if we take van rooyen's case. no-one was claiming it was intentional, so it was either conscious or sub-conscious. now it all happened in sub-second time and his opponent was changing direction. so how could it have been conscious?

this is all so very confusing.

of course, i'm not say van rooyen should not have been suspended but on the maynard logic could it not be argued as accidental.

 

Hunter too on Rozee. All split second decision making. It's a wonder how anyone will ever be suspended again 🤔

The AFL needs to divest itself of the governance of Australian Rules Football. It has proven itself time and again to be unable to handle conflicts of interest, review and implementation of rules and guidelines, introduction of technology, fixtures, umpiring, and a myriad of other aspects they have botched over the last few decades (Tasmania anyone?!!). 

We desperately need a separate entity, like most sports have (eg. Football Association in the UK), that are the gatekeepers of the game. That truly provides independant direction for this unique game. The AFL can continue to be the peak competition, and market itself accordingly, but it needs to hand over responsibilities that conflict with its main mission. 

 

 Afl is a corrupt piece of [censored], but realistically I'm way to invested in the MFC and this years flag hopes to carry the rage too much further into the week. 

On tonights talking finals show, the new one on ch7 Tim Watson asked both Selwood and Cotchin if they were in Maynard's shows would they have gone around with wine and flowers the next day. Cotchin said it's about respecting the situation and obviously Gus was still recovering from concussion and just read the room and Selwood said when Tom Stewart had that incident with Prestia last year they reached out to Cotchin and Riewoldt to see if they could get Prestias number. 

JB said his sister in law, Gus's mum is still struggling with what happened. He said she was there at Optus stadium when her other son got punched and said she was in the stands last week and didn't see her son move for 2 minutes. 

It's time the club had something to say about this. Our President should pen an open letter to the AFL on our website stating our objection to this disgraceful decision. The club owes it to it's members and to our much loved player Angus Brayshaw. The club must make a stand on this now. As a lifetime member of our club, I would be ashamed if we don't. 

It sucks, the whole thing sucks. But if the team can't use this as motivation to galvanise them to come out breathing fire for the remainder of September and blow Carlton and Brisbane off the park for another shot at the Filth, I will be incredibly disappointed.

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by leucopogon

2 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

That’s awful I’m very sorry to hear that. 

I think the reason people are so passionately angry about this, is because the consequences for Gus could be far more serious than just missing a game of football. 
No matter which way you view what happened, anyone who is a Melbourne supporter or even a half decent human being, doesn’t want to see a 27 year old guy suffer permanent damage to their brain. 

That's a huge part of it but for me the disgust comes from the narrative that's been driven ever since the incident first happened. It's the complete whitewashing of the incident, the powerlessness to have your voice heard or do anything about it while the boys club just rolls on. And if course wrapped up in that is the complete lack of thought for the incident from the Brayshaw/MFC perspective. You feel completely marginalised as a club and it's infuriating.

look we obviously have some bias both for melbourne and against collingwood. but i think most fair minded people who saw nd heard the different arguements about the incident and all the so called protect the head and the player [censored] that they spout when they want to then ignore when they want to would also see this was an injustice. that the prosecution of maynard did as little as possible to not interfere with collingwoods flying frizby saga. just hearing the closing statements before they went into decide gave it away, they didnt want little maynard to miss out on the finals.

41 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Its an instant red card offence in union. 

I don’t really follow RU but in Eng v Arg at the weekend, a player was first yellow carded (10 mins in sin bin) while further tv review/consultation took place to decide if he should return to play or be sent off. He got the red so Eng played with 14 for the rest of the game (instant punishment) and he has since been further banned for two games by a tribunal (retrospective justice). That it may have been an accident (a rugby act?) was irrelevant, he was still responsible for the collision as he alone could have prevented it (think the other lad had just caught a drop out and was deemed defenceless).  AFL take note. 

As regards Maynard, I can only share in the collective dismay felt by fellow posters. Absolutely disgusted by it all and feel lucky that I can more easily swerve the shameful media sh!tshow you’re all suffering.

5 hours ago, GBDee said:

I don’t really follow RU but in Eng v Arg at the weekend, a player was first yellow carded (10 mins in sin bin) while further tv review/consultation took place to decide if he should return to play or be sent off. He got the red so Eng played with 14 for the rest of the game (instant punishment) and he has since been further banned for two games by a tribunal (retrospective justice). That it may have been an accident (a rugby act?) was irrelevant, he was still responsible for the collision as he alone could have prevented it (think the other lad had just caught a drop out and was deemed defenceless).  AFL take note. 

As regards Maynard, I can only share in the collective dismay felt by fellow posters. Absolutely disgusted by it all and feel lucky that I can more easily swerve the shameful media sh!tshow you’re all suffering.

The AFL will never implement a sin-bin , red card style system as it would relinquish their ability to determine which players and clubs are to benefit from their preferred (internal) narrative of "let the stars (from select clubs that we wish to see at the top, wherever possible) play on" regardless of their indiscretions.

If the AFL was serious about protecting the head and ensuring some form of fair "eye for an eye" on game day itself so that the offending team doesn't gain a significant advantage, it should introduce one.

But it won't.  And will use the theme of "our game is unique and "we don't want to become like soccer or rugby" as the nonsense reasoning for not doing so. 

Many of the fans and media also fall for this stupid mantra coming from the corrupt AFL circus masters and would rather see one team continue to have a ridiculous advantage on game day, even in a final, as we witnessed last Thurs.

If Mayfart knows he has a good chance of being binned or red carded for the entire match were he to commit that act, there's no way he's lowering the shoulder.  He's catching Gus on the way down, arms extended and both players would more than likely have played out the game.

Gus would also not be considering his future in it, as we speak.

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by Demon Dynasty

Ross Lyon thought it was unacceptable and Chris Scott thought it was unacceptable. Very experienced footy men with no skin in the outcome. Whole thing stinks. 

 

I think many have imposed upon themselves a lexicon of constraints that only result in furore.

Best not to confuse the AFL and in particular its Tribunal with any semblance of judicial integrity.  Though some of the actors participating in these pantomimes are indeed credentialed ....that's not their role.  In their own way they ham it up. Though words spoken sound legalese its all for show.  The 'rules' applied are fast and loose. One might be forgiven for even thinking there are no rules as their shape and form morph and change quicker than the weather..

Don't confuse the Outcome with such that one might suppose emanates from fairness and proprietary.  The outcomes are manufactured  and done so in a fashion to do its master's bidding.

This is a 'show' . The you's and i's have no say.  I made reference elsewhere that the way to make sense of it is to take note of the intended/required outcome...and work backwards.  All steps are fabricated to facilitate the end. That's why so much seems absurd because often the staged junctures are so disingenuous to probity that the sense and direction of the narrative can only be said to 'have left the tracks' long before.  In the vernacular they are simply waffling b.s.

The premise of any equity is the mistake.  None is employed

I'm shattered for Gus. I'm not surprised. 

Had not Maynard preceded Martin I'm fairly sure the latter would have been totally exonerated. Here the AFL maintained their illusions and pretended to mete out punishment. 

We probably feel annoyed, but the AFL doesn't care. They exist unto themselves. 

Stay well Gus.

8 hours ago, rolling fog said:

Mundy puts it quite succinctly IMO

(apologies if this has already been posted)

 

I would put it there was always,  with Maynard going to be malice and intent if opportunity presented. He's just that player.

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think this was a con job.

It has all been about what can you be expected to do, when you are off the ground, attempting a smother.

The biomechanist was even wheeled in.

The whole decision was centred around what can reasonably be expected of a player who is in the air, in the act of smothering.

The con that I see, is that it was never a smother, it was a deliberate hit, to make a player earn it the hard way, with hands up at the start, to make it look like a legal act, a smother. 

I am not saying he meant to knock him out, but rather deliver a hard hit, making him earn it and that would affect him and rattle his team mates.

Maynard said as much during the week, that he would make us earn it.

We have been conned, they looked at it from the point of view of a smother in the air, instead of a deliberate hit.

That is how he got off, when coupled with a pretty poor prosecution of the case.

To me the whole thing has the look of being stage managed, which is borne out by the refusal to Appeal. That of course is probably my MFC bias speaking.

Is it fair to say this was a 'sleight of hand' tactic Redleg? By the end of the hearing the focus seemed to have shifted onto Brayshaw's running path and not the main issue of Maynard's action that they were there for. 

Like Mark Fuhrman in the OJ case, they weren't there to decide whether he was a racist or not.