49 minutes ago, layzie said:

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. 

Maynard left his man Tracc and ran 20 metres flat out and jumped into the air, as Gus was coming the other way. He put his hands in the air, to look like a smother and then braced for contact. He hit him with a shoulder to the head and knocked him out. A bump, absolutely no doubt. Only the result may have been unexpected.

100 years of footy and never happened before.

As some Coaches and ex players have now said if it was his brother or team mate it doesn’t happen.

We have been conned.

Smother, my ar-e.

 

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by Redleg

   A few commentators have been mentioned in this thread who saw clearly what really happened and weren't part of the disgraceful AFL PR machine. But I've lost track of all the names.

As someone who doesn't watch all those footy shows or listen to SEN etc or read the HUN etc. though I do watch on TV etc, I'd be grateful if someone could list the names of commentators who I might want to respect in future.  Thanks in advance.

11 hours ago, Docs Demons said:

Only one way to fix these [censored] and that is to make the big dance hopefully against the Pies and beat them by 1 point. Then watch Eddie and his sons have a cry and say they were robbed. Wouldn't that be nice.

1 point! No thanks, 40plus with the Melbourne chant ringing around the ground 

17 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Maynard left his man Tracc and ran 100  metres flat out and jumped into the air, as Gus was coming the other way. He put his hands in the air, to look like a smother and then braced for contact. He hit him with a shoulder to the head and knocked him out. A bump, absolutely no doubt. Only the result may have been unexpected.

100 years of footy and never happened before.

As some Coaches and ex players have now said if it was his brother or team mate it doesn’t happen.

We have been conned.

Smother, my ar-e.

 

100m?

Mate that's honestly a huge stretch by you. Maynard literally started just on the square line and clobbered him inside the square. It's easily at least 25m. Maynard was running back with Petracca initially then quickly charged towards Brayshaw.

 

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by dazzledavey36

1 minute ago, dazzledavey36 said:

100m?

Mate that's honestly a huge stretch by you. Maynard literally started just inside 50 and clobbered him inside the square. It's easily at least 25m.

 

Sorry have edited that; meant to say about 20 metres. 

11 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

1 point! No thanks, 40plus with the Melbourne chant ringing around the ground 

I would prefer bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang , bang and 15 more.

17 minutes ago, sue said:

   A few commentators have been mentioned in this thread who saw clearly what really happened and weren't part of the disgraceful AFL PR machine. But I've lost track of all the names.

As someone who doesn't watch all those footy shows or listen to SEN etc or read the HUN etc. though I do watch on TV etc, I'd be grateful if someone could list the names of commentators who I might want to respect in future.  Thanks in advance.

Caroline Wilson, Garry Lyon and that fellow from The Roar website are the only ones I saw who didn't toe the company line. Whateley, as usual, wouldn't offer an opinion one way or the other. Everybody else I've heard have now had their cards marked as far as I'm concerned.

Just now, Redleg said:

Sorry have edited that; meant to say about 20 metres. 

Looking back when Maynard charges towards Brayshaw it left Petracca in open space.

In that instance that are two ways to look at this. 

1. Ideally you want Petracca starting deep forward. Had this been the case then he drags Maynard back and then all of this doesn't exist.

2. Should Petracca have led away to create more space for the forward to have a short hit up option?

Anyways so many what ifs. 

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Looking back when Maynard charges towards Brayshaw it left Petracca in open space.

In that instance that are two ways to look at this. 

1. Ideally you want Petracca starting deep forward. Had this been the case then he drags Maynard back and then all of this doesn't exist.

2. Should Petracca have led away to create more space for the forward to have a short hit up option?

Anyways so many what ifs. 

The fact Gus didn't pin point a leading target and just bombed it long inside 50 from a clean centre stoppage exit shows how ineffective the coaching of forward connection is at the moment. Did no forwards offer a lead, meaning the default system of bombing it in prevailed? 

Edited September 13, 20231 yr by leucopogon

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Looking back when Maynard charges towards Brayshaw it left Petracca in open space.

In that instance that are two ways to look at this. 

1. Ideally you want Petracca starting deep forward. Had this been the case then he drags Maynard back and then all of this doesn't exist.

2. Should Petracca have led away to create more space for the forward to have a short hit up option?

Anyways so many what ifs. 

Tracc did run back to create the option.

Maynard let him go and charged at Gus.

This was always a bump disguised as an attempt to smother. Don’t be fooled.

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Looking back when Maynard charges towards Brayshaw it left Petracca in open space.

In that instance that are two ways to look at this. 

1. Ideally you want Petracca starting deep forward. Had this been the case then he drags Maynard back and then all of this doesn't exist.

2. Should Petracca have led away to create more space for the forward to have a short hit up option?

Anyways so many what ifs. 

All that is irrelevant anyway

Maynard did what he did and that's where it starts and finishes

How about 'What if Maynard didn't take out a defenceless player?'

Have you ever seen a player take out a player in similar circumstances when playing?

And by the way, Maynard has form.  He received a 2 week penalty for committing the same offence a few years ago (curiously, that prior suspension wasn't mentioned in the tribunal hearing.  Or the umpires report)

As Redleg said, it's a stitch up

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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".

Correct

The dividends alone can amount to at least $12Million per annum and that fugure can vary.  You can't fight City Hall

The only way for a fair deal is to become a big club ourselves. And that's easier said than done

44 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

The fact Gus didn't pin point a leading target and just bombed it long inside 50 from a clean centre stoppage exit shows how ineffective the coaching of forward connection is at the moment. Did no forwards offer a lead, meaning the default system of bombing it in prevailed? 

He was kicking to a 1 on 1 much like we did in the '21 finals series.  Which is perfectly ok given the circumstances

Anyway, what's that got to do with Gus being king hit? 

Not pointing the finger at you but the victim blaming that is going on is stunning

Quite obviously, the thug did the wrong thing and that's all there is to it

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by Macca

I really like the lack of "outside" response from the club. Plenty of time to fight this after we are done for the year. Keep it in house and use it.

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

Probably the worst defence from a club too. Today I've been visualising Maynard without arms and legs and his torso looks nothing like a frisbee. 

As the biomechanics guy said once Maynard was airborne he was like a frisbee with legs, nothing he could, no control of his body. I mean see this all the time in the Olympics, you know on the high diving tower, the floor routines in gymnastics, the high jump all the time. You know once a strong, trained athlete leaves the ground all they can do is curl up into a ball and hope for the best!
 

Just wondering why the frisbee nonsense wasn’t challenged, there were options and Maynard was in the best position, arms out in front, just before he chose to turn the shoulder that did the damage. I believe He would have stayed open if he was about to collide with a team mate. 

19 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Tracc did run back to create the option.

Maynard let him go and charged at Gus.

This was always a bump disguised as an attempt to smother. Don’t be fooled.

This is key ...imo

Maynard left Trac... a bit odd really wouldn't you think...  unless he had something else in mind ?? 

46 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

Caroline Wilson, Garry Lyon and that fellow from The Roar website are the only ones I saw who didn't toe the company line. Whateley, as usual, wouldn't offer an opinion one way or the other. Everybody else I've heard have now had their cards marked as far as I'm concerned.

Wayne Carey has given a reasonable explanation of the situation on his podcast:

If your interested in listening it starts around 8 minutes:

 

 

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by Jibroni

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

He was kicking to a 1 on 1 much like we did in the '21 finals series.  Which is perfectly ok given the circumstances

Anyway, what's that got to do with Gus being king hit?  Are you trying to get the thug off the hook by saying that Gus should have done something different?

The victim blaming is stunning but I didn't thing I'd see that sort of thing on this site

Quite obviously, the thug did the wrong thing and that's all there is to it

Some total rubbish being posted on here Macca. Gus hit the forward on the chest with the kick only Roo did not hold it. AFL were going to release reasons for not Appealing yesterday, they still haven't.  Lets face it the lack of action of what happened at Port a few weeks ago tells what the AFL really think about player welfare. Bring on the lawsuits.

3 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Just wondering why the frisbee nonsense wasn’t challenged, there were options and Maynard was in the best position, arms out in front, just before he chose to turn the shoulder that did the damage

Because the prosecution wasn't interested in challenging anything

Read the transcript for proof ... disinterest from the prosecution is the best word to describe what went on

The tribunal had already made up their minds before the hearing had even started (almost certainly under instruction from high up)

And no appeal for such a heiness act?  The most violent act this season goes unpunished?

The sad part is that any number of neutral supporters have no problem with what the thug did.  Baffling actually (maybe they want the biffo back like the 70's & 80's?)

Cannot believe the [censored] I’m reading here. If Gus did this, if Gus did that. FMD.
I’m fully convinced some on here do not support the MFC. 

3 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Some total rubbish being posted on here Macca. Gus hit the forward on the chest with the kick only Roo did not hold it. AFL were going to release reasons for not Appealing yesterday, they still haven't.  Lets face it the lack of action of what happened at Port a few weeks ago tells what the AFL really think about player welfare. Bring on the lawsuits.

The word around the traps is that up to 20 current players are part of one class action and that Gus might be one of those 20 players

So why would a governing body go into bat for someone who is suing them?  Especially if they know that they will be paying out 10's of $Millions regardless

1 minute ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Cannot believe the [censored] I’m reading here. If Gus did this, if Gus did that. FMD.
I’m fully convinced some on here do not support the MFC. 

Name one footballer who would have done what Gus did differently, you wont find one. Name one organization who would have done things differently to the AFL, Everyone except maybe Qantas.

12 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

As the biomechanics guy said once Maynard was airborne he was like a frisbee with legs, nothing he could, no control of his body. I mean see this all the time in the Olympics, you know on the high diving tower, the floor routines in gymnastics, the high jump all the time. You know once a strong, trained athlete leaves the ground all they can do is curl up into a ball and hope for the best!
 

Just wondering why the frisbee nonsense wasn’t challenged, there were options and Maynard was in the best position, arms out in front, just before he chose to turn the shoulder that did the damage. I believe He would have stayed open if he was about to collide with a team mate. 

I find it disturbing that Maynard got away with multiple inconsistencies that the AFL simply did not challenge.

Firstly he stated he did not project forward, that he was standing on the one spot.  Then he stated about an hour later that he did project forward but no more then 1 or 2 metres.

Secondly he stated the ball hit his hand, when the vision showed the ball passing his elbow, no where near his hand.

Then he stated he leapt from a standing position with both feet on the ground, when the vision showed he leapt off one foot while in a running motion.

Then he stated Brayshaw changed direction and that he was in Maynard's way.  As the player with possession of the ball, it was Maynard's responsibility to not be in Brayshaw's way.  What get me though is everyone was in agreement that Maynard was airborne before Brayshaw kicked the ball.  If that was the case, then that is proof it was not a smother attempt in the context of Maynard's testimony that Brayshaw changed direction - for Maynard's version to make sense, he would have assumed the ball would pass by the left of him, so how could he argue it was a smother attempt if he assumed the ball was not going to go anywhere near him?

So many holes and he got away with it.  And the AFL in the "wisdom" didn't challenge it.

SO what happens this weekend if there is a similar smother

Open season i guess

16 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Some total rubbish being posted on here Macca. Gus hit the forward on the chest with the kick only Roo did not hold it. AFL were going to release reasons for not Appealing yesterday, they still haven't.  Lets face it the lack of action of what happened at Port a few weeks ago tells what the AFL really think about player welfare. Bring on the lawsuits.

I reckon when he kicked it, it was to a 1 on 1 ... and JVR then created separation

Do that enough times and you'll kick a good score.  So Gus' option to kick long was a good option

Besides which, a player kicking the ball anytime, in any direction, should not be king hit

There's been far too much onus put on what Gus could have done instead.  And all that is totally irrelevant

The thug lined Gus up and took him out with a king hit (which he has done before, 3 years ago) (and copped weeks)

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by Macca

18 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

As the biomechanics guy said once Maynard was airborne he was like a frisbee with legs, nothing he could, no control of his body. I mean see this all the time in the Olympics, you know on the high diving tower, the floor routines in gymnastics, the high jump all the time. You know once a strong, trained athlete leaves the ground all they can do is curl up into a ball and hope for the best!
 

Just wondering why the frisbee nonsense wasn’t challenged, there were options and Maynard was in the best position, arms out in front, just before he chose to turn the shoulder that did the damage. I believe He would have stayed open if he was about to collide with a team mate. 

Uh god, the effin biomechanics guy. A Collingwood hack with a degree. Was he wearing a lab coat and a tin hat? Spent the night confusing the tribunal boneheads with science and demonstrating it was physically impossible for Maynard to do what Kozi casually did soon afterwards.