1 minute ago, ElDiablo14 said:

I think he is vomiting due to Gil's comments.

I hope so. 

Can we please close thread I hate seeing it near the top when I come on the site

4 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

Looking at it from another angle. The following is a true statement;

Since Craig McCrae took over at Collingwood, there is a ~5% chance per game that Brayden Maynard knocks someone unconscious in some form of 'spoiling attempt'.

Maynard is only 26, so we can look forward to another four or five of these at least.

Under instruction to push the rules?

It's done, move on and close the thread.

Initially i thought to close the thread would be the action to take my now i"m thinking more along the lines of post here if you want to but most people will want to concentrate on the game. 

Otherwise it should stay available out of respect for those might have the wish to enquire about our players and also would like to remind the rest  about what happened and aspects of development of this issue when this is over. 

Lynden Dunn.. and this is why I have dead set hated this bloke even when he played at Melbourne. 

Clearly his alliance will always be with Collingwood.  Here is having his say on Russell Robertson post about Maynard situation. 

Mods can have have a name change to this thread.

Maynard must get at least two Hundred Pages.

The Chair of the Tribunal, Jeff Gleeson, is a Collingwood supporter. 
How about excusing yourself from this decision because of a conflict of interest ?

1 hour ago, Monbon said:

Gill said this today: "Our response is that if there's no avenues to appeal then let's actually look at the incident and see if there's tweaks or modifications or opportunities to change the rules or modify them so that we can do our very best to protect the health and wellbeing of our players on the field."

In other words, next year it will be deemed a 'Footy crime', but you're still okay to attack an oncoming player who has just kicked and knock him senseless.

 

I f...ing give up!!!!!!! The AFL  is total CR.P!

Gil (is and) was [censored] weak today and gave fuel to the posturing debate that Maynard was always going to be let off. He said that he was suspended for 3 weeks and then gave look as to say they’d done their bit. Didn’t even really refute that the prosecution was poor. Just scoffed like he already knew it. 
I really hope he is held personally liable in any current or future litigations. 

Point 7 of why it’s the wrong decision

I believe the biomechanist's whole argument is wrong. He's isolated the half second after Maynard left the ground, but he’s forgetting the entire leadup and leap forward by X Metres 

Brayshaw barely deviates half a metre , he's essentially run in a straight line for 20m before kicking the ball. That entire run constitutes the time that is Maynard's decision making time.  
 

Not sure the AFL Prosecutor Woods has ever argued a case. He failed to land a point.  

11 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

The Chair of the Tribunal, Jeff Gleeson, is a Collingwood supporter. 
How about excusing yourself from this decision because of a conflict of interest ?

I'd love to know how we can prove this because it would clearly taint any outcome.

5 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Whateley is part of the clown shoes brigade….I’ve just described 95% of the footy media. 

Last week after we had 26 shots on goal for 7 goals, I posted a great article by the roar about our disfunctional forward entries. 

They've nailed it again with this piece.

Just so incredibly accurate. Most of the media just made excuses. This mob expose Maynard for the thug he is

https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/09/13/brayden-maynard-the-guilty-man-found-innocent/

 

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

I think he is vomiting due to Gil's comments.

Yes, it is due to Gil's comments. Such BS - We let Maynard go but we will change the rules so that it never happens again - it shouldn't have happened this time.

6 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Last week after we had 26 shots on goal for 7 goals, I posted a great article by the roar about our disfunctional forward entries. 

They've nailed it again with this piece.

Just so incredibly accurate. Most of the media just made excuses. This mob expose Maynard for the thug he is

https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/09/13/brayden-maynard-the-guilty-man-found-innocent/

 

It's the only sane piece of journalism I've read about this incident.

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by leucopogon

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Lynden Dunn.. and this is why I have dead set hated this bloke even when he played at Melbourne. 

Clearly his alliance will always be with Collingwood.  Here is having his say on Russell Robertson post about Maynard situation. 

Robbo was all leap, never had to knee anyone his feet were usually above their head.

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

The Chair of the Tribunal, Jeff Gleeson, is a Collingwood supporter. 
How about excusing yourself from this decision because of a conflict of interest ?

christian and gleeson

the deck was well and truly loaded

2 hours ago, CatFishPig said:

Can we please close thread I hate seeing it near the top when I come on the site

Yes, close the thread because this guy hates it. 

6 hours ago, forever demons said:

EJ was Mr football a champion

 

2 hours ago, tiers said:

EJ was too good to need to play as a thug. He had skill, strength, flair, footy smarts and a desire to win in a regularly losing side. But for his role as the umpires shadow, he might have won a Brownlow.

His best mates in footy were the champions of his time, the sort of champions who would cross the street to avoid real thugs (eg Maynard) who had none of their abilities. But, yes, he was tough and could dish it out as well as take it.

EJ was a complete thug, and wouldn’t last a season if the current MRO and tribunal system were in place when he played.  Like Matthews, Dyer and even Ditteritch.   

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

The Chair of the Tribunal, Jeff Gleeson, is a Collingwood supporter. 
How about excusing yourself from this decision because of a conflict of interest ?

In any competently run organization (as opposed to an old boys’ club) this would be firmly entrenched in the rules, and enforced.   But then in the AFL ……..

37 minutes ago, Green Demon said:

Yes, it is due to Gil's comments. Such BS - We let Maynard go but we will change the rules so that it never happens again - it shouldn't have happened this time.

There are already rules in place that have hs players suspended for leaping off the ground causing contact to the head, with serious injury thrown in for extra penalty.    They just chose not to apply them in this case vice captain of a  big club Colonwood , finals, lots of money on Magpies etc etc

player in blue apparently stepped into path of the defender !!! 

player in white said it was a flinch and not voluntary at all and had no option with contact being accidental !!!! 

I am still angry 

I’ve just watched the incident again and I just cannot believe we are where we are.
The argument that Maynard had to brace for contact is absolutely farcical. If you watch the incident again, Maynard has enough time (when his hands are up, attempting to smother) to them quickly bring them  all the way down and brace for contact, which is ridiculous! if his arm movements had gone only 50% of the way down his hands would’ve been able to push onto Angus and possibly result in less injury or impact. 
 

But as we all know, Maynard had more than enough time to change his arms action from 180 degree change in direction to only a 90 degree change - essentially half as long. 
 

The whole thing is a stitch-up. 
 

It’s like it’s  the AFL version of the Matrix where the public begin to wake up to more and more of the controlling nature of the AFL and begin to hate them.
At AFL house it must be quiet some culture to conform to, to be able stomach this contrived sheetshow and do your job. 
 

I’ve never read an AFL career blurb or job ad but I’m almost certain that it would say “those with Sociopathic tendencies are encouraged to apply.”

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by McQueen

37 minutes ago, McQueen said:

I’ve just watched the incident again and I just cannot believe we are where we are.

Me neither...all the talk of lanes.

I just can't see Maynard in the lane of the ball.

If it was a legit smother attempt wouldn't this be his lane.

If you watch Kossie here he jumps at the ball. H-E moves to his right as Gus did...unfortunately into Maynards lane which was away from the ball.

 

Edited September 14, 20231 yr by rjay

31 minutes ago, rjay said:

Me neither...all the talk of lanes.

I just can't see Maynard in the lane of the ball.

If it was a legit smother attempt wouldn't this be his lane.

If you watch Kossie here he jumps at the ball. H-E moves to his right as Gus did...unfortunately into Maynards lane which was away from the ball.

 

 

Kudos for the clip!

Perfectly represents why the Maynard incident is ‘very rare indeed’. 

If we can't shut this thread down can we at least change the title to past tense?

No one agrees with what happened, and there are other things to focus on.

 

 

 

La vendetta è un piatto che va servito freddo.

Amazing i'm still fuming about this when we have a final to play tonight.

I'm so sick post tribunal decision of posters, general public and media talking about a "loophole" and the need for a rule change at the end of the season.

The rule and opportunity to suspend is there. Rough Play is either intentional or reckless. There is no definition of "footballing act" that somehow absolves you of any responsibility for your actions.

The AFL is p!ss weak and no rule change will fix that.

 

Final words as per The Castle 

And can I just say how disenchanted I am with the (tribunal) legal system