Maynard must get at least four weeks

[layzie 28,721]

Do people really not remember Aaron Vandenberg bringing a bottle of wine over to Brody Mihocek after their collision a few years ago?

Whether it's a dumb and stupid PR stunt or not let's not pretend this is the first time it's ever happened.

Edited September 11, 2023 by layzie

[Jara 1,149]

23 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Did you specialize in Jesuistry?

Wankery (I was at Melbourne Uni law school for long enough to know that the faculty was full of em, and they were full of themselves.

[dice 566]

15 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

How does he think Viney plays?

Lower centre of gravity - more like a bulldozer than a flying cannonball lol

Edited September 11, 2023 by dice

[Monbon 1,498]

17 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Shakespeare: 

"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers".

If my legal analysis proves wrong, mate, you will receive my apology on here.

The Jesuits were about the ends justifying the means, I think. This is a far cry from Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.    

With all respect - and I mean this genuinely - your defence of 'Aussie Law' is not the full picture. I know of certain 'lawyers'  who specialize in, shall we say, selling criminals get out of jail cards. 

And, by the way, I would have thought a player knocking an opponent unconscious with his shoulder after he has kicked a football over his head has SFA to do with 'Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.'

I note you are a lawyer who can't even spell rationally correctly. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by Monbon

[Satan 2,728]

starting to read by collingwood fans  brayshaw was concussed  in a previous incident in a goal area

[Monbon 1,498]

3 minutes ago, Jara said:

Wankery (I was at Melbourne Uni law school for long enough to know that the faculty was full of em, and they were full of themselves.

And nothing is changed.

[daisycutter 28,507]

not sure if this is still up to date

 

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where it constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by daisycutter

[Jara 1,149]

15 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Shakespeare: 

"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers".

If my legal analysis proves wrong, mate, you will receive my apology on here.

The Jesuits were about the ends justifying the means, I think. This is a far cry from Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.    

I must have missed the subject at Law where they taught that word. Rationonately? 

[Monbon 1,498]

2 minutes ago, Satan said:

starting to read by collingwood fans  brayshaw was concussed  in a previous incident in a goal area

Must have been: that's OBVIOUSLY why he ran into and assaulted Maynard.

[YearOfTheDees 3,092]

3 minutes ago, Satan said:

starting to read by collingwood fans  brayshaw was concussed  in a previous incident in a goal area

And that he should never have been allowed to play again after his last concussion.

[YearOfTheDees 3,092]

Thy must be running out of current and Ex Collingwood players they can roll out to defend him.

[Jaded No More 57,810]

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

And that he should never have been allowed to play again after his last concussion.

I'll remember that the next time one of their star players is concussed. 

Better not play again. Don't listen to doctors when between 100,000 Collingwood fans you can find 3 functional braincells. They know best. 

[Superunknown 3,311]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not sure if this is still up to date

 

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where it constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

 

 

Based on that - gone for 3 at least. I still think Kane’s intervention is a portent of grim tidings for Maynard.

[brendan 3,380]

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see them stoop so low as to claim the 'severity' is due to Gus' prior concussions rather than the bump.

Pies fans have been going with that narrative all day they even have footage of a incident a few minutes earlier where they think Gus got concussion and we failed to look after him, and others are saying Gus had an obligation to protect himself in the contest, but of a joke really 

[rollinson 65 181]

41 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see them stoop so low as to claim the 'severity' is due to Gus' prior concussions rather than the bump.

Nope, that argument won't fly. 17 legal reasons why. It presupposes knowledge, malice and design, all impossible of proof in Court. It would irritate the Tribunal so no lawyer would even consider it.

It is becoming distressingly clear to me that I have become enmeshed in trying to explain the legal process to angry and exasperated Dees supporters on this thread. I am one of you. I am not Player Maynard's lawyer. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment.

And all because I was so enraged by the "I played and you didn't" idiotic argument that I joined the conversation. Usually, I just enjoy reading on here. Now, you people have got my dander up. Bring it on !! 

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not sure if this is still up to date

 

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where it constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

I can't remember specifically remember the cases but Christian has let a few people off 'high contact' incidents on the basis of it "...was reasonable in the circumstances..."  It is my guess that this would have been his line before Laura Kane mercifully became involved.

[TRIGON 4,715]

Desist; stop doing something; cease or abstain.

Rationonately;...

[Lucifers Hero 37,008]

5 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Nope, that argument won't fly. 17 legal reasons why. It presupposes knowledge, malice and design, all impossible of proof in Court. It would irritate the Tribunal so no lawyer would even consider it.

This isn't a court of law - it is a football Tribunal concerned about optics and spin rather than proof...enough spin to make a case on 'the balance of probabilities'   Who needs proof...

Kangaroo Court would be the most apt!!

[chookrat 3,776]

10 minutes ago, brendan said:

Pies fans have been going with that narrative all day they even have footage of a incident a few minutes earlier where they think Gus got concussion and we failed to look after him, and others are saying Gus had an obligation to protect himself in the contest, but of a joke really 

To look after oneself in the contest it must be a contest, they are essentially saying not to open yourself up while kicking the ball on case an opposition player cannons into you.

[rollinson 65 181]

18 minutes ago, Monbon said:

With all respect - and I mean this genuinely - your defence of 'Aussie Law' is not the full picture. I know of certain 'lawyers'  who specialize in, shall we say, selling criminals get out of jail cards. 

And, by the way, I would have thought a player knocking an opponent unconscious with his shoulder after he has kicked a football over his head has SFA to do with 'Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.'

I note you are a lawyer who can't even spell rationally correctly. 

Admit the spelling mistake.

Even Hitler deserved a good lawyer. It is our system and a bulwark of our society.

I know I am repeating myself but the lawyers involved here will be looking at the real-time vision. Fractions of seconds mate, fractions of seconds. I don't care if Player Maynard gets banned for life. After all, he plays for the filth. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment. 

 

[WalkingCivilWar 31,428]

5 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

I see I have no support on this thread so I shall desist. I hope that the Tribunal sees the footage from all angles. As a retired lawyer, I think that must absolve Maynard from any penalty. But, as has been pointed out by deep thinkers on this thread, the Tribunal's decision may be political - not fair to player Maynard but politically correct. 

Regards to all and Go Dees,

Rollo

 

Thanks in advance for desisting.

Wait, what’s this…

4 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

We are all passionate Dees supporters here so we all feel really sorry about the consequences for Gus.

Because I recognise and share that passion, I take no umbrage at the cheap shots levelled at me after I announced I was leaving this thread.

Anyone with a modicum of legal training will see how this is will play out.

If the Tribunal makes a Rules-based decision based on the real time (not slow-motion) footage, player Maynard will be exonerated.

If the Tribunal makes a political decision (entirely possible), Player Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal. 

Look up “desist” in the dictionary, bruh. Coz you’re doing desisting wrong. 

[WalkingCivilWar 31,428]

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Admit the spelling mistake.

Even Hitler deserved a good lawyer. It is our system and a bulwark of our society.

I know I am repeating myself but the lawyers involved here will be looking at the real-time vision. Fractions of seconds mate, fractions of seconds. I don't care if Player Maynard gets banned for life. After all, he plays for the filth. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment. 

 

YOU’RE STILL HERE?????

Remember that time you said you’d desist????

[Monbon 1,498]

4 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Admit the spelling mistake.

Even Hitler deserved a good lawyer. It is our system and a bulwark of our society.

I know I am repeating myself but the lawyers involved here will be looking at the real-time vision. Fractions of seconds mate, fractions of seconds. I don't care if Player Maynard gets banned for life. After all, he plays for the filth. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment. 

 

I totally agree with you: the perversion of Law and Justice is the bulkwark of our society. 

[rollinson 65 181]

3 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

YOU’RE STILL HERE?????

Remember that time you said you’d desist????

No, changed my mind because of all the cheap shots.

Not desisting until you are all dead.

Kind regards,

Rollo

[bandicoot 1,395]

20 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Nope, that argument won't fly. 17 legal reasons why. It presupposes knowledge, malice and design, all impossible of proof in Court. It would irritate the Tribunal so no lawyer would even consider it.

It is becoming distressingly clear to me that I have become enmeshed in trying to explain the legal process to angry and exasperated Dees supporters on this thread. I am one of you. I am not Player Maynard's lawyer. I am just trying to prepare us all for disappointment.

And all because I was so enraged by the "I played and you didn't" idiotic argument that I joined the conversation. Usually, I just enjoy reading on here. Now, you people have got my dander up. Bring it on !! 

He had another option… his other option was to put his hands out and brace for contact. The first option isn’t to turn and throw your shoulder into a defenceless player. That’s all the argument will need to be. Not sure what the rest of your argument is