Maynard must get at least four weeks

[bandicoot 1,395]

1 hour ago, layzie said:

So according to this thread tackling, smothering, marking contests and any sort of collisions should be outlawed. 

Honestly this game has 20 years left as we know it and I mean that sincerely. There's no way you are going to stop concussions completely and until there is some kind of technology that can pad the brain better then we'll obviously need to keep doing these kinds of measures. 

"Go hard, put pressure on the ball carrier but don't leave the ground or stop mid air or make the split second decision to turn the shoulder the right way"

"Don't go for a smother, let him kick the ball inside 50"

"Tackle hard but not too hard"

"Pull out of marking contests"

I care about protecting the head as much as the next person but this is getting out of hand if you want to follow the sport.

Have you lost your mind..? how do you think that Maynard’s action was acceptable? He didn’t need to twist his body and shirt front gus. Have you never seen someone simply jumping up and landing with their arms in front bracing for contact? 

[KLV 1,693]

15 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Confident the MRO will send it to the tribunal, he’ll cop a 3 week suspension by the tribunal and then the Pies will get him off on appeal.

Nothing surer.

Meanwhile we’re a key midfielder down next week.

100%

Nothing more certain.

Maynard will be free to play

[drdrake 3,069]

1 minute ago, KLV said:

100%

Nothing more certain.

Maynard will be free to play

The Lawyer is already mapping out the appeal 

[Ouch! 2,168]

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

That's fair enough. I'd like to see the change of direction part because I'm just not seeing it. All I see is is run straight and jump which admittedly is a bit careless. Would be happy to see some kind of walk through.

So my interpretation (https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/utterly-disrespectful-collingwood-chant-sparks-outrage/news-story/c3f29d6adbc38d608b3d11347dbef6ca)

around 50 seconds or so into the video you get the behind the goals vision... he stutter steps and slightly changes course to the right before jumping of the ground.  It's not huge change but still enough of a change to make Brayshaw not be aware of it. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Ouch!

[YearOfTheDees 3,178]

40 minutes ago, Billy said:

When do we find out

Praying that he misses the GF if they make it 

I'm hoping he gets two weeks and misses the first game next year.

[Rocknroll 988]

3 minutes ago, drdrake said:

The Lawyer is already mapping out the appeal 

And his bill

[layzie 30,940]

2 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Have you lost your mind..? how do you think that Maynard’s action was acceptable? He didn’t need to twist his body and shirt front gus. Have you never seen someone simply jumping up and landing with their arms in front bracing for contact? 

I might have lost my mind but if this is such an obvious display of recklessness then why is the football public completely split down the middle on it?

How is anyone going to get a good smother if they twist away to the left? You do have to be somewhat in the vicinity of the ball to smother. Yes it's careless, that's why a free kick and possible 1 or 2 weeks would do it. However there's a massive vendetta brewing here with double standards all over the place.

But look everyone here seems to have it worked out so you shouldn't have to worry, 4 weeks open and shut. Done with it.

 

[RickyJ45 392]

1 hour ago, dice said:

And arguably cost us the game losing a player of his versatility and importance to team set up (including part of the forward line).

When you have some powerbrokers like Dangerfield say "there is nothing in this" and McLachlan say "the fact Brayshaw was knocked out will be a factor but not the defining factor", there is absolutely no hope for justice here

The hypocrites like Barrett talking about all the head injury lawsuits coming to the afl and how the AFL should take them seriously, now turn around and say it is a "footy act" and shrug their shoulders and walk away..... absolutely pathetic clickbait hypocrites ... particularly comments by past players party to those law suits....with the same old school mentality

There was probably 50 more ways maynard could have done the smother, which involved a basic awareness of his actions and the players head.... actually under the circumstances his action were very predmediated to make or threaten contact, he had no chance of actually reaching the ball so that is why he lined Angus up.... then at the last second he got negligently selfish by rolling his shoulder, and afterwards self-righteously arrogant by declaring it a footy act.  No way. you are out 3 weeks! 

Get serious AFL.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by RickyJ45

[Monbon 1,677]

14 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

So my interpretation (https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/utterly-disrespectful-collingwood-chant-sparks-outrage/news-story/c3f29d6adbc38d608b3d11347dbef6ca)

around 50 seconds or so into the video you get the behind the goals vision... he stutter steps and slightly changes course to the right before jumping of the ground.  It's not huge change but still enough of a change to make Brayshaw not be aware of it. 

The bottom line is that Maynard jumped into him. Brayshaw had already kicked the ball, had it been an attempt to smother Maynard  would have jumped up and landed.  In other words, if it was an attempt to smother, no foward lunge was necessary. In other words, he charged at Brayshaw after he had kicked it.

[Diamond Tim 291]

4 weeks minimum / preferably 6.

Any 'football act' is acceptable provided the head of the opposition player is not contacted. The onus is on the player performing the act to not endanger the other player. Any football act that results in head high contact ought result in a free kick and/or citation to the tribunal. Maynard's action incurred a downfield free as head high contact was immediately determined by the ump. That head high contact that resulted in a free also resulted in Gus being knocked out stone cold and transported off the field unconscious on a stretcher. This has meant he was unable to participate in practically an entire final, will miss at least another and may have his career shortened as a consequence.

Maynard had a duty of care, when launching himself in a forward motion at an oncoming opponent, to ensure that the action did not result in head high contact. He failed to do so. He was negligent in his action. The perspective from behind clearly shows he turned prior to point of impact so that his shoulder collected Gus' head.

The AFL have no choice if they are serious about minimzing these sort of incidents.

 

[Brownie 5,617]

1 hour ago, Deebauched said:

Latest Media headline......

CLASSY MAYNARD

"I love that guy ( Brayshaw) to bits". 

It just popped up when i was reading something in USA.

He'll get off.   Insane

Cant do this anymore. No more AFL and corporate media till further notice. Im done.

 

I sat down to a nice lunch next to a table full of marketing types and I'm positive they were from the AFL.

Weren't sure who was playing who, had to get it straight. Some went to bed before the finish. Surprised it was close.

Couldn't pronounce that forward guys name from Melbourne, starts with F

No talk about the fans, all about protecting financial partners interests.

Trying to project their plans based on who is going to win this weekend.

Definitely Brisbane by the sounds of it.

We are invested deep in a corporate entertainment industry.

If I lived in Melbourne, I'd seriously spend my time at aflw games. Where it's laid back and uncrowded.

Last night's game soured it for me. It's not relaxing or enjoyable like watching footy should be. Watching pies fans get abusive at us after they win and watching a kid in tears with his dad because of it is not what this "product" should be about.

One of the branding experts said they had just three bits of feedback from last night's game.

One of them was about Gawn wrestling someone to the ground. They thought it was funny.

Maynard will get off I reckon.

It's good to have a villain / hero on the field. Makes for great media and theatre.

[sue 8,745]

I'm totally staggered at the commenators (and others) - when was the last time anyone saw a smother that turned into a shirt front?

If the AFL accepts this or let's it off on some mumbo jumbo legal technicality then I can only assume that those who run the AFL assume they will be well and ruly retired before the lawsuits destroy Australian footy.

[drdrake 3,069]

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

I might have lost my mind but if this is such an obvious display of recklessness then why is the football public completely split down the middle on it?

How is anyone going to get a good smother if they twist away to the left? You do have to be somewhat in the vicinity of the ball to smother. Yes it's careless, that's why a free kick and possible 1 or 2 weeks would do it. However there's a massive vendetta brewing here with double standards all over the place.

But look everyone here seems to have it worked out so you shouldn't have to worry, 4 weeks open and shut. Done with it.

 

Hard, my first response was unlucky footy incident, but after seeing him turn to bump he has to be in trouble.  If he didn't turn, I would agree footy accident but as soon as you elect to bump the onus is on you

[Monbon 1,677]

16 hours ago, OhMyDees said:

The fact that the media interviewed that [censored] after the game to allow him the temerity to suggest what he did was a ‘footy act’ is [censored]. 

Yes, I thought it a very very strange act. It was almost 'orchestrated'.

[Dee Zephyr 18,684]

When they say ‘football act’ in regards to a smother it takes me back to Matty Whelan diving to smother and unfortunately breaking Nathan Brown’s leg. 
To me, Maynard dipping the shoulder into Gussy’s face isn’t a football act.

[Ouch! 2,168]

5 minutes ago, drdrake said:

Hard, my first response was unlucky footy incident, but after seeing him turn to bump he has to be in trouble.  If he didn't turn, I would agree footy accident but as soon as you elect to bump the onus is on you

He didn't bump DrDrake he had a duty of care to protect himself.... didn't you listen to Dangerfield!!  Shame!

[Monbon 1,677]

9 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Pies will argue that he was bracing himself. In the air, split decision in the act of smothering.  Tom Browne the journalist was in his defence straight away 
 

the truth … he turned his body to make contact - chose to bump - in the head - high contact - severe impact - that’s 2 or 3 weeks.  

Tom Browne obviously suffers from delusional eyesight syndrome.

[Jibroni 4,591]

6 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

When they say ‘football act’ in regards to a smother it takes me back to Matty Whelan diving to smother and unfortunately breaking Nathan Brown’s leg. 
To me, Maynard dipping the shoulder into Gussy’s face isn’t a football act.

Im not sure how did he do it deliberately when his intention was to smother the ball?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Jibroni

[OhMyDees 1,551]

5 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Yes, I thought it a very very strange act. It was almost 'orchestrated'.

Yep and the [censored] had the chance to say how much he loved the bloke who he chose to KO. 

The AFL needs a red card system. How does Maynard take out one of our best and he keeps playing?

[bandicoot 1,395]

2 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Im not sure how did he do it deliberately when his intention was to smother the ball?

 

 

 

 

 

If he kept his first action everything would have been fine. He decided to then turn his body and shirt front gus.

[The heart beats true 16,977]

3 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Im not sure how did he do it deliberately when his intention was to smother the ball?

 

 

 

 

 

Gees I wouldn't want to be relying on those frames to get him off. His eye line never even approaches the ball.

[Engorged Onion 9,834]

49 minutes ago, RickyJ45 said:

The hypocrites like Barrett talking about all the head injury lawsuits coming to the afl and how the AFL should take them seriously, now turn around and say it is a "footy act" and shrug their shoulders and walk away..... absolutely pathetic clickbait hypocrites ... particularly comments by past players party to those law suits....with the same old school mentality

There was probably 50 more ways maynard could have done the smother, which involved a basic awareness of his actions and the players head.... actually under the circumstances his action were very predmediated to make or threaten contact, he had no chance of actually reaching the ball so that is why he lined Angus up.... then at the last second he got negligently selfish by rolling his shoulder, and afterwards self-righteously arrogant by declaring it a footy act.  No way. you are out 3 weeks! 

It is undeniably concerning to observe the apparent inconsistency in the discourse surrounding player safety within the AFL framework. It is imperative for key stakeholders, including influential figures such as Mr. Barrett, to maintain a consistent and unambiguous stance on matters of paramount importance such as player safety. The characterisation of certain acts as "footy acts" seems incongruent with the previously expressed concerns regarding head injury litigations. It begs the question: to what degree is the AFL genuinely committed to the welfare of its players?

Regarding Mr. Maynard's actions, upon review, they appear to demonstrate a level of recklessness that is, at the very least, questionable in the context of a professional sporting environment. Such behavior potentially exposes both players and the league to unnecessary legal risk.

If the underlying facts as presented are accurate, there is a compelling argument for Mr. Maynard to be subjected to the stipulated disciplinary measures. It is incumbent upon the league to ensure that its rules and regulations are enforced consistently, thereby upholding the integrity of the sport and safeguarding the welfare of its participants.

Further - whilst quaffing beers in Cairns after a 6am flight from hell...

If Angus is diagnosed with CTE following his tenure in the AFL, the implications for the league could be multifaceted:

1. Legal Implications: Potential litigation against the AFL is on the horizon if there's a direct link between his condition and in-game injuries, presenting a significant financial risk.

2. Financial Concerns: Beyond potential settlements, we could see rising insurance premiums. Moreover, valuable sponsorships might waver if brands opt to distance themselves from any controversy.

3. Reputation: Such a diagnosis would undoubtedly dent the AFL's image, possibly diminishing fan loyalty and grassroots participation.

4. Player Relations: Health concerns could resonate louder among players, leading to calls for enhanced safety measures.

5. Possible Rule Changes: In response, the AFL might contemplate adjustments to game rules, emphasizing player safety, head gear permanent?

6. Emphasis on Medical Research: It would be prudent for the league to bolster investments in pertinent health studies to comprehend and counteract the risks better.

On a side note, one can't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes conversations currently underway within the AFL and its 'optics' department. Given the gravity of the situation, I suspect there's significant deliberation regarding their public stance and potential rulings this week.

7 weeks.

On another side note, I'm very very much of the opinion I do not want my son to play AFL due to the ballistic nature of the sport and the longitudinal concerns that go with it. He however, can choose to make his own decisions on it.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Engorged Onion

[picket fence 16,016]

Just now, Engorged Onion said:

It is undeniably concerning to observe the apparent inconsistency in the discourse surrounding player safety within the AFL framework. It is imperative for key stakeholders, including influential figures such as Mr. Barrett, to maintain a consistent and unambiguous stance on matters of paramount importance such as player safety. The characterisation of certain acts as "footy acts" seems incongruent with the previously expressed concerns regarding head injury litigations. It begs the question: to what degree is the AFL genuinely committed to the welfare of its players?

Regarding Mr. Maynard's actions, upon review, they appear to demonstrate a level of recklessness that is, at the very least, questionable in the context of a professional sporting environment. Such behavior potentially exposes both players and the league to unnecessary legal risk.

If the underlying facts as presented are accurate, there is a compelling argument for Mr. Maynard to be subjected to the stipulated disciplinary measures. It is incumbent upon the league to ensure that its rules and regulations are enforced consistently, thereby upholding the integrity of the sport and safeguarding the welfare of its participants.

Further -

f Angus is diagnosed with CTE following his tenure in the AFL, the implications for the league could be multifaceted:

1. Legal Implications: Potential litigation against the AFL is on the horizon if there's a direct link between his condition and in-game injuries, presenting a significant financial risk.

2. Financial Concerns: Beyond potential settlements, we could see rising insurance premiums. Moreover, valuable sponsorships might waver if brands opt to distance themselves from any controversy.

3. Reputation: Such a diagnosis would undoubtedly dent the AFL's image, possibly diminishing fan loyalty and grassroots participation.

4. Player Relations: Health concerns could resonate louder among players, leading to calls for enhanced safety measures.

5. Possible Rule Changes: In response, the AFL might contemplate adjustments to game rules, emphasizing player safety.

6. Emphasis on Medical Research: It would be prudent for the league to bolster investments in pertinent health studies to comprehend and counteract the risks better.

On a side note, one can't help but wonder about the behind-the-scenes conversations currently underway within the AFL and its 'optics' department. Given the gravity of the situation, I suspect there's significant deliberation regarding their public stance and potential rulings this week.

7 weeks.

Best post of the year🙂

[Monbon 1,677]

10 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Im not sure how did he do it deliberately when his intention was to smother the ball?

 

 

 

 

 

The ball had already cleared Maynard's head after Maynard jumped and thrust himself at Brayshaw. 

[fr_ap 2,299]

Two things make this very clear to me.

1. Players attempt to smother, whilst running towards a player, 100 times a game. In all my years watching footy and attempted smothers, I've never seen anyone change mid air and land the way he did to strike a player. 

2. His eyes. He doesnt turn to watch the ball sail over his head. Doesnt even start to. His eyes were trained on our no.10 the entire time. This is what makes it different to the Mitch Duncan case that Jon Ralph is tweeting about - Mitch followed the ball with his eyes and so it was his back that landed on the player, not his shoulder/hip.