Maynard must get at least four weeks

[Monbon 1,840]

Malcolm Blight has also come out as a total [censored]: he shot off at people who don't believe it was a 'football act'. 

 

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

16 minutes ago, JTR said:

Forever to be known by me as Brayden "I went to make a football act" Maynard.

What is the first question you would ask him after he said that. AFL are the incompetent ones here.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,103]

I note Max was mentioning the links the Maynards have with Melbourne, one he left out is that Corey is dating Kate Hore.

[titan_uranus 24,963]

I've deliberately stayed away from this thread, and Demonland in general, since Tuesday.

Not because I'm angry, but because I just can't deal with this issue any more.

I want to be thinking and talking about the game tomorrow night. I'm completely done with Maynard and the Tribunal. 

Whether it's the GF or KB next year, I'll care more about Maynard the next time we play Collingwood. For now, the only part of the whole incident I want to allow myself to think about in any way is Brayshaw and his health.

[sue 9,096]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

....

As to whether it happens again?  There's a fair chance it will happen again and it could be Maynard as the perpetrator again.  After all, they've said that he had no case to answer for so why not continue?

If a player is going to do it it looks like they will have to do it in this final series.  Next year you'll probably get suspended for touching a player while smothering.

If they think the rule need changing next year, then they were effectively letting him off on a legal technicality.  If a MFC player did that during the match they would have hanged him for not taking care or something.  AFL has a new role to make Qantas look good.

Edited September 14, 2023 by sue

[layzie 33,720]

15 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I've deliberately stayed away from this thread, and Demonland in general, since Tuesday.

Not because I'm angry, but because I just can't deal with this issue any more.

I want to be thinking and talking about the game tomorrow night. I'm completely done with Maynard and the Tribunal. 

Whether it's the GF or KB next year, I'll care more about Maynard the next time we play Collingwood. For now, the only part of the whole incident I want to allow myself to think about in any way is Brayshaw and his health.

Was wondering where you'd been.

In hindsight probably a good move because gameday is tomorrow and that thread has eclipsed the pre game one. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by layzie

[leucopogon 1,519]

22 minutes ago, sue said:

 Next year you'll probably get suspended for touching a player while smothering.

If recent trends are followed, penalties will be extreme for incidents occurring during preseason and the first few rounds of the home and away.

From that point forward certain perpetrators will be given special treatment to allow the AFL to push whatever agenda they have cooking for the second half of the year. By this stage Brownlow fancies and finals contenders will have emerged. AFL will orchestrate verdicts to showcase their big clubs and big stars to keep interest piqued among the masses and maximise gate, merchandise and, most important of all these days, gambling revenue.

By the last third of the season the application of the penalties will be completely inconsistent and will depend entirely on the players and teams involved and what the impact will be on the clubs that the AFL will want to see in finals contention, again to maximise revenues. 

During finals, anything goes, unless you are a no name, rookie from one of the interstate or smaller Victorian clubs, in which case you will be pilloried and made an example of.

If the Maynard incident had occurred in round one this year, he would have been suspended, of this I have absolutely no doubt.

Edited September 14, 2023 by leucopogon

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,767]

11 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

If recent trends are followed, penalties will be extreme for incidents occurring during preseason and the first few rounds of the home and away. From that point forward certain perpetrators will be given special treatment to allow the AFL to showcase their big ticket stars rather than have them sitting in the stands suspended. By the last third of the season the application of the penalties for this action will be completely inconsistent and will depend entirely on the players and teams involved and what the impact will be on the clubs that the AFL will want to see in finals contention (to maximise profits). 

During finals, anything goes, unless you are a no name, rookie from one of the interstate or smaller Victorian clubs.

If the Maynard incident had occurred in round one this year, he would have been suspended, I have no doubt.

Spot on.

The AFL are a joke.  What's happened here is way worse than Cripps last season.

Eddy is a bloody half back flanker.  I'd love nothing more than for GWS to win this weekend and then go on to smash Collingwood and knock them out (metaphorically speaking) in a prelim.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Macca 16,900]

34 minutes ago, sue said:

If a player is going to do it it looks like they will have to do it in this final series.  Next year you'll probably get suspended for touching a player while smothering.

If they think the rule need changing next year, then they were effectively letting him off on a legal technicality.  If a MFC player did that during the match they would have hanged him for not taking care or something.  AFL has a new role to make Qantas look good.

So the king hit by the thug is a football act this year but next year it won't be a football act

And they wonder why we don't trust anything they've got to say

[Teufelmann 14]

On 9/13/2023 at 12:42 PM, KysaiahMessiah said:

100% this.  I musn't be too smart - my simple view without any of the detailed evidence/biomechanics bs etc is that once you ELECT to jump, you become that missile, or flying frisbee, or whatever else they called it. I didnt see the fact he ELECTED to jump ( and therefore willingly became that missile/frisbee)anywhere in the prosecution of the case?  

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

 

[layzie 33,720]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

So the king hit by the thug is a football act this year but next year it won't be a football act

And they wonder why we don't trust anything they've got to say

I'm really tired of it Macca and the AFL hedging their bets both ways. Being swayed by the good bloke song and dance and how 'cruel' it is for a player to miss big finals suspended then in the next breath making a new rule for next year so they've effectively covered their backsides and are seen to be taking affirmative action. It's all bunk.

Edited September 14, 2023 by layzie

[Macca 16,900]

9 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'm really tired of it Macca and the AFL hedging their bets both ways. Being swayed by the good bloke song and dance and how 'cruel' it is for a player to miss big finals suspended then in the next breath making a new rule for next year so they've effectively covered their backsides and are seen to be taking affirmative action. It's all bunk.

Of course it is  layz

Up until now I wasn't buying into all the talk about favouritism and the old boys club but enough is enough.  I should have made the switch years ago

But it needed a blatant example and we just got it.  Anyone who thinks we're on fair ground is where I was for years

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,767]

16 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Despite all the talk of launching here, it isn't rocket science.

I'm sure the AFL are fully aware of all this, they just don't have the courage to take the actions the situation demanded.

[sue 9,096]

1 minute ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Couldn't agree more.

Despite all the talk of launching here, it isn't rocket science.

I'm sure the AFL are fully aware of all this, they just don't have the courage to take the actions the situation demanded.

Courage doesn't come into it. They have a short-term commercial agenda and don't care much about the long term. They figure someone else will take over handling the lawsuits and the lack of kids taking up the sport.

[Bystander 902]

Am I allowed to run a sweep on how many posts this thread will garner by, say, June 30 2030 ?

P.S. It was deliberate.

 

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,767]

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Courage doesn't come into it. They have a short-term commercial agenda and don't care much about the long term. They figure someone else will take over handling the lawsuits and the lack of kids taking up the sport.

Yeah, don't know about that one - is suspending Maynard really going to translate to less bums on seats or eyeballs on TV?  If anything the controversy has gained them more media attention.

Anyways, I think we are splitting hairs here Sue.  The issue is that the AFL are shirking the big picture issue in favour of hoping to make the issue go away in the short term.  You think it's dominated by commercial interests, I call it a lack of cougrage, conviction and integrity in the way they have acted with respects to protecting the head in just about all previous instances and scenarios in the past 3 to 4 years.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Monbon 1,840]

48 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

 

Vell said, Herr Teufelmann.

[GM11 775]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

I see Whately did a complete about-face, as did Maher

At first both were looking for guilt and indeed, both found fault ... but once the verdict was handed down, both fell into line with the group-think.  Weak as [censored]

Patronisingly telling Melbourne supporters to move on

 

Couldn't believe what i was hearing from him after his vehemence in the days prior.

Just another suck-up like the rest.

 

[tiers 2,822]

2 hours ago, Monbon said:

Malcolm Blight has also come out as a total [censored]: he shot off at people who don't believe it was a 'football act'. 

 

It might be a football act (so is bumping and tackling) but it can still be reckless, careless and dangerous. Becoming a 90kg projectile of his own volition and then pretending to be "sweet and innocent" is an offensive insult. The tribunal not calling it a bump but something else, when in fact it was, is a legal and factual nonsense. The AFL not appealing is an abominationj for our great game of footy.

Shame on them all. It is time to rise up and stick it up them. Where is EJ to act as our leader when we need him?

[Roost it far 8,104]

Rule Change (not sure how the AFL have managed to not have such a rule already considering the NRL’s position)

”If a player leaves the ground while moving toward another player the onus is on him to ensure he avoids any high contact.”

Edited September 14, 2023 by Roost it far

[monoccular 17,407]

On 9/12/2023 at 10:40 PM, jnrmac said:

Brayshaw should sue the AFL for failing to provide a safe workplace

I suspect he is in the long line that has already formed.  I mentioned somewhere earlier that I had heard that there is already a huge class action targeting close to a billion dollars.

I hope if the AFL goes bankrupt that Gil and his henchmen are happy with this week's work.

[monoccular 17,407]

4 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Rule Change (not sure how the AFL have managed to not have such a rule already considering the NRL’s position.

”If a player leaves the ground while moving toward another player the onus is on him to ensure he avoids any high contact.”

Hasn't  that already been stated in previous tribunal statements?  Obviously this weeks kangaroo court didnt look at precedents - for obvious reasons.

And has it been raised that (I understand) that Gleeson is a Collingwood member, or at least supporter.   IF true he should have been required to recuse himself over conflict of interest.

Doesn't the AFL have that obvious requirement in their tribunal set up???

Edited September 14, 2023 by monoccular

[jnrmac 20,040]

15 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I suspect he is in the long line that has already formed.  I mentioned somewhere earlier that I had heard that there is already a huge class action targeting close to a billion dollars.

I hope if the AFL goes bankrupt that Gil and his henchmen are happy with this week's work.

As a hypothetical, Brayshaw could have determined to continue playing because the AFL had made the head sacrosanct and changed rules and suspensions to support this view to protect all players including of course himself.

The Maynard incident is essentially unprecedented (possibly the closest is the Cripps incident) in that Maynard ran at full pace before jumping into Brayshaw. HIs intentions are probably irrelevant for this.

There is no way Brayshaw would expect that front on contact as it is illegal, the contact was also late, and it was also high. It was also at a force that no one would have conceived.

I think he would have a good case against the AFL and yet again they have made a rod for their own back in order to appease a big club/name player/finals aspirant etc The number of exceptions to the AFLs rulings (including Cripps, Vlastuin among others) may well mean that the AFL is not really serious about protecting the head.

The spurious argument from Cornes about high marks where a players knee hits another's head is a furphy and totally different to a player being attacked head on as was Brayshaw.

I hope he sues the AFL for millions.

 

[jnrmac 20,040]

34 minutes ago, tiers said:

It might be a football act (so is bumping and tackling) but it can still be reckless, careless and dangerous. Becoming a 90kg projectile of his own volition and then pretending to be "sweet and innocent" is an offensive insult. The tribunal not calling it a bump but something else, when in fact it was, is a legal and factual nonsense. The AFL not appealing is an abominationj for our great game of footy.

Shame on them all. It is time to rise up and stick it up them. Where is EJ to act as our leader when we need him?

100% correct

[Monbon 1,840]

28 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Hasn't  that already been stated in previous tribunal statements?  Obviously this weeks kangaroo court didnt look at precedents - for obvious reasons.

And has it been raised that (I understand) that Gleeson is a Collingwood member, or at least supporter.   IF true he should have been required to recuse himself over conflict of interest.

Doesn't the AFL have that obvious requirement in their tribunal set up???

Where can we read or prove Gleeson's Collingwood connection?