On 14/12/2023 at 15:14, Ethan Tremblay said:

Maynard’s act was horrible. But the AFL are the disgusting pieces of filth. 

Edited December 15, 20231 yr by Winners at last

No rule change required, Maynard should have been suspended. AFL let him off on the "big club/big game" defense. It was a deliberate shirtfront.

  On 15/12/2023 at 11:12, bush demon said:

It's so funny how they bandy around the expression, "Will now owe a duty of care"... duty of care already exists in the common law, it's not something the AFL can presume to regulate.

Yeah, but whatever happened to ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ in contact sports. There were plenty of precedents that stated that contact sports players could not rely on common law principles such as ‘duty of care’ or ‘negligence’. Torts simply not applicable in sport. This has all stemmed from the NFL cases in the US. 

  On 16/12/2023 at 11:30, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Yeah, but whatever happened to ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ in contact sports. There were plenty of precedents that stated that contact sports players could not rely on common law principles such as ‘duty of care’ or ‘negligence’. Torts simply not applicable in sport. This has all stemmed from the NFL cases in the US. 

Those NFL cases stemmed from the NFL deliberately ignoring/undermining studies into CTE. When CTE started to become apparent as a real issue the NFL brushed it off and did nothing to minimise head shots. That has changed now, about 10-15 years too late, but the AFL has been trying to stamp out head high hits (even unintentional) for some time so they probably won't be held to the same level of negligence as the NFL.

  On 16/12/2023 at 11:30, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Yeah, but whatever happened to ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ in contact sports. There were plenty of precedents that stated that contact sports players could not rely on common law principles such as ‘duty of care’ or ‘negligence’. Torts simply not applicable in sport. This has all stemmed from the NFL cases in the US. 

Take your point but appropriating common law terminology to sanctify the violence agenda of AFL commission is dodgy and misleading.

My wife and I have just returned from a 20 day break in Goolwa to try to regain some peace and sanity after my son's death. I was off air, but when we got back the Maynard Catastrophe hit the headlines again. I love the way the media makes him out to now becoming the victim of the change in rules ---NOT. 

Anyhow, we attended the 2nd Birthday celebrations of my one time best friend's daughter's daughter, if that makes sense. I sat next to an old chum, an E Colli Wobbler man, and he started telling the sad story of John Greening's demise at the hands of an O'dea or so - all in a day's work. He said it was Greening's 99th game, that he was destined to becoming THE GREATEST FOOTBALLER OF ALL TIME but when he returned 3 years later, he was but a shadow. I know the story - I was working at La Trobe Uni at the bookshop at the time and recall the kerfuffle and rightful indignation. My sympathies were and are with Greening. ( By the way, our daughter graduated in a Psychology Degree with Honours at the same Uni last Friday. ) 

I then asked Mr E Colli Wobbler how he felt when Maynard assaulted Brayshaw. He replied, There was nothing in it.

I rest my case. E Colli Wobbler fans are as mad as snakes.

  On 17/12/2023 at 04:49, bush demon said:

Take your point but appropriating common law terminology to sanctify the violence agenda of AFL commission is dodgy and misleading.

I completely agree. That was my precise point. The AFL keep throwing civil law terms into their determinations. However, they completely avoid other principles, like the one outlined. Let’s start looking at causation. The ‘but for’ test perhaps? If this matter was treated as a civil wrong, like negligence, then Maynard wouldn’t have a leg to stand on

  On 17/12/2023 at 22:10, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

The AFL keep throwing civil law terms into their determinations. 

gil, dil, laura - melbourne uni law grads

  On 17/12/2023 at 05:32, Monbon said:

My wife and I have just returned from a 20 day break in Goolwa to try to regain some peace and sanity after my son's death. I was off air, but when we got back the Maynard Catastrophe hit the headlines again. I love the way the media makes him out to now becoming the victim of the change in rules ---NOT. 

Anyhow, we attended the 2nd Birthday celebrations of my one time best friend's daughter's daughter, if that makes sense. I sat next to an old chum, an E Colli Wobbler man, and he started telling the sad story of John Greening's demise at the hands of an O'dea or so - all in a day's work. He said it was Greening's 99th game, that he was destined to becoming THE GREATEST FOOTBALLER OF ALL TIME but when he returned 3 years later, he was but a shadow. I know the story - I was working at La Trobe Uni at the bookshop at the time and recall the kerfuffle and rightful indignation. My sympathies were and are with Greening. ( By the way, our daughter graduated in a Psychology Degree with Honours at the same Uni last Friday. ) 

I then asked Mr E Colli Wobbler how he felt when Maynard assaulted Brayshaw. He replied, There was nothing in it.

I rest my case. E Colli Wobbler fans are as mad as snakes.

The Greening incident was a very dark day. Until the Maynard incident l must admit l wasn't anti-collingwood. I remember other teams, hint: Essendon trying to swipe their way to flags. But now l very firmly have my anti-Collingwood goggles on from that day forth. You could also contrast Maynard's act with the heroism of Brayshaw when he courageously marked in the GF... 

Edited December 18, 20231 yr by bush demon
Sp.

  On 16/12/2023 at 11:30, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Yeah, but whatever happened to ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ in contact sports. There were plenty of precedents that stated that contact sports players could not rely on common law principles such as ‘duty of care’ or ‘negligence’. Torts simply not applicable in sport. This has all stemmed from the NFL cases in the US. 

Ah,,, the old volenti argument

Discredited about 100 years ago

A bit complicated for this thread but in simple terms either the player broke the rules and volenti doesn't apply or the sports administrator has allowed a sport to be played with inadequate rules

  On 18/12/2023 at 10:29, bush demon said:

The Greening incident was a very dark day. Until the Maynard incident l must admit l wasn't anti-collingwood. I remember other teams, hint: Essendon trying to swipe their way to flags. But now l very firmly have my anti-Collingwood goggles on from that day forth. You could also contrast Maynard's act with the heroism of Brayshaw when he courageously marked in the GF... 

The sound of the Collingwood Moran's chanting Collingwood while Gus lay unconcious on the ground will stay with me until the day I die. 

  On 18/12/2023 at 11:07, Diamond_Jim said:

Ah,,, the old volenti argument

Discredited about 100 years ago

A bit complicated for this thread but in simple terms either the player broke the rules and volenti doesn't apply or the sports administrator has allowed a sport to be played with inadequate rules

It was not discredited 100 years ago. You are quite right though, clearly Maynard did break the rules as a free kick was paid downfield 

For those who don't know, the umpire reported the thug for unduly rough play (or similar)

And paid a 50 metre penalty downfield

Yet the prosecution never called upon the umpire for his evidence

A total stitch up

And it's why we should always argue strongly for our players ... Van Rooyen & Kozzie (early in the year) could have been cleared as all 3 incidents were illegal but only one player was cleared (the thug)

The defence - both love taps or just bring in the lawyers and make something up

Carlton & Collingwood (and the AFL) have shown us how to get a player cleared ... so play the system

No point putting your hand up in a corrupt system as in a dog eat dog situation, no one is going onto bat for us

Edited December 19, 20231 yr by Macca

So early in 2023 we were told that the illegal action (alone) not necessarily the aftermath, carried a suspension

The thugs action was not only illegal and premeditated but he knocked the player out in the process ... no case to answer??

A football action was argued but that same action is now not legal?  What's changed?

Forget FIFA, the AFL is worse when it comes to corruption.  

Look after no.1 from here on in ... the rest can eat cake

  On 19/12/2023 at 01:47, Macca said:

And it's why we should always argue strongly for our players ... Van Rooyen & Kozzie (early in the year) could have been cleared as all 3 incidents were illegal but only one player was cleared (the thug)

 

I agree that we should've challenged Kozzie's hit on Smith from 2  weeks to 1.

The AFL community were outraged with Kozzie's hit on Smith and that in the spirit of football we should not have even dared to challenge it. However in reality, Smith was perfectly fine and the incident should have been deemed medium impact rather than high.

In fairness to us, we went into bat for JVR and Hunter with varying results.

 

 

 

  On 19/12/2023 at 03:14, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I agree that we should've challenged Kozzie's hit on Smith from 2  weeks to 1.

The AFL community were outraged with Kozzie's hit on Smith and that in the spirit of football we should not have even dared to challenge it. However in reality, Smith was perfectly fine and the incident should have been deemed medium impact rather than high.

In fairness to us, we went into bat for JVR and Hunter with varying results.

 

Rule of thumb now

Bring in the big boys and bamboozle & baffle them with BS

Works a treat

And I can remember saying out loud at the time that Kossie was possibly going to get punished for his actions but others further on down the road?

Off the field, there is no excuse for not getting consistent outcomes ... they've got all the time in the world to get it right

 

  On 17/12/2023 at 05:32, Monbon said:

My wife and I have just returned from a 20 day break in Goolwa to try to regain some peace and sanity after my son's death. I was off air, but when we got back the Maynard Catastrophe hit the headlines again. I love the way the media makes him out to now becoming the victim of the change in rules ---NOT. 

Anyhow, we attended the 2nd Birthday celebrations of my one time best friend's daughter's daughter, if that makes sense. I sat next to an old chum, an E Colli Wobbler man, and he started telling the sad story of John Greening's demise at the hands of an O'dea or so - all in a day's work. He said it was Greening's 99th game, that he was destined to becoming THE GREATEST FOOTBALLER OF ALL TIME but when he returned 3 years later, he was but a shadow. I know the story - I was working at La Trobe Uni at the bookshop at the time and recall the kerfuffle and rightful indignation. My sympathies were and are with Greening. ( By the way, our daughter graduated in a Psychology Degree with Honours at the same Uni last Friday. ) 

I then asked Mr E Colli Wobbler how he felt when Maynard assaulted Brayshaw. He replied, There was nothing in it.

I rest my case. E Colli Wobbler fans are as mad as snakes.

Similar story, I won't speak ever again to a bloke who was a mate who is a feral fan. I HATE ferals now more than ever!

 

Edited December 19, 20231 yr by picket fence