I think people need to cool their Jets re Gus's career, he'll still be being assessed for a while yet.

Gus was fantastic last time we played  Carlton. Just saying.

8 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Jon Ralph had the audacity to say tonight that Collingwood must be wondering ‘why them who has to be the test case for accidental collisions?’

No Jon. The person asking why them is Angus Brayshaw. There’s only one innocent party in this whole thing. He’s worked his entire career to be playing right now and he’s not able to play through no fault of his own.

The handling of this has really shone a light on the horrific pandering the football media does to the bigger clubs. Ratings doesn’t equal truth, no matter how they try and sell it.

What a tool to say that.

Was listening to Maynard interview after the whack and thought it strange how he was talking about it being a footy act and that he loved Gus to bits yet didn't hear him say I hope he's OK.

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by leave it to deever

 

To my mind Actus Reus and Mens Rea were present. Give him 6 weeks!

 

1 minute ago, picket fence said:

 

To my mind Actus Reus and Mens Rea were present

 

His Mens Rea wasn’t too flash when Jack Viney fronted him.

8 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I wonder if there is truth to the whispers that Gus may not play again, if Laura intervened for fear of additional litigation against the AFL.
Brayshaw and Frawley are powerful footy names and given Anita is currently in active litigation with the AFL, this can’t be good for their case.

If Maynard is allowed to play because his is deemed a reasonable action, and Gus has to retire as a result of repeated head injuries, it only further weakens the position of the AFL in their ongoing legal battles. 

Gus did not put himself in a situation where brutal force could have been expected such as throw himself into a pack or run backwards for a mark. He was running with the ball in open space trying to kick it away. He has every right to expect to walk away from that without a severe head injury. 

Whether you think what Maynard did was intentional or just a footy action gone wrong, there is no doubt the consequences of his action could well be catastrophic. The AFL cannot just simply turn a blind eye or succumb to the pressure of the feral Magpie Army. There are far bigger chess pieces in play here. 

You've nailed a key 'non-Gus' issue for the game at large and I think this weeks commentary will move onto your thoughts.

This accident was careless at best and thus must be punished.  If not, the AFL is signalling to industry a weakening of their legal defence to the broader claims right in the middle of those claims entering court.

Peter Jess and others will have a field day in this regard.

That Maynard should be punished is a side issue in the broader context of the AFL mounting a defence, or even mitgating their payout strategy.

The media (Cornes and Co) and boys club (Dangerfield and Co.) are niave in the extreme in their commentary. I'm sure the AFL would wish they could just tone them  down a bit.

Intentional or footy act are irreleavnt in the legal issue IMO.

 

As an aside, if the Dees get up in the SF, it will be one our our greatest moments. I'll be there just to witness it.

 

8 hours ago, Superunknown said:

What are the gender optics here?

I fear this issue.  You wait and watch that card being played by the cave dwellers out there on social media.

Absolutely irrelevant but this is Australia (Gillard, Higgins, Tame etc. say hello)

 

 

8 hours ago, Macca said:

Someone like Ray Chamberlain would be fantastic in the role.  Completely impartial, fair and a well balanced person with zero bias

In fact, more of the umpires need to be kept on within the AFL ... and we need more women involved especially on the Commission

The boys club element and favouritism that goes on needs to be halted

Up until this bold and correct move by Laura Kane, the MRO has been a complete joke and a farce

He's an excellent communicator as shown on his weekly stint with Whateley and treats the public calling in with great respect.

Excellent suggestion Macca.

40 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

What a tool to say that.

Was listening to Maynard interview after the whack and thought it strange how he was talking about it being a footy act and that he loved Gus to bits yet didn't hear him say I hope he's OK.

Showed no remorse when it happened and none since. Just tried to save his own skin post match. 

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

funny thing ... tackling is a "footy action"

get it wrong unintentionally and hit high with severe impact and guess what ... get a suspension, footy action or not.

we all remember jack trengove's tackle , right?

this undefined term "footy action" is a furphy.  you won't find it anywhere in the afl rules of the game or any other official afl documentation.

plenty of players get rubbed out attempting footy actions that they get wrong

the afl changed the rules re head high contact and duty of care. get a bump high  and you can't claim accidental. it's at the very least careless (which is the mro's ruling here).

Excellent summary Daisy and needs to be understood as to why the footy action comment means nothing.

Whately said almost imeediately that  once Maynard leaves the ground he's careless having lost control of the outcome. . The rest of the argument is just white noise as the subsequent evidnece of Gus stretchedred off etc nails down the penalty. 

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Showed no remorse when it happened and none since. Just tried to save his own skin post match. 

He even looks guilty. 

He's a grub.

Four weeks is lucky.

Good if he misses a granny.

What about Gus.

He's missed a qf which we may have won with him playing.

And next weeks final.

That's on the positive side.

Could have lasting consequences. 

How on earth did Maynard think he would land? The ground will break his fall? 

He knew full well he would collide with Gus. It's not just the act but the trying to save his hide with this subterfuge of " footy act".

 

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by leave it to deever

8 hours ago, No10 said:

 

Maynard deserves a suspension, but one week of finals is surely worth three H&A.

 

 

 

there is absolutely no provision in the rules of the game to allow for this

same in all sports

Making a statement and taking out a key playmaker. A time-honoured footy act, practised in finals. Like the last time Collingwood beat Melbourne in a finsl, and Murray Weidemann took out Ron Barassi. Or the 1990 GF when Essendon snipers tried to stop Collingwood. All for us patrons in the Colisseum, who want to  see blood, who want to see highlights reels of "footy acts".

Just now, daisycutter said:

there is absolutely no provision in the rules of the game to allow for this

same in all sports

But it is reasonable to argue penalities should be bigger in finals.  The stakes are high in AFL finals especially where a team may meet the same team twice.  For example, when it was clear we were going to lose to C'wood, but could meet them in the GF, why not get some second tier player (little Bill?) to knock the daylight out of the C'wood player we feared most in a GF?  

2 minutes ago, sue said:

But it is reasonable to argue penalities should be bigger in finals.  The stakes are high in AFL finals especially where a team may meet the same team twice.  For example, when it was clear we were going to lose to C'wood, but could meet them in the GF, why not get some second tier player (little Bill?) to knock the daylight out of the C'wood player we feared most in a GF?  

Or why not simply go full barry hall at the start of a grand final and knock out 3 players. Win the flag and have a few weeks off next season who cares

7 minutes ago, bush demon said:

Making a statement and taking out a key playmaker. A time-honoured footy act, practised in finals. Like the last time Collingwood beat Melbourne in a finsl, and Murray Weidemann took out Ron Barassi. Or the 1990 GF when Essendon snipers tried to stop Collingwood. All for us patrons in the Colisseum, who want to  see blood, who want to see highlights reels of "footy acts".

Yep. Maynard came out pumped. He wanted to make a statement.  I'm sure he didn't mean to ko someone ( only because he wouldn't want a suspension) but he was clearly trying to rough someone up.

I don't know why but I have a feeling Gus has an agreement with his family and girlfriend to give the game away if he is hurt " concussion" again. It's one of the first things that when though my mind on Friday. I hope I'm wrong but I remember how long it took for him to get over the last one. And I really hope the team just has a " do it for Gus" attitude next week and the rest of the finals. 

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

there is absolutely no provision in the rules of the game to allow for this

same in all 

Good post. Also Gus has missed two finals. At a bare minimum Maynard must too.

6 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Yep. Maynard came out pumped. He wanted to make a statement.  I'm sure he didn't mean to ko someone ( only because he wouldn't want a suspension) but he was clearly trying to rough someone up.

Yes he did! He was 4 meters from Angus when the ball was kicked.  Could have turned away and also changed his angle slightly to ensure contact 

If the AFL are serious then severe sanctions are necessary

If not and I was Gus Legal action to ensue against The dog The club and the afl if his career is ended

Edited September 8, 20231 yr by Kent

2 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

do it for Gus

I wish they had retaliated more. Fair and square though.

Well done Viney.

1 minute ago, leave it to deever said:

Good post. Also Gus has missed two finals. At a bare minimum Maynard must too.

and  worse, gus missing most of the game could have cost us the the game, the chance of a prelim final, 2 weeks off to prepare and possibility of a premiership.

in fact you could put up a good argument for the opposite, that a suspension in a final should be penalised more severely (not that i am advocating that). the suggestion of the op is ludicrous.

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

 

Good get DD. 

Having listened to all of the various arguments over the last day or two I'm probably in the camp that favours novichok poisoning. Happy to be dissuaded though. 

2 minutes ago, Kent said:

Yes he did! He was 4 meters from Angus when the ball was kicked.  Could have turned away and also changed his angle slightly to ensure contact 

If the AFL are serious then severe sanctions are necessary

If not and I was Gus Legal action to ensue against The dog The club and the afl

I'm in the same camp. I'm sure his intent to hurt was there. I was just positing that he probably didn't mean the ko. Not because he's not a mug but because he wouldn't want to be suspended. Then again I wouldnt put it past him. Claimed remorse but didn't say I'm sorry that hurt him. It was all about saving his own hide rather than caring about the bloke he.. " loved to bits"

Pleaser. Maybe he worked this whole smother ruse out some time ago. 

He's finished this year and rightly so.