3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

worse, gus missing most of the game could have cost us

The young five gamer in Laurie was hardly like for like. He had five disposals. 

I'd say it cost us the game and given that Gus smashed Carlton last time we met, may cost us another.

I would like Justice,    probably will not happen though.

I want scores level between Collingwood and the Demons at the last minute and for Gus to be awarded a free kick for high contact 30 metres out dead in front.   I want the cameras on Maynard sitting in the stands.

 

Not sure my head or heart could stand the strain mind you  but it would be Justice !

6 minutes ago, layzie said:

Good get DD. 

The tool even replied to the Deebrief TW account when they called him out for being a moron. He thinks he's so smart.

Port and he can GF.

9 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

Love every word of this.

Hopefully we can start to get rid of some of the suck ups & morons from commentary and media as well.

8 hours ago, No10 said:

 

If we penalise the action not the result, then I’d give JVR the longer penalty.

There are 3 parameters in the MRO calculation:

Conduct: Intentional or Careless 

Contact: High/Groin or Body

Impact: Severe, High, Medium, Low

"Impact" is included specifically for the element you've raised. The Impact of Maynard's action was clearly Severe, whereas the Impact of JVR's action was Medium. Both the other parameters were the same Careless and High. Therefore Maynard clearly warrants a higher penalty.

If Christian actually followed the MRO guidelines accurately and consistently then most of the angst about decisions would go away.

Put your money on 4 weeks reduced to one on appeal. Remember he plays for Collingwood. 

8 minutes ago, old dee said:

Put your money on 4 weeks reduced to one on appeal. Remember he plays for Collingwood. 

It will be all or nothing.

14 minutes ago, old55 said:

There are 3 parameters in the MRO calculation:

Conduct: Intentional or Careless 

Contact: High/Groin or Body

Impact: Severe, High, Medium, Low

"Impact" is included specifically for the element you've raised. The Impact of Maynard's action was clearly Severe, whereas the Impact of JVR's action was Medium. Both the other parameters were the same Careless and High. Therefore Maynard clearly warrants a higher penalty.

If Christian actually followed the MRO guidelines accurately and consistently then most of the angst about decisions would go away.

Thought Jvr was lucky with one week. It makes me nervous.

12 hours ago, chookrat said:

I think this is where it's important for the Tribunal to establish whether Maynard was jumping directly into the path of Brayshaw or not. If directly into Brayshaw's path then it has to be deemed rough conduct and with high contact and severe impact its 3 - 4 weeks. I'm of the view that concussions can and do occur through pure accidents, e.g. Bedford's sheppard a couple of weeks ago, and the Tribunal needs to consider this in determining whether Maynard gets at least three weeks or is free to play.

Agree its gonna be his season, or he gets off, there is no 1 or 2 week action here. Collingwood will not be trying to get this downgraded, it won't help him. 

My take on the footage is that he moves into his path directly, he shuffle steps and changes angle before he launches. If he had stayed the path.

The other part is, a pure accident can still result in a suspension. It's what bemuses me with the whole 'It was a footy act' Yep it was right until you drive your shoulder into his head. Followed by the people saying what else could he do when he was already off the ground.  

I understand some of the arguments for not suspending him in terms of being a 'football act' and that he was jumping to smother. 

This is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clear - for example:

'in the scenario a player jumps to smother and contact is unavoidable (for example spinning out of the way is not possible) it is that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head, for example by continuing chest on and arms stretched wide. If they exercise such care and contact is made to the head it will be deemed accidental they will not be reported. However if they choose to turn their body or brace in such a way that increases the likelihood and force of head contact and head contact is made they will be reported' 

For for me its clear, Maynard had an option other than hitting him shoulder to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head, at great velocity, with his shoulder.

That decision is on him.

The idea that he had a right to do that in order to protect himself is ludicrous because what risk was their to HIS wellbeing? 

He was running full tilt and jumped 2 feet in the air - if he landed chest on Gus still would have been hurt, but perhaps not knocked out cold but how would Maynard have been hurt?

I'm gutted we didn't win of course  I actually feel ok about the game in terms of how we played. So unlike say post last years Swans finals loss, i'm happy to listen to the media and the footy shows about the game.

Except i can't because the idea of listening to ex footballers cheer leading and leading the full throated charge to get Maynard off makes me sick to he stomach.

Seriously, and i'm not joking here, some such media people are very likely to have some form of diminished cognitive capacity BECAUSE of head knocks. Listen to BT - he frequently cant do basic score calculations - and again i'm not kidding. 

And don't get me started on Channel 7's shameless decision to interview maynard on the ground after the game.

Or the AFL's weakness not to send a clear message tot he broadcaster that under no circumstances are you to choose Maynard for any post match interviews (they had a whole match to reach that obvious conclusion and make the call to 7). 

It's one thing saying we need the broadcaster's dollars to grow the game, pay the players etc etc. It's quite another to sell the soul of the sport to the highest bidder. The symbiotic, parasitic relationship between 7, Fox and SEN is at the heart of the rot in the sport. 

But you know what, i don't really care what happens to Maynard. I just care what happens to Gus 

I felt sick at the ground and felt off for the whole game. I still feel sick for Gus. Worried sick for him.

Positive thoughts and much love Gus. 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by binman

12 hours ago, layzie said:

Appreciate it Dazzle. 

It seems as like the people here that want to condemn Maynard feel like they are a united front. Well in the last few hours I've realised that they are actually in sub-categories. There's people who think the main fault is Maynard's choice to jump and leave the ground and whatever happened was his fault anyway, there's people who feel it is his decision to turn inwards instead of outwards and then there's people who are saying it has nothing to do with either of those but actually him leading with the shoulder and causing a 'bumping' act. None of these are bad opinions but they are not on the same page.

Oh sorry then there's the ludicrous Space lord stuff like suggesting that a if he's sprinting a hundred miles an hour at the ball carrier he should suddenly be able to jump straight up vertically in the air when he attempts the smother. Another one suggested Maynard took his eyes off the ball, it wasnt a marking contest, how the hell can you tell that when the guy he took out had the ball in his hands right up until the moment he left the ground??

I've been more than happy to hear sensible arguments for why he should go and thankfully there's been a few good ones here who were able to separate emotion and explain their stance rationally and respectfully. I'm not on some warpath to be correct, I'm here to say what I think, hear some well informed good views then move on. Whether people agree with me or not, no-one can argue that this place has been a frenzy of emotional and sometimes irrational jabbering this last 24 hrs.

Having said all of this I'm not some Maynard homer and if they are handing out a 4 game suspension I'm happy to see him rubbed out regardless. Thug life!

You haven't even considered the most obvious deduction yet: That it was Brayshaw's fault because he ran into poor, stationary and innocent Maynard who only had eyes for the ball. Angus should get 6 weeks for damaging Maynard's reputation as a thug: Maynard is INNOCENT - HE WAS PROTECTING HIMSELF FROM A VISCOUS BRAYSHAW ATTACK.

29 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Thought Jvr was lucky with one week. It makes me nervous.

Remember who told you. 

14 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What Absolute Rubbish 

Maynard could have just as easily swung his body to the left to avoid a problem. He didn’t 

and put his arms into Guses chest not shoulder to head

https://twitter.com/UnbiasdOpinion/status/1699744235145306592?t=L0aLNwKxWsdrCeyj2AUzmA&s=19

Pickett spoiled Will Hoskin Elliott and didn't smash his head. So much for a natural footy act

 

Maynard the dog gets 4

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by jnrmac

23 minutes ago, binman said:

But you know what, i don't really care what happens to Maynard. I just care what happens to Gus 

I felt sick at the ground and felt off for the whole game. I still feel sick for Gus. Worried sick for him.

Positive thoughts and much love Gus. 

That is all that needs to be said really. [censored] Maynard 

11 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. 

Good points: however, he wasn't 'trying to kick it away' - he had kicked it over Maynard's head and Maynard decided to basically shirt-front his so-called 'mate' via a shoulder to his head.

53 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Thought Jvr was lucky with one week. It makes me nervous.

No I think one week is correct - Careless, High, Medium (McStay did have to go off for a concussion assessment)

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

10 hours ago, No10 said:

One week seems fair. A lot of hyperbole about Gus ending his career here, I don’t disbelieve there’s a contract clause but I have no belief that’s a discussion at this early stage.

To my eye, Maynard tucked his shoulder for impact. That’s a difficult problem as turning side on for collision is what players are told. And it was a collision rather than a bump imv, which makes it a football incident.

Maynard plays hard, that’s what he brings and he overstepped.

But JVR also has some hardness, we love it. He swung and elbow and has a week, fair. But same action could’ve knocked the player out if he was less lucky.

If we penalise the action not the result, then I’d give JVR the longer penalty.

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

Don’t know how they can adjudicate an outcome that’s not inline with the formula, but missing a PF seems right to me.

For the record, I don’t think JVR nor Maynard are ‘thugs’.

Cmon now, are you trolling are what?! Can’t agree with any point that you’ve made. No way in hell JVR action is worse than Maynard’s.  
MROs outcome has always been heavily dependant on the outcome of the act. 

“tucked his shoulder for impact” he already had his arms up and in forms of him. Surely he could have used his arms on Brayshaw shoulders and avoided any injury to either of them. But no he choose to collect him in the head with his shoulder.  
 

Should only get a week because it’s finals?!?! Really?! Gus will miss a min of two finals! Does that mean he should get off if he does it in a prelim as he would then miss a GF?!

And lastly Maynard IS A THUG. Has always been a thug. 
 

41 minutes ago, binman said:

And don't get me started on Channel 7's shameless decision to interview maynard on the ground after the game.

That was a poor choice by them both.

But before the commentary even had time to watch a couple of slow mos they were talking over the top of one another in their attempts to dismiss the whole event as just a smother gone wrong. Just didn't get it. 

Well done C7.

Mate.

46 minutes ago, binman said:

I understand some of the arguments for not suspending him in terms of being a 'football act' and that he was jumping to smother. 

This is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clear - for example:

'in the scenario a player jumps to smother and contact is unavoidable (for example spinning out of the way is not possible) it is that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head, for example by continuing chest on and arms stretched wide. If they exercise such care and contact is made to the head it will be deemed accidental they will not be reported. However if they choose to turn their body or brace in such a way that increases the likelihood and force of head contact and head contact is made they will be reported' 

For for me its clear, Maynard had an option other than hitting him shoulder to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head, at great velocity, with his shoulder.

That decision is on him.

The idea that he had a right to do that in order to protect himself is ludicrous because what risk was their to HIS wellbeing? 

He was running full tilt and jumped 2 feet in the air - if he landed chest on Gus still would have been hurt, but perhaps not knocked out cold but how would Maynard have been hurt?

I'm gutted we didn't win of course  I actually feel ok about the game in terms of how we played. So unlike say post last years Swans finals loss, i'm happy to listen to the media and the footy shows about the game.

Except i can't because the idea of listening to ex footballers cheer leading and leading the full throated charge to get Maynard off makes me sick to he stomach.

Seriously, and i'm not joking here, some such media people are very likely to have some form of diminished cognitive capacity BECAUSE of head knocks. Listen to BT - he frequently cant do basic score calculations - and again i'm not kidding. 

And don't get me started on Channel 7's shameless decision to interview maynard on the ground after the game.

Or the AFL's weakness not to send a clear message tot he broadcaster that under no circumstances are you to choose Maynard for any post match interviews (they had a whole match to reach that obvious conclusion and make the call to 7). 

It's one thing saying we need the broadcaster's dollars to grow the game, pay the players etc etc. It's quite another to sell the soul of the sport to the highest bidder. The symbiotic, parasitic relationship between 7, Fox and SEN is at the heart of the rot in the sport. 

But you know what, i don't really care what happens to Maynard. I just care what happens to Gus 

I felt sick at the ground and felt off for the whole game. I still feel sick for Gus. Worried sick for him.

Positive thoughts and much love Gus. 

100% agree with all of this.

I was not at all concerned for the result for the night, I just felt sick about what Brayshaw and his family would be going through. Goody openly said Gus was very shattered and upset, I bet it was emotionally charged in the rooms.

To interview Maynard after the game was probably the most disrespectful thing I can remember. Gus is downstairs in a really bad way and Ch 7 think this is appropriate?

I’m not typically an overly empathetic person and I’m not a huge Gus fan but his health and well-being is significantly more important than anything else right now. 

The way the AFL is stage managed and the fact that it’s gone to the social media/clickbait model makes me want to permanently walk away.

 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by BW511

26 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

https://twitter.com/UnbiasdOpinion/status/1699744235145306592?t=L0aLNwKxWsdrCeyj2AUzmA&s=19

Pickett spoiled Will Hoskin Elliott and didn't smash his head. So much for a natural footy act

 

Maynard the dog gets 4

I think that sums it up. If this was an innocent “footy act”, we would be seeing it a dozen times a game and multiple players concussed every week.

The vision of Kozzie show how players attempting to smother normally approach the kicker - that is to say - how players respond when they haven’t already decided to hit the kicker as hard as they can.

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by wisedog

1 minute ago, Colm said:

Gus will miss a min of two finals

Not that Im not concerned about Gus's poor head and hus loved ones but it probably cost us our season as well. Not on him but  Laurie was no replacement . 

The Cfc of old. Win a final by taking players out.

I'm glad the whole team don't get premier medallions cos Maynard won't have one.

 

11 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. 

Well congratulations to Laura Kane if she did! Showing courage to do the right thing.

Multiple reasons:

- Maynard chose to take Brayshaw out, total rubbish he had no other choice

- Footballers, ex footballers seem to stupid, or thick to realise, it’s to their benefit to protect the head, perfect example is Barry Mitchell father of Tom, life massively impacted by head collision trauma 

- Tom Mitchell’s action highlights his level of stupidity, obviously forgot his fathers problems

- Richo, BT & co. Must have had incredibly thick skulls not to have been more severely impacted by the hits taken, but why they protect weak dog acts is beyond me

- Could write pages on this topic but enough said!

Most important point - hopefully Brayshaw is okay, for now and rest of his life!

People saying they want justice.

There's no justice in all of this. If rumours are true that Gus could give the game away from this incident then there's no justice at all.

Someone's career is potentially taken away from him but yet the offender only misses 3-4 weeks? 

No good outcomes out of this.

1 hour ago, old55 said:

There are 3 parameters in the MRO calculation:

Conduct: Intentional or Careless 

Contact: High/Groin or Body

Impact: Severe, High, Medium, Low

"Impact" is included specifically for the element you've raised. The Impact of Maynard's action was clearly Severe, whereas the Impact of JVR's action was Medium. Both the other parameters were the same Careless and High. Therefore Maynard clearly warrants a higher penalty.

If Christian actually followed the MRO guidelines accurately and consistently then most of the angst about decisions would go away.

You are right, It's not like JVR tried to punch him.

It was just an amateur attempt to be physical, that ended up in a elbow to the chin collision. Medium impact as you pointed out.