A player with the ball in the act of kicking forward should expect not to have a 90 kg airborne missile projecting front on to his head.

1 hour ago, rollinson 65 said:

…

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

 

I’d be very embarrassed. 

Just now, sue said:

I’d be very embarrassed. 

Even more so if our player hit someone like McCartin who has a well known history of concussions. 

2 hours ago, BDA said:

The argument is illogical.

He had 2 possible decisions to make. Maintain his smothering action. Or decide to turn his shoulder which he did. Both decisions required the same split second. Why preference one decision over the other? Because he did have time. And being a filthy thug, he decided to inflict damage on Gus. It’s obvious if you ask me.

The other nonsense argument is the footy act defence. I’ve never seen the shoulder smother ever before yet apparently it is a footy act.

BDA I think the decision that is likely to get Maynard into trouble is jumping at Brayshaw when he is about to kick the ball.  I'm not sure the rules will support a suspension in this case and what argument the AFL will make, e.g. will they say it is a bump and sanction under rough conduct or use another provision.

One thing the JVR case earlier this year demonstrated is that if the AFL sanction a player outside of the rules then it will fail on appeal.

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

No, Pickett's attempt at a smother was a pure football action. Almost identical, but amazingly didnt attempt to knock  Hoskin-Elliott into next week.
Maynard shuffled before he jumped, and changed his angle at the last minute to line up Brayshaw. He had intent to make contact with the player.  

How many of these 'pure football actions' have you seen in the last 5-10 years where people attempt to smother the ball, and knock out the player kicking it? 

NONE! I REST MY CASE

It was a contest. Brayshaw charging to goal and Maynard defending. Brayshaw won that contest. Maynard knew it and decided to go for  damage control rather than concede. Result is a collision that should never have occured in 2023. In my modest career, first game in seniors I followed the ball from centre bounce to CHB. Eyes on ball, the Methodists fat snd unfit, untalented full back hit me at pace without any intention of going for the ball. Gutless. Fortunate that unlike Gus he didnt get me in the head. 

Maynard had the collective memory of every action he has ever made on the football field and the outcomes of those past actions.

 

To say he only had "split seconds" is to pick a point in time to suit a particular outcome.

 

He had all the experience from years of football to know exactly the outcome of his actions.

Anything less than 6 weeks and he should consider himself lucky.

Deliberate, dangerous, reckless, negligent and brutal. Hang him high for all to see.

1 hour ago, rollinson 65 said:

Agree 4-6 weeks.

The AFL will make a political statement.

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

I wouldn’t feel sorry for Maynard if he was playing for us: just like I didn’t feel sorry for Kozzie, when he collected Bailey Smith: stupid act and deserved his ban.
 

I feel sorry for Gus, who has not only missed out on Finals but probably has to weigh up whether or not he takes the risk to play again - ever. I also feel sorry for Gus’s teammates who had to play without one of their key contributors in a QF, because of a stupid decision by an opponent.

F Maynard and eff his effing club and their effing supporters.

 

(I’m still salty, obvs 😉)

7 minutes ago, 3183 Dee said:

I wouldn’t feel sorry for Maynard if he was playing for us: just like I didn’t feel sorry for Kozzie, when he collected Bailey Smith: stupid act and deserved his ban.
 

I feel sorry for Gus, who has not only missed out on Finals but probably has to weigh up whether or not he takes the risk to play again - ever. I also feel sorry for Gus’s teammates who had to play without one of their key contributors in a QF, because of a stupid decision by an opponent.

F Maynard and eff his effing club and their effing supporters.

 

(I’m still salty, obvs 😉)

Love it, well said

Maynard has already said it was a"football act" and therefore by definition he meant to do it. Intentional and 5 weeks.

2 hours ago, Superunknown said:

if the afl is serious about concussion they will mount a very strong case including Maynard’s alleged comments to media outlining his intent to damage/cause hurt. That establishes motive/intent and removes any ambiguity about malice or lack thereof

Yes, this has been overlooked by most. I made comment about it further up the thread…. I wish I could find the video clip and post it here. He clearly said he was toey and something else about inflicting damage or similar. This was premeditated…..

2 minutes ago, DeeSince73 said:

Yes, this has been overlooked by most. I made comment about it further up the thread…. I wish I could find the video clip and post it here. He clearly said he was toey and something else about inflicting damage or similar. This was premeditated…..

He is a bully on the field, the "enforcer" whatever that means.

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Gus should have belted him with the bottle and said “no worries” dropped a 6 pack of VB on his chest and dragged him out into the gutter to bleed for a while. Maybe call an ambulance a few hours later… maybe.

I would have set my dog on him first. If anyone has seen ‘Once upon a time in Hollywood’ ( Brad Pitts dog) - that’s the sort of dog I mean.

42 minutes ago, DeeSince73 said:

Yes, this has been overlooked by most. I made comment about it further up the thread…. I wish I could find the video clip and post it here. He clearly said he was toey and something else about inflicting damage or similar. This was premeditated…..

was on seven news and has been removed, well shortened to remove the remarks.

3 hours ago, grazman said:

Initially I thought it was a football action, but in retrospect you have to consider that Maynard runs flat out a player in an attempt to smother the ball, but then turns his body to collect him in a classic shirt-front action.  

 

Given his actions a) is it reasonably foreseeable that Maynard would make forceful contact with Gus and b) did he have a duty of care to avoid that?  Yes, definitely on the first question and the second is what the tribunal must decide.   

Given the history of the player, the history of his extended family and the issues surrounding contact sports in general I'd be staggered if the AFL didn't use this as an opportunity to signal that they are taking the issue of concussion seriously.

People can say it is "unfair" and inconsistent, (not prime considerations generally for tribunal rulings) but the AFL constantly 'stage manage' tribunal decisions (sorry to disappoint anyone that thinks the tribunal is independent in its decision-making), just this time it isn't about ensuring players can win Brownlow's or play in GFs, but ensuring that the general footy public understand that it is doing something about an issue it is currently facing litigation actions in. 

Very well said. The sum of parts doesn't quite add up. 

1 minute ago, YearOfTheDees said:

was on seven news and has been removed, well shortened to remove the remarks.

If he said ‘inflicting damage’ someone please find it and post it to every twitter account there is. I have been replying to ads many tweets as possible, not much to do here. 

21 minutes ago, jane02 said:

I would have set my dog on him first. If anyone has seen ‘Once upon a time in Hollywood’ ( Brad Pitts dog) - that’s the sort of dog I mean.

Even my dog who loves ALL people would probably take a dump on his foot 

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Regardless of intent, the act of connecting with the head in many instances of the game is a reportable offence these days and carries with it a penalty

Maynard could have avoided contact but even if it can be argued that he couldn't avoid slamming into Gus' head, he's still transgressed

So a charge/shirt-front best describes the head high contact.  Whether accidental or intentional makes no difference these days in many instances

On top of all that, the outcome is severe

In many areas of the game now, a player cannot accidently hit another player in the head and not expect to get suspended

That's the modern game

So ignore the dinosaurs and the footy code shared by many of the ex-players.  They're completely out of touch

The other important factor worth noting is that the AFL are in the midst of class actions involving head trauma.  If they let Maynard walk, the repercussions creates even more legal ramifications

Right now, in my view, those current class actions could easily cost the AFL a pretty penny.  Do they want even more?  I doubt it

This time around, they will find a way to make sure Maynard gets a decent sentence (not the other way around as what has happened previously)

Yep I think that's where we're at Macca. The leaving the ground and connecting with the head carries a penalty whether footy act or not. Even the most pure footy act could in rare cases have a 4 game suspension because we want players to be responsible. 

I said before, if you're driving in the wet and don't take precautions and decide to drive faster and not slower, when you lose control of the car and hit another one it isn't a 'driving act' and you are considered reckless. We have a duty of care to not drive like maniacs in that situation and would understandably pay the penalty because we're responsible for other motorist's safety as well as our own. I think this is now similar, you can fly in the air all you want and yes you'll probably make some great plays doing it, but connect with someone's head and you're stuffed. 

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

Yep I think that's where we're at Macca. The leaving the ground and connecting with the head carries a penalty whether footy act or not. Even the most pure footy act could in rare cases have a 4 game suspension because we want players to be responsible. 

I said before, if you're driving in the wet and don't take precautions and decide to drive faster and not slower, when you lose control of the car and hit another one it isn't a 'driving act' and you are considered reckless. We have a duty of care to not drive like maniacs in that situation and would understandably pay the penalty because we're responsible for other motorist's safety as well as our own. I think this is now similar, you can fly in the air all you want and yes you'll probably make some great plays doing it, but connect with someone's head and you're stuffed. 

There have been at least 15 instances of players being suspended this season where the perpetrator has not so much targeted the head or been negligent but more so just been really unlucky

The Hunter suspension a standout and numerous sling tackles where the player being tackled not being hurt at all.  Other bumps have connected to the head with very little impact but still carried with it, suspensions

Fast forward to the Maynard hit and there was nothing innocuous about it.  The hit was a clean hit and was negligent as well as being vicious, nasty, pointed and violent

So that Maynard hit can't be compared to the numerous 1 & 2 match penalties handed out for what I would describe as perhaps a slight step up from incidental contact

Edited September 9, 20231 yr by Macca

3 hours ago, RickyJ45 said:

you have a duty of care to yourself when you listen to them and to anyone else when you repeat what they say...

Exactly right! The big story out of this is we as viewers bow have a duty of care before we decide to turn the volume up on the broadcast or choose to listen to the numps on SEN because it's been proved that it's bad for our health.

And apart from everything else that has been pointed out, there are the optics

An unprotected player king hit and laid out unconscious for a full 5 minutes and then carried off on a stretched and somehow the perpetrator walks free?

Not going to happen, no chance

The rules of engagement have changed since Cripps walked free, for good reason

The league needed to close the loopholes otherwise all those types of incidents could have meant that the perpetrators would continuously walk free

It could have become a free-for-all

2 hours ago, KLV said:

A player with the ball in the act of kicking forward should expect not to have a 90 kg airborne missile projecting front on to his head.

Yes, and when you have the ball and are beaming into 50, you're thinking about delivering into 50 not protecting yourself from a wrecking ball or a bolt of lightening.

1 minute ago, layzie said:

Yes, and when you have the ball and are beaming into 50, you're thinking about delivering into 50 not protecting yourself from a wrecking ball or a bolt of lightening.

Most over the age of 40 here would remember a time when the player with ball in hand was often vulnerable to a late hit after disposal

But until it was outlawed, for decades players would continuously wear a bump after disposing of the ball ... and every now and again the elbow or shoulder to the head would be 'added' (and often, that would lead to a suspension)

After a time, free kicks started being paid downfield which ended up curtailing the bump on the player disposing of the ball (or the forceful bump)

So the Maynard hit was a real throwback.  Not a football act as doing what he did has been outlawed

As for the smothering excuse, it's a load of rot.  He knew exactly what he was doing

13 hours ago, old dee said:

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

You might be right old dee (again) but I'm reckoning 5 or 6 weeks

The CTE issues in general, ongoing litigation, class actions, optics, Gus' ongoing concussion issues and Maynard's absolute guilt points towards a hefty penalty

But you have a habit of getting things right so I've got my fingers crossed

6 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Can't believe this thread.

It was an honest footy action, fractions of seconds of time to make decisions.

I saw lots worse in my playing days (long ago). 

What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

What contest? Brayshaw had kicked the ball over Maynard's head, Maynard jumped and then directed his shoulder at Brayshaw's after-kick momentum. We used to call it a shirt front. Your - and my playing days - coincided when thugs and men who committed jail -worthy assaults on football fields were considered heroes and just part of the game.