12 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I think you’ll find they’re friends and Brayshaw is keen on his wine. Let’s stick to the incident shall we. 

The wine bottle (and the spin surrounding it) is part of the incident - it's the Collingwood machine swinging into action.

10 hours ago, Monbon said:

Go figure, a retired 'lawyer'. Is anyone surprised by the semantics and sophistry and jesuistry you display? Not to mention your affirmation of football field violence, just like in your 'good ol days'....

Leave it out, you’ve now said your piece 4 times to him. He’s got his opinion and he’s entitled to it.

4 minutes ago, Jara said:

The wine bottle (and the spin surrounding it) is part of the incident - it's the Collingwood machine swinging into action.

All in all its irrelevant beyond the injury to Brayshaw. 

It's not why Collingwood won or Melbourne lost and and in fact the Pies will be more worried about  Brisbane and perhaps even GWS than anything else.

Maynard or not I doubt that they are flag favourites any more

Toby on Daicos..I'd like to see that

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by IRW

14 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

I see I have no support on this thread so I shall desist. I hope that the Tribunal sees the footage from all angles. As a retired lawyer, I think that must absolve Maynard from any penalty. But, as has been pointed out by deep thinkers on this thread, the Tribunal's decision may be political - not fair to player Maynard but politically correct. 

Regards to all and Go Dees,

Rollo

 

Oh, as a former player AND a retired lawyer now? So many attributes  

The fact that that you’ve deemed any argument in favour of suspension as being purely “political” tells me your retirement might have been forced on you by the bar. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, IRW said:

All in all its irrelevant beyond the injury to Brayshaw. 

It's not why Collingwood won or Melbourne lost and and in fact the Pies will be more worried about  Brisbane and perhaps even GWS than anything else.

Maynard or not I doubt that they are flag favourites any more

Toby on Daicos..I'd like to see that

Not wholly, but it partly is why we lost, because it reduced our flexibility to push Petracca forward to score and that hurt us.

17 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

I think you’ll find they’re friends and Brayshaw is keen on his wine. Let’s stick to the incident shall we. 

How do you know they’re friends? They played together as juniors but I don’t think they’re friends. They know each other through Corey no doubt, but to suggest they’re friends without material evidence is a bit of a stretch. Although if they are friends, what he did is even worse. If they’re friends he’d intimately know the struggles Gus and his family have been through with head trauma. He’d know how close Gus was to walking away previously due to concussions. He’d know that trying to take him out could be career ending. 

And yes Gus is a wine man. Not sure he can drink it anytime soon tho, given he’s recovering from concussion. 
Then again Maynard doesn’t come across as a brain surgeon. 

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

How do you know they’re friends? They played together as juniors but I don’t think they’re friends. They know each other through Corey no doubt, but to suggest they’re friends without material evidence is a bit of a stretch. Although if they are friends, what he did is even worse. If they’re friends he’d intimately know the struggles Gus and his family have been through with head trauma. He’d know how close Gus was to walking away previously due to concussions. He’d know that trying to take him out could be career ending. 

And yes Gus is a wine man. Not sure he can drink it anytime soon tho, given he’s recovering from concussion. 
Then again Maynard doesn’t come across as a brain surgeon. 

My bigger point being that Maynard dropping wine off doesn’t make his action worse and we’d be best to stick to the incident.

6 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

My bigger point being that Maynard dropping wine off doesn’t make his action worse and we’d be best to stick to the incident.

It makes it worse if it’s a PR exercise, which given the media found out about it, seems highly likely. 
 

10 minutes ago, IRW said:

All in all its irrelevant beyond the injury to Brayshaw. 

It's not why Collingwood won or Melbourne lost and and in fact the Pies will be more worried about  Brisbane and perhaps even GWS than anything else.

Maynard or not I doubt that they are flag favourites any more

Toby on Daicos..I'd like to see that

I don't think you can rule out the fact Gus's injury may have determined tge game or not. It was a 7 point difference . It's quite possible being a good player down played a part. Especially how our mids were dominated in the first half.

That said the issue is for Maynard to be punished and players protected

The media went into overdrive at every turn to protect this bloke. A player with his experience must of known he would collect Gus with all his weight. I can't say if it was  premeditated or a simple rush of adrenaline bit an experienced player like Maynard knew a collision would result. 

And he certainly chose at the last second to put his shoulder in.

This is why they judge on impact.

12 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

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

Outrageous if this is true. Particularly from the host broadcaster.....however with their commentary team the bar is set quite low.

Attempting to defend Maynard involves antiquated thinking.  The game has moved on from the thuggery of the past

So even if by some outside chance that Maynard's action is deemed accidental, he must still cop a heavy penalty according to the new grading system.  At this point, a 3+ match penalty

Anything other than the above evaluation is old time thinking.  And these days, irrelevant

We've had at least 20 players (this season alone) rubbed out for instances that previously were viewed as incidental or as accidents.  Often with the player on the receiving end suffering zero ill-effects

The sentences are still being handed out, regardless.  So Maynard can't escape the current gradings and rulings

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by Macca

20 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Maynard doesn’t come across as a brain surgeon. 

Quite the Irony given how he drums up business for them. 

Maynard going on and encouraging the push and shove from Viney didn't show much remorse for me.

He's a thug I would not have as a mate and I reckon Gus would be the same. Take your wine and...my career is in jeopardy. 

People are naturally very emotional over this incident, because of many factors we all know about.

I understand Rollo’s view, because to be honest, at first glance I agreed with him it was a footy act and so be it.

On further viewing and consideration, I realized it must be seen in light of the current AFL rules. It then becomes clear.

Players have a Duty of Care to other players now. If you initiate contact via a bump to the head, it is no defence to then say you were only bracing for contact.

Once you initiate contact, the duty of care requires you to not contact the head and cause injury.

Whatever the motives of Maynard, in jumping off the ground, once he braced and hit Gus in the head with his shoulder, he committed an offence under the rules.

His options were to not brace with his shoulder, but rather, keep his hands out to lessen impact, or avoid contact altogether. He chose the one banned option.

The fact that Gus was concussed, goes solely to severity and penalty

Now the media circus can begin.

I only wish Gus all the best and couldn’t give a rat’s about Maynard.

16 hours ago, bing181 said:

A bit unreal to see people defending Maynard. He had other choices while still attempting the smother, which is why he'll face the tribunal.

As a side note, umpires paid a downfield free, which isn't going to help the "football act" defence.

Haven't seen it mentioned here but great to see the old boys code of football violence swept away by new broom, Laura Kane. The sooner these "nothing to see" drongoes are removed from media positions,  the better. It's football, not headball.  

In my opinion

1. There was no genuine smother attempt. If you want to take out an opposition player...you wait till a plausibly defendable situation arises, eg punch to head when it might have been the ball, deliberately falling on a player, deliberately stepping on a player or pretending to smother when it is a disguised charge.

2. If Maynard takes up athletics - it should be long jump not high jump. 

3. The gift of wine. An action befitting that moronic head.  ( Still, I'm surprised the danny frawley wellness center is next to the bar and the pokies so perhaps Im too sensitive.)

4. For the rest of his life Brayshaw will be able to show his kids/ grandkids his premiership medal. Maynard can explain why he hasn't got one. ( If pies win GF which I doubt )

52 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Oh, as a former player AND a retired lawyer now? So many attributes  

The fact that that you’ve deemed any argument in favour of suspension as being purely “political” tells me your retirement might have been forced on you by the bar. 

 

 

Yep  . he sounds like your typical greasy lawyer. Must be senile to think Maynard should get off.  He lined up Brayshaw before he even kicked the ball.  Good chance corporate politics is his only chance of getting off not the other way round.

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by Deebauched

51 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And yes Gus is a wine man. Not sure he can drink it anytime soon tho, given he’s recovering from concussion. 
Then again Maynard doesn’t come across as a brain surgeon. 

I learned that the hard way many years ago 'Jaded', not a good result.

In the words of First Peoples 

truth telling 

1- Players have a Duty of Care to other players now.

2- If you change body shape to initiate contact via a bump to the head, it is no defence to then say you were only bracing for contact.

3- His other options were to a) not brace with his shoulder, but rather, keep his hands out to lessen impact, or b) avoid contact altogether.
He chose the one banned option.

4- The fact that Gus was concussed, goes solely to severity (severe) and penalty

summary. 

CARELESS , SEVERE IMPACT, HIGH CONTACT 

MINIMUM 3 WEEKS 

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Leave it out, you’ve now said your piece 4 times to him. He’s got his opinion and he’s entitled to it.

How many times did he roll up on this topic to defend Maynard?????Then to start the 'lawyer talk' was a wee bit more than I could bear. His defence of thuggery and reference to the good old days was bad enough. Keep on Roosting...

6 minutes ago, Bystander said:

If Maynard takes up athletics - it should be long jump not high jump. 

I think there's some truth in this.

Looking at the behind the goals view you can see Maynard doesn't jump at the ball at all but does jump at Gus.

I believe he was trying to pressure Gus.

As for protecting himself, that doesn't add up. Gus had no momentum as he had already kicked the ball and was wide open and on the back foot.

1 hour ago, IRW said:

All in all its irrelevant beyond the injury to Brayshaw. 

It's not why Collingwood won or Melbourne lost and and in fact the Pies will be more worried about  Brisbane and perhaps even GWS than anything else.

 

disagree. Brayshaw was exactly what we needed when they were coming in the first quarter and a half. We lost by 7 points. It made a difference. our sub wasnt nearly as effective.

Anyone who doesn’t think losing Gus 5 minutes into the game didn’t cost us is crazy. 
Not only is he in very good form, his concussion had a roll on effect

1- Trac couldn’t play forward much 

2- Reduced overall midfield rotations

3- Laurie played a full game for little impact 

4- No flexibility to push Gus onto a wing to curtail the influence Sidebottom was having

 

We lost by 7 points. Gus absolutely would have made a difference. Not saying we win if he plays, but it’s a distinct possibility. 

There must be a dozen plus smother attempts a game and I've never seen a player knocked out in this manner.

I have to concur with most people here that have made excellent points.

Maynard plays on the edge and likes to impact with physical contact at any possible moment. I have no doubt in my mind that this was less a bracing action and more a classic shirt front that went wrong. He probably intended to flush him in the chest. He was careless and it caused severe head high contact. Has to go.

Given he would presumably train as he plays with 100% intensity, would he ever run through a teammate like this at training. Of course not.

But the pr machine is in full swing and while he will probably get a suspension he'll get off on appeal.

13 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

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

What day?  Main news segement?

1 hour ago, DeeSince73 said:

Outrageous if this is true. Particularly from the host broadcaster.....however with their commentary team the bar is set quite low.

Ok when I saw it it was on the end of this. he was asked who he wants to hurt and he answered all of them and then walked it back. 

Maybe check 7play and watch the news from the same night.