19 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

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. 

More than a possibility, a distinct likelihood. 
 

Brayshaw is one of our most important on-field leaders. Here’s a clip to demonstrate…

This is an abridged version. The clip that ran on the broadcast was much longer and showed many more instances of Gus in this crucial mode. 

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

He had choices but once you leave the ground you're beholden to the result. There was no duty of care,  he was late, a totally unrealistic attempt he went for the body,  turned and shouldered his head

If the Afl is serious he had to go. As should have Cripps and Dangerfield

Strip away all the white noise and this is the critical point. 

Once you have elected to leave the ground you have a duty of care to any player you might cannon into as result of that choice.

In fact once Maynard chose to bump the fact the action started as a smother becomes a furphy because a deliberate shoulder brace (which this was) that strikes the opponents head is still a head hit, no matter the lead up.

I can't see how the fact he was allegedly jumping to smother is any different to choosing to jump off the ground to bump, or choosing to bump in any scenario for that matter - particularly in this scenario where even though it started as a smother it ended in a bump (by the by, on the smother, he got nowhere near it so in my book it was reckless form the get go). 

And as you note Jnr, it ended in a bump because that was the decision Maynard made. If he had time to turn his body and bump, he had time to make other choices.

And it is hard to see how Maynard gets hurt making another choice like pirouetting out the way or continuing on chest on with arms out.

Which takes away any argument he needed to bump protect himself - which will be the Pies main defence ie he had a split second to protect himself and it is instinct to do so (to which i'd also argue, if it is a natural instinct to turn and brace and bump in such scenarios then show me all the times a failed smother has resulted in that action or outcome. I cant think of any).  

Like smothering, bumping is a 'footy act'. An accepted footy act. Everyone loves a good bump.

But it it is now understood by coaches, players and fans that if you elect to bump, again a 'footy act' which is fine to do,  and hit the opponent in the head you will be suspended. EVEN IF HITTING THE OPPONENT WAS NOT YOUR INTENTION. 

How is electing to jump and smother, a 'footy act' which is also fine to do, and then choosing to bump and flushing a player in the head accidentally any different to electing to bump fairly but accidentally hitting the opponent in the head? 

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by binman

Look I get the whole spoil thing but he turned his body and collected him, also didn't spoil the ball. 

anyway lets face it we all know he'll get off. 

 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

 

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.

 

Well explained Red.

If Maynard gets off, the system is even more corrupt ( or just plain silly) than I imagined .

Tracc’s new interview on the MFC app sure does make it sound like this is more than a 12 day break for Gus.

I can’t believe the media narrative around this incident. Angus is the son in law of a former player who committed suicide from CTE. If this isn’t the case that makes people stop and think then I give up.

I’ve never seen this incident happen before. There isn’t another comparable ‘smothering attempt that caused concussion’ from the last 20 years of football, or anything even remotely close to this - that’s over 3800 games of football. I don’t wonder why that is. I know why. It’s because it was incredibly dangerous. Players legitimately trying to smother the ball jump as high as they can, meaning their trajectory is straight up. There’s 30 examples of that a game.

5 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Tracc’s new interview on the MFC app sure does make it sound like this is more than a 12 day break for Gus.

I can’t believe the media narrative around this incident. Angus is the son in law of a former player who committed suicide from CTE. If this isn’t the case that makes people stop and think then I give up.

I’ve never seen this incident happen before. There isn’t another comparable ‘smothering attempt that caused concussion’ from the last 20 years of football, or anything even remotely close to this - that’s over 3800 games of football. I don’t wonder why that is. I know why. It’s because it was incredibly dangerous. Players legitimately trying to smother the ball jump as high as they can, meaning their trajectory is straight up. There’s 30 examples of that a game.

Absolutely. The response of the old men in the commentariat is so disgusting.

Tracc's comments also here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-10/afl-finals-angus-brayshaw-update-as-demons-prepare-for-blues/102837384

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by sue

15 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

 

That, and the behind the goals vision show this really clearly for what it is. 

Maynard was trying to physically impose himself on the game. To set an example. He stuffed it up terribly, and in my opinion if he gets less than 4 weeks he should consider himself very lucky.

If Sam Collins did that to Pendlebury he’d get 6-8 weeks.

If Steve May collected Nick Daicos in that fashion the media would have him hung, drawn and quartered.

 

I just don’t get the ‘love-fest’ for this bloke. 
It’s almost like he’s developed this persona of being the tough but fair player that regularly gets away questionable acts of white line fever in games that he’s now somehow earns a friggin prize for it. 

It’s nauseating. 

10 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Tracc’s new interview on the MFC app sure does make it sound like this is more than a 12 day break for Gus.

apart from the bit where he literally says he has entered the 12 day protocol and as long as he gets thru that trac expects gus to play against the bears...

i lean to the school of thought that he'll get 3 weeks which will then be overturned on appeal

 

22 hours ago, Billy said:

I can’t believe some poster carrying on saying it was a football act blah blah blah

Brayshaw was in the motion of kicking the ball ‘a real football act’ and that thug ran at him like an missile with no hesitation of the consequences 

Gus with his history of concussion may not play again, we don’t know

The Collingwood fans didn’t care about Gus, they started that moronic chant and started booing Viney for sticking up for his mate

Maynard will probably get off by trial by media which is disgusting in itself but hey Van Rooyen has already got a week.

I've watched footed the JVR elbow and from some angles it looks like the pies player threw his head back. I'm not convinced it's a week and wonder if we should contest it

 

5 minutes ago, McQueen said:

If Steve May collected Nick Daicos in that fashion the media would have him hung, drawn and quartered.

 

I just don’t get the ‘love-fest’ for this bloke. 
It’s almost like he’s developed this persona of being the tough but fair player that regularly gets away questionable acts of white line fever in games that he’s now somehow earns a friggin prize for it. 

It’s nauseating. 

im actually stunned at the 'nothing in it' comments after so many get suspended for far less. Do we want ot protect the head or not ? I'm lost for words. He braced himself for front on contact and knocked him out.

21 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Oh boy. Another ‘you’ve never played the game therefore you don’t know [censored] about it’ post.

👋

sounds like Kane Kornes What a tossser

 

2 minutes ago, Kent said:

sounds like Kane Kornes What a tossser

 

May have been a decent player but as a " journo" he's a complete [censored].

 

25 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

apart from the bit where he literally says he has entered the 12 day protocol and as long as he gets thru that trac expects gus to play against the bears...

i lean to the school of thought that he'll get 3 weeks which will then be overturned on appeal

 

Appeal on what grounds? 

4 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Appeal on what grounds? 

They'll find the grounds if need be.  Just wheel in a lawyer to find some obscure legalistic point. They've done it before.  But maybe, just maybe, this time the AFL will stomp on that for the good of the game. Surely sonmeone at AFL house can see through the [censored] coming from those commentators.

Edited September 10, 20231 yr by sue

7 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Appeal on what grounds? 

democracy manifest

18 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. 

Think of it this way. When a players goes to spoil a mark, is late, hit the head and causes a concussion… what happens? He gets 2 weeks from the MRO ala Jack Martin.
 

The spoil is a footy action as is the smother as is a tackle. The onus is on the opposing player to execute the footy action as safely as possible and you take full responsibility when it causes a concussion. 

In retrospect Maynard should have dived at his feet, jumped vertically or even jumped forward in a way that he lands 1m to the left or right of him. All of these were in his control and yet he decides to jump right at him. It’s no different to a bump IMO. And given the significance of the injury , the game and the time at which it happened in the  game, I’d be pushing at least 6 weeks if I was the AFL. 

Spoke with a couple of random Collingwood supporters this morning who recited the 'it was a football act' and 'if you've ever played a contact sport you'd know it was ok'.

Funnily enough, I played the game in my youth and when questioned, neither if them had! Ha!

As an aside, does anyone from MFC attend the tribunal? Maybe our club doctor or someone from the FD? The hearing needs balance 

6 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

As an aside, does anyone from MFC attend the tribunal? Maybe our club doctor or someone from the FD? The hearing needs balance 

Its the AFL vs Collingwood legal team, the AFL would gather information from our medical team

48 minutes ago, sue said:

Absolutely. The response of the old men in the commentariat is so disgusting.

Tracc's comments also here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-10/afl-finals-angus-brayshaw-update-as-demons-prepare-for-blues/102837384

The various quotes from Trac “footy is just one thing… brain for life..” doesn’t sound like the right things you want to hear regarding Gus’s immediate football career.

I wouldn’t doubt that his family and loved ones are not telling him to give it up. If he was my son, 100% I would be having the discussion. We know he considered giving up earlier on and the severity of this knock may have just pushed him over the line.

If the fact that this is being considered  is to be the case, it has to be submitted to the hearing to set the tone on the significance of the impact on the player and the club. It is such a profound incident and I cannot believe how the footy world and media are not rallying behind him. It’s outright disgusting. 

The act of smothering shouldn’t allow you to knock someone out by jumping into the player with the ball. Why should you be free to KO players like that and get off scott free? 

If that kind of behaviour is allowed then I hope someone jumps into Crippa on Friday while smothering! 

15 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

democracy manifest

You’ve got me craving a succulent Chinese meal now. 

If he retires because of this i want a high draft pick in return. [censored] maynard

15 hours 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…..

 

"Every single one of them". Motive