there's only two options really, one of which has a further two options to it

1. not guilty at the tribunal
2. guilty at the tribunal
   • appeal loses
   • appeal wins

i'm in the 2b camp

45 minutes ago, kev martin said:

I think it will move when the first litigation for the CTE (Chronic traumatic encephalopathy) cost the insurance companies money, and the premiums sky rocket across all levels, then change will occur.

I agree Kev. I think the AFL is fully aware of how exposed it is to litigation in regards to CTE. It’s no coincidence the new head of football is a former lawyer.

35 minutes ago, dice said:

Why is Barrett on nickname terms with Maynard anyway?

 

 

Barretts view make no sense (unsurprising) as I thought the reason it was referred to the tribunal is to protect the AFL from the emerging exposure to class action claims about concussions. The MRO cannot clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so by way of an investigation. Hence the Tribunal process should be a form of “independence” which affords protection to the players and the AFL.

In addition, there is also the risk of Insurers requiring compliance with any policy covering player injury claims ensuring insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in the future and the AFL need to demonstrate they have adequate systems and procedures in place to protect the welfare of players.

I know there has been a lot of emotion on this and at the end of the day all we want is for Gus to be ok.  As someone who previously worked in the insurance space my sense is that Collingwood will argue this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed and that the action to jump to smother was something a reasonable player would do.  I hope the fact that Maynard acted in a "reckless" manner will also be taken into consideration.

 

 

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by Jibroni

4 hours ago, mauriesy said:

Pickett attempts a smother towards the end of the 2nd quarter. Notice how he aims to miss Hoskin-Elliott, rather than charging straight at him.

Nice Pickett. 😄

 

 

It will be interesting if Maynard escapes sanction on appeal and we make the grand final and play Collingwood whether we will employ the spoil bump to inflict maximum damage on their best players.

6 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

 

Barretts view make no sense (unsurprising) as I thought the reason it was referred to the tribunal is to protect the AFL from the emerging exposure to class action claims about concussions. The MRO cannot clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so by way of an investigation. Hence the Tribunal process should be a form of “independence” which affords protection to the players and the AFL.

In addition, there is also the risk of Insurers requiring compliance with any policy covering player injury claims ensuring insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in the future and the AFL need to demonstrate they have adequate systems and procedures in place to protect the welfare of players.

I know there has been a lot of emotion on this and at the end of the day all we want is for Gus to be ok.  As someone who previously worked in the insurance space my sense is that Collingwood will argue this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed and that the action to jump to smother was something a reasonable player would do.  I hope the fact that Maynard acted in a "reckless" manner will also be taken into consideration.

 

 

I've had enough of these people in the media who think they know what they're talking about.

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

I've had enough of these people in the media who think they know what they're talking about.

Its been that way for too long Layzie, hence why I don't listen to them.

43 minutes ago, dice said:

Why is Barrett on nickname terms with Maynard anyway?

 

is there a bigger [censored] media fanboy [censored] than barrett??

Bruz??! what is he 15? pathetic

he, like the others, knows how his bread is buttered. weak [censored]

Whatever happens and despite what we are saying to media this is a line in the sand moment. 

Instant renewal of the rivalry. We will even the ledger. if not this year than soon. 

They target our favourite son and don’t even acknowledge it? watch out Pies. 

9 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

 

Barretts view make no sense (unsurprising) as I thought the reason it was referred to the tribunal is to protect the AFL from the emerging exposure to class action claims about concussions. The MRO cannot clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so by way of an investigation. Hence the Tribunal process should be a form of “independence” which affords protection to the players and the AFL.

In addition, there is also the risk of Insurers requiring compliance with any policy covering player injury claims ensuring insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in the future and the AFL need to demonstrate they have adequate systems and procedures in place to protect the welfare of players.

I know there has been a lot of emotion on this and at the end of the day all we want is for Gus to be ok.  As someone who previously worked in the insurance space my sense is that Collingwood will argue this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed and that the action to jump to smother was something a reasonable player would do.  I hope the fact that Maynard acted in a "reckless" manner will also be taken into consideration.

 

 

Jibroni, regardless of the AFL's change in stance re concussion if the Tribunal hands down a suspension that is outside the Laws of the Game and Tribunal Guidelines then Collingwood will win on appeal which is exactly what happened in the Van Rooyen spoil case earlier this season. There is a significant difference to the Van Rooyen case in that in Maynards case the ball was not in dispute and Maynard collected Brayshaw high.

I suspect the AFL will make the case that Maynard's action to leave the ground resulted in a near certainty that Brayshaw would be injured and therefore is not reasonable and amounts to rough conduct. Unless the Tribunal can apply the existing rules any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

Whatever happens and despite what we are saying to media this is a line in the sand moment. 

Instant renewal of the rivalry. We will even the ledger. if not this year than soon. 

They target our favourite son and don’t even acknowledge it? watch out Pies. 

We better. Really need revenge, maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow but I dine on Magpie stir fry at some point. 

 

Gee the Collingwood fans on twitter are something else arent they? But I'm sure they find us annoying to.

58 minutes ago, dice said:

Why is Barrett on nickname terms with Maynard anyway?

 

Since when has intent had anything to do with consequences? It wasn't my intention to knock you out so bad luck? That is why there are terms such as "reckless", "careless" and "duty of care" that are considered well before "intent". Players get suspended for tackles gone wrong even though it wasn't their intent to knock someone out or for their head to hit the ground. Give me a spell.

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by Dr. Gonzo

3 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Gee the Collingwood fans on twitter are something else arent they? But I'm sure they find us annoying to.

They have to be some of the dumbest sub humans going around 

33 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

there's only two options really, one of which has a further two options to it

1. not guilty at the tribunal
2. guilty at the tribunal
   • appeal loses
   • appeal wins

i'm in the 2b camp

Me too and it will be a [censored] disgrace

The most braincell scorched species in all of captivity.

28 minutes ago, chookrat said:

It will be interesting if Maynard escapes sanction on appeal and we make the grand final and play Collingwood whether we will employ the spoil bump to inflict maximum damage on their best players.

If it gets to that I don't think we should bother masking it.

25 minutes ago, layzie said:

I've had enough of these people in the media who think they know what they're talking about.

They have an agenda, once they figure out the desired outcome they work backwards. The media is great at obfuscating.

5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They have an agenda, once they figure out the desired outcome they work backwards. The media is great at obfuscating.

David Ershon in The Other Guys said it best:

"I think the best way to tell the story is by starting at the end, briefly, then going back to the beginning, and then periodically returning to the end, maybe giving different characters' perspectives throughout. Just to give it a bit of dynamism, otherwise it's just sort of a linear story."

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by layzie

Maynard May have intended to smother the images l saw looked like Gus was in the act of kicking the ballbefore maynard left the ground he was quit away away from him running at full speed at him. There was no way in the world he could have stopped himself crashing into Gus. Turning his shoulder to protect himself only did more damage to Gus. Maynard’s actions were deliberate, not saying he understood the consequences but he did know what he was doing. It was irresponsible, resulting in serious damage, the afl has no choice but to suspend him otherwise they will be seen sanctioning this type of behaviour. As for Collingwood fans would they feel this was ok if this happened to a daicos and left him unable to play and possibly end his career before it starts

27 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

Maynard May have intended to smother the images l saw looked like Gus was in the act of kicking the ballbefore maynard left the ground he was quit away away from him running at full speed at him. There was no way in the world he could have stopped himself crashing into Gus. Turning his shoulder to protect himself only did more damage to Gus. Maynard’s actions were deliberate, not saying he understood the consequences but he did know what he was doing. It was irresponsible, resulting in serious damage, the afl has no choice but to suspend him otherwise they will be seen sanctioning this type of behaviour. As for Collingwood fans would they feel this was ok if this happened to a daicos and left him unable to play and possibly end his career before it starts

It kinda did happen to them when the Hawthorn player cleaned up Daicos with a front on hit

So is there a connection?  Probably not but I don't necessarily believe in councidences

However, it will be interesting to see if that front on hit (which caused damage to Daicos' knee) is referenced during or prior to the tribunal case

And the Hawthorn player who came from front on wasn't smothering as Daicos and his opponent were attempting to mark

At the time, I thought the Hawthorn should have been cited for unduly rough play.  No hit to the head but it looked to me like the ribs were targeted.  Anyway, that's how the knee injury occured

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by Macca

37 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Jibroni, regardless of the AFL's change in stance re concussion if the Tribunal hands down a suspension that is outside the Laws of the Game and Tribunal Guidelines then Collingwood will win on appeal which is exactly what happened in the Van Rooyen spoil case earlier this season. There is a significant difference to the Van Rooyen case in that in Maynards case the ball was not in dispute and Maynard collected Brayshaw high.

I suspect the AFL will make the case that Maynard's action to leave the ground resulted in a near certainty that Brayshaw would be injured and therefore is not reasonable and amounts to rough conduct. Unless the Tribunal can apply the existing rules any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

 

That appears to be the problem with the current system, specifically contact to the head. The bump and tackle have all had some consideration in terms of what the AFL wants out of the game and law changes required to do this. Whether the ball was in dispute is key and the options available to Maynard to mitigate injury to Gus and himself; I would expect an independent Tribunal to consider this.

 

 

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by Jibroni

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

Barrett "jumped to smother a kick, and that was his sole intent"

Add, knew a collision was going to happen, left his feet, braced and turned his shoulder into the head of a completely open opponent. 

Sole intent, no, went to hurt, yes.

I'll say it again, knew a collision would happen.

No duty of care taken.

What the f is barret talking about with the sole intent nonsense.

When kozzy launched at smith, his sole attempt was to lay a fair bump.

He didn't and hit him in the head accidentally.

And got two weeks.

What's the difference?

Oh, I know. Smith bounced up and played on, not hurt in the least.

And when de Goey knocked out the young Eagles plsyer with a shoulder to the head (sound familiar?), it was a 'football act' and his sole intent was to Sheppard.

But he accidentally hit the young bloke in the head.

Two weeks.

I don't understand how this scenario is any different.

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by binman

Just stupidly read some comments on facebook from Pies fans and it’s sickening. To the point where you lose faith in humanity. 

Im not sure i’ll attend another Collingwood V Melb game. 

57 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

 

Barretts view make no sense (unsurprising) as I thought the reason it was referred to the tribunal is to protect the AFL from the emerging exposure to class action claims about concussions. The MRO cannot clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so by way of an investigation. Hence the Tribunal process should be a form of “independence” which affords protection to the players and the AFL.

In addition, there is also the risk of Insurers requiring compliance with any policy covering player injury claims ensuring insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in the future and the AFL need to demonstrate they have adequate systems and procedures in place to protect the welfare of players.

I know there has been a lot of emotion on this and at the end of the day all we want is for Gus to be ok.  As someone who previously worked in the insurance space my sense is that Collingwood will argue this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed and that the action to jump to smother was something a reasonable player would do.  I hope the fact that Maynard acted in a "reckless" manner will also be taken into consideration.

 

 

Jibroni do you want Bruz in or out? 

2 things once your feet leave the ground it is a charge or virtually an illegal tackle. 

At the Tribunal there are no such clauses which can include "unfortunate" or "unlucky". If you jump into and mame injure or concuss no matter the fortune you are putting yourself in an untenable situation and should pay for the consequences of your actions. ie don't get yourself in that situation.or position. 

3/4 weeks. Is fair given the damage and fact that we lost a player for the whole game. 

 
 

Just now, 58er said:

Jibroni do you want Bruz in or out? 

2 things once your feet leave the ground it is a charge or virtually an illegal tackle. 

At the Tribunal there are no such clauses which can include "unfortunate" or "unlucky". If you jump into and mame injure or concuss no matter the fortune you are putting yourself in an untenable situation and should pay for the consequences of your actions. ie don't get yourself in that situation.or position. 

3/4 weeks. Is fair given the damage and fact that we lost a player for the whole game. 

 
 

Oh and further this action was "behind play" refer free kick.