when is the tribunal sitting on maynard?

Since when does it matter if his was a footy action?

Tackling is a footy action, and tackles that result in concussion lead to suspensions.

Why are the rules suddenly different? Because it's a big name player from a big club?

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

when is the tribunal sitting on maynard?

Hopefully next week Tuesday. Show Maynard the same respect they showed Bedford and say "sorry we can't find anyone to attend the hearing you have to wait".

But no, fat chance that happens when a Collingwood player is involved!

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by Jaded No More

54 minutes ago, OhMyDees said:

Maynard is very lucky he hasn’t been charged with intentional, severe impact and high contact.

I believe that he intended the bump given the amount of time it took him to reach Gus. 

His first action may have been to spoil but he then chose to bump. That constitutes intent in my books. 

Graded that way he’d be on minimum 4 weeks.

 

That is my reading of it as well I would also mention that he did not smother the ball.  You could also look at the JVR rub out to attempting to punch the ball..

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Not sure if this has been posted earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/sep/11/concussion-an-issue-afl-cant-afford-to-smother

An interesting bit of that article is Horne suggesting Kornes was talking about kane with his never played bulltish.

Not that it matters, but I thought kane played for meb uni and was instrumental in getting their women's team up and running.

to be honest i reckon playing at the AFL level should just about disqualify anyone talking about it becuase so many ex footballers are so biased and see everything thru the lens of the player, and how they played in their prime.

And again i'd point out many such commentators will almost certainly suffer from CTE, if they are no already, i wonder how much denial plays a part

 

15 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Since when does it matter if his was a footy action?

Tackling is a footy action, and tackles that result in concussion lead to suspensions.

Why are the rules suddenly different? Because it's a big name player from a big club?

Over 30 players have been suspended this season because of wayward tackles ... a couple for 3 matches (?)

And the hit on Brayshaw all things considered with all the criteria involved is far worse than any of the wayward tackles

And in most cases, the player being tackled got straight up with no ill-effects

Of course, Gus on the other hand is waylaid at home suffering the ill effects of a king hit and as well as that, contemplating his future in the sport

And the comments from those wanting Maynard to get off in most cases fail to mention the plight of Gus.  Or as an afterthought in a token sort of way

As previously stated, there is a strong element of bloodlust running through this whole incident

The "What are they turning the sport into" rednecks

10 minutes ago, binman said:

An interesting bit of that article is Horne suggesting Kornes was talking about kane with his never played bulltish.

Not that it matters, but I thought kane played for meb uni and was instrumental in getting their women's team up and running.

to be honest i reckon playing at the AFL level should just about disqualify anyone talking about it becuase so many ex footballers are so biased and see everything thru the lens of the player, and how they played in their prime.

And again i'd point out many such commentators will almost certainly suffer from CTE, if they are no already, i wonder how much denial plays a part

 

@binmanintuitively it makes sense that there is a response from people who invested every thing to become an afl player. You live your playing life in a bubble and no one else ‘quite gets it’ no one else understands the ‘rigours’ and what they had to put their body through. Because they were institutionalised by their peers, coaches, club stalwarts and the media, that glory comes through physicality and pain.

and if you don’t quite get it, how can you understand the lived experience of what it takes, and the acceptance of brutality and that collisions are ‘part of the sport’ that made ‘me’ who I am?

it’s an affront to the identity of those players who are less self reflective and less evolved that culturally we have shifted as a society. 

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by Engorged Onion

3 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

We are all passionate Dees supporters here so we all feel really sorry about the consequences for Gus.

Because I recognise and share that passion, I take no umbrage at the cheap shots levelled at me after I announced I was leaving this thread.

Anyone with a modicum of legal training will see how this is will play out.

If the Tribunal makes a Rules-based decision based on the real time (not slow-motion) footage, player Maynard will be exonerated.

If the Tribunal makes a political decision (entirely possible), Player Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal. 

You don’t believe Maynard could have landed with his hands out instead of shoulder?

2 hours ago, Demon17 said:

I have a modicum of legal training and I admire your tenacity and am annoyed at criticisms directed at you,  but I disagree when you look into the AFL process and analysis.

So I guess its the old 2 lawyers and 2 opinions scenario. 

Thanks, mate. In fairness to our fellow posters, very few can appreciate the legal thought process, which you and I have to acknowledge is pretty strange and goes against human nature. 

Two lawyers arguing. Who would have thought?  :)

If my legal analysis proves wrong, I will be apologising to the 99.99%. If I am proved right, I do not ask for any of the 99.99%  to acknowledge the fact. Let's all move on. There will be a Tribunal hearing (and perhaps an Appeal) and nothing we can do or say can influence the outcome.

Much deeper issue than Player Maynard is how the AFL deals with contact sport verses concussion reality. I am at a loss to come up with any Rule changes that could make a difference. We have seen players concussed by tripping over their own feet.

If we agree we can't stop it, the AFL could perhaps come up with a financial compensation system that assists past and future players who have suffered or who will (inevitably) suffer in the future. 

My eldest grandson runs out every season for his local club. Am I worried he may suffer concussion? Yes.

Am I going to try to stop him playing the sport he loves? No.   

 

9 minutes ago, binman said:

An interesting bit of that article is Horne suggesting Kornes was talking about kane with his never played bulltish.

Not that it matters, but I thought kane played for meb uni and was instrumental in getting their women's team up and running.

to be honest i reckon playing at the AFL level should just about disqualify anyone talking about it becuase so many ex footballers are so biased and see everything thru the lens of the player, and how they played in their prime.

And again i'd point out many such commentators will almost certainly suffer from CTE, if they are no already, i wonder how much denial plays a part

 

A good article ruined at the end with this  “I’m not suggesting Brayden Maynard should be suspended. I think this is as line-ball as footy incidents get in 2023” 

I don’t think Maynard intended the concequences of his action… but it’s still indefensible. A dumb and dangerous thing to do as was JVR’s .  This just  ISNT a line ball situation. In fact if he isn’t suspended for this then “the line” been dragged back into the dark ages. And it’s invitation to do more of it. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see them stoop so low as to claim the 'severity' is due to Gus' prior concussions rather than the bump.

16 hours ago, Macca said:

The rules will not have to be rewritten at all, more so the rules need to be adhered to

When smothering (or even when fake-smothering with regards to Maynard's actions) it's incumbent on the player to avoid contact with the players head ... especially when the player is open and unprotected

And the player smothering can't at the same time be making a beeline missile-like at a players head

Barrett is clueless and part of the boys club narrative. And their ancient code

 

The rules are very poorly written. Particularly this rule, I think 22. Needs a re-write.

2 hours ago, KLV said:

This really pxxxxx me off too, is the fact that we all know about Maynard's visit to Gus. He or one of his tribe told the media! 

He wanted to make sure it was known. What a fake.

If the Brayshaws let him in the front gate they are bigger people than me.

They must have recognised him coming down the path, otherwise with the Collingwood jumper and that head they would have assumed it was a burglar.

2 hours ago, Monbon said:

Every time you post, my contempt for 'Lawyers' grows.

I don't have any more growth available when it comes to utter contempt for lawyers. I hit max contempt 25 years ago.

Just now, Bystander said:

If the Brayshaws let him in the front gate they are bigger people than me.

They must have recognised him coming down the path, otherwise with the Collingwood jumper and that head they would have assumed it was a burglar.

Most likely he went to Angus' place.

No way Angus' mum would entertain that kind of person inside her home.

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see them stoop so low as to claim the 'severity' is due to Gus' prior concussions rather than the bump.

That opens a can of worms. The end consequence of this argument is that no players with past concussions will be allowed to take the field. That way the impact can be graded equally across the competition. As this isn't currently the case, impact has to be graded based on the impact to the player who was deemed fit by the AFL to play.

1 minute ago, In Harmes Way said:

That opens a can of worms. The end consequence of this argument is that no players with past concussions will be allowed to take the field. That way the impact can be graded equally across the competition. As this isn't currently the case, impact has to be graded based on the impact to the player who was deemed fit by the AFL to play.

I agree.  But this is Collingwood!!  I'd put nothing past them to cast doubt.

And I'm not sure that anything is graded equally across the competition

Listen from about 3 https://x.com/whateleysen/status/1701078481105486062?s=46&t=lmezGyuTjXArfy5LHUiNRQ

spot on.

35 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Thanks, mate. In fairness to our fellow posters, very few can appreciate the legal thought process, which you and I have to acknowledge is pretty strange and goes against human nature. 

Two lawyers arguing. Who would have thought?  :)

If my legal analysis proves wrong, I will be apologising to the 99.99%. If I am proved right, I do not ask for any of the 99.99%  to acknowledge the fact. Let's all move on. There will be a Tribunal hearing (and perhaps an Appeal) and nothing we can do or say can influence the outcome.

Much deeper issue than Player Maynard is how the AFL deals with contact sport verses concussion reality. I am at a loss to come up with any Rule changes that could make a difference. We have seen players concussed by tripping over their own feet.

If we agree we can't stop it, the AFL could perhaps come up with a financial compensation system that assists past and future players who have suffered or who will (inevitably) suffer in the future. 

My eldest grandson runs out every season for his local club. Am I worried he may suffer concussion? Yes.

Am I going to try to stop him playing the sport he loves? No.   

 

How about

Whoever instigates head high contact gets penalised (suspended); therefore takes responsibility for the action and consquence. This includes duckers, leading with the head, bumps, spoils, tables and tripping over ones feet!

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for Maynard if it only came out in the off season that he called gus to check if it was ok he came round to visit and apologize had gone and visited Gus. 

You know, keep it between the players, no need to big up myself for being a decent person who checks on the welfare of a fella i knocked out cold, no need to broadcast my decency to the world. 

But no, he visits in what appears unseemly haste like he is family or a teammate and the Pies make sure everyone knows about it. 

I mean seriously does anyone really believe that wasn't stage managed? 

And a bottle of wine?

For a fella probably in a dark room avoiding all light with a raging headache. And he brings a bottle of wine?

FMD.

The only journo worth listening to is one of the most experienced - Mark Duffield in WA. He says Maynard "plays like a human cannonball":

 

 

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by dice

1 minute ago, binman said:

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for Maynard if it only came out in the off season that he called gus to check if it was ok he came round to visit and apologize had gone and visited Gus. 

You know, keep it between the players, no need to big up myself for being a decent person who checks on the welfare of a fella i knocked out cold, no need to broadcast my decency to the world. 

But no, he visits in what appears unseemly haste like he is family or a teammate and the Pies make sure everyone knows about it. 

I mean seriously does anyone really believe that wasn't stage managed? 

And a bottle of wine?

For a fella probably in a dark room avoiding all light with a raging headache. And he brings a bottle of wine?

FMD.

It's close to insanity even thinking about doing that. 

FMD indeed.

46 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Thanks, mate. In fairness to our fellow posters, very few can appreciate the legal thought process, which you and I have to acknowledge is pretty strange and goes against human nature. 

Two lawyers arguing. Who would have thought?  :)

If my legal analysis proves wrong, I will be apologising to the 99.99%. If I am proved right, I do not ask for any of the 99.99%  to acknowledge the fact. Let's all move on. There will be a Tribunal hearing (and perhaps an Appeal) and nothing we can do or say can influence the outcome.

Much deeper issue than Player Maynard is how the AFL deals with contact sport verses concussion reality. I am at a loss to come up with any Rule changes that could make a difference. We have seen players concussed by tripping over their own feet.

If we agree we can't stop it, the AFL could perhaps come up with a financial compensation system that assists past and future players who have suffered or who will (inevitably) suffer in the future. 

My eldest grandson runs out every season for his local club. Am I worried he may suffer concussion? Yes.

Am I going to try to stop him playing the sport he loves? No.   

 

Did you specialize in Jesuistry?

12 minutes ago, dice said:

The only journo worth listening to is one of the most experienced - Mark Duffield in WA. He says Maynard "plays like a human cannonball":

 

 

How does he think Viney plays?

4 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Did you specialize in Jesuistry?

Shakespeare: 

"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers".

If my legal analysis proves wrong, mate, you will receive my apology on here.

The Jesuits were about the ends justifying the means, I think. This is a far cry from Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.