Maynard must get at least four weeks

[dice 659]

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

after cripps got off last year at the appeals stage the afl stated it was unhappy with the reasoning and iirc said that they would tighten up the processes to avoid a repeat of "legal mumbo jumbo" loopholes.  after all the afl do set up the process parameters of the appeals board.

did that ever happen?

No doubt will soon find out....

[Dees_In_October 3,346]

Just going to rant here for a second. Got to get it off my chest somewhere and this is it.

One thing I keep coming back to is how often do you see a player leave the ground to smother in this fashion (vertically, with significant momentum behind them)? Rarely. Why is that the case? It's not from lack of ability, fear of physicality, psychological weakness or any such thing, as we know professional players have those covered. It's because it's a low percentage play. There's a high likelihood of infringement (head high contact). There's a strong possibility of injury to self and/or opposition. Balance those against the reward, the small possibility of a smother executed legally, and there's a clear reason why player don't do this often, why it's not a "football act" you see hundreds of times a game.

Personally, I believe that once you choose to leave the ground, you know that split-second decisions in mid-air are likely and that you have less control over your body. There are football situations where this happens repeatedly and players choose to do so because it's a percentage play to win the ball, e.g. in a marking contest. In these situations that happen hundreds of times a game, players are on roughly equal footing in terms of spatial awareness of the players around them. More importantly, all players are expecting contact. They (should) expect that someone might come in from the side or from behind, etc. In those situations, there's a chance of a spoil going awry, a knee from the back or someone landing badly on top of you, with terrible consequences. There's typically no responsibility assigned to individual players so long as they act in a reasonable and expected way in the situation and within the rules.

In this instance, the two players weren't on equal footing, so in my view, one had a duty of care to the other, in the same way that the tackling player has duty of care. Angus had his eyes forward and on the ball, with some awareness of a player coming at him. The reason he was so "open" to the contact, though, was that no player would reasonably expect that they'd be taken out high and with such force by a smothering player in this situation. Maynard's focus was on Angus. He knew exactly where he was because his focus was to smother the ball. I personally don't think he was intending to take Angus out, just that his actions were reckless in making that a likely outcome. This is not an approach to the ball carrier that we should want to see in our game.

You'd think it would be hard to top the sickening nature of what unfolded, yet somehow the media response and that of some Collingwood fans has done so. I'll get no satisfaction from a suspension. Thinking of Angus and his family, teammates and all fans affected by witnessing this and the aftermath.

[rollinson 65 181]

Just now, rollinson 65 said:

 

Not nearly enough on this forum, mate.

I will keep explaining the legal reality to you people until I am proved wrong or until you all admit that passionate support for our Dees has carried you away.

The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive.  :)

 

[monoccular 17,194]

3 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

I have been consistently saying how bad Barrett is. He idolises Geelong and he hates Melbourne; he is also an all-round [censored].

I am speculating just which of dozens of apt descriptions of Barrett is the word that was censored. 🤔

3 hours ago, biggestred said:

absolutely cannot believe michael christian was going to let it go. unbelieveable. needs to be sacked on the spot.

If he is not it would suggest that suggestions of deep corruption in the AFL may not be far off the mark.  Do it Gil - make one last positive contribution.

2 hours 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.   

 

And nobody is suggesting that anyone is suspended when they trip over their feet - but there are rules against brutal assault and if they are not enforced, the  game is stuffed

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

not sure if this is still up to date

 

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where it constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other Player, Umpire or other person. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

 

 

That would mean 4+ minimal, even if "just" deemed careless.

1 hour ago, Monbon said:

Must have been: that's OBVIOUSLY why he ran into and assaulted Maynard.

Next they will be saying that Angus head butted poor Maynard.

[speed demon 800]

In 2017, cardiothoracic surgeon Patrick Pritzwald-Stegmann was punched in the head by a patient at Boxhill Hospital. A month later he died of his injuries, leaving behind a wife and two young children as well as all the people that could have benefitted from his knowledge and skills over the remainder of his career. 

Violence towards healthcare workers was already on the increase but the response had been inadequate. Following the enormous publicity around Patrick’s death (as opposed to the non-existent publicity about daily episodes of violence with less extreme outcomes) the Victorian government invested an extra $20 million in security for public hospitals and initiated the “violence against health workers is never OK” (depressing that some people need to be informed of this message). Of course, the problem still persists. However, these changes had an immediate and lasting beneficial impact.

Although, thankfully, the two cases are not on the same scale, there are parallels here to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. This is perhaps the highest stakes concussion in AFL history. In the early stages of a final between Victoria’s best teams watched live by over 800,000 people, a reputed enforced cannonballs into the head of a helmeted player with a history of concussion. A player whose fiancé’s father died affected by CTE. A generous interpretation is this was an attempted smother performed carelessly. An alternative view is this was an intended hit masquerading as a smother. The outcome of the final was influenced, a player’s season is likely over, his career possibly ended prematurely and his long-term well-being jeopardised.

The AFL, in the middle of a billion-dollar class action for compensation for the impact of concussion, is in a fierce spotlight. Lawyers watch with interest. Parents wonder about their children playing AFL if actions such as Maynard’s leading to outcomes such as Brayshaw’s are not disincentivised; “maybe soccer instead? Weren’t the Matilda’s great!” 

Will the AFL shrink away or take a stand? The recent appointment of Laura Kane, footballer, lawyer and advocate, as executive general manager of football is opportune. Like Patrick’s death, the Brayshaw/Maynard incident will be an inflection point in institutional responses to occupational violence. The tribunal’s finding – and the AFL’s response – will shape the conception of “duty of care” in football in Australia.  

[drysdale demon 4,627]

6 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Not nearly enough on this forum, mate.

I will keep explaining the legal reality to you people until I am proved wrong or until you all admit that passionate support for our Dees has carried you away.

The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive.  :)

 

What a joke, all their tricycles are broken.

[binman 41,558]

8 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Not nearly enough on this forum, mate.

I will keep explaining the legal reality to you people until I am proved wrong or until you all admit that passionate support for our Dees has carried you away.

The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive.  :)

 

Are you ok?

[rollinson 65 181]

3 minutes ago, Dees_In_October said:

Just going to rant here for a second. Got to get it off my chest somewhere and this is it.

One thing I keep coming back to is how often do you see a player leave the ground to smother in this fashion (vertically, with significant momentum behind them)? Rarely. Why is that the case? It's not from lack of ability, fear of physicality, psychological weakness or any such thing, as we know professional players have those covered. It's because it's a low percentage play. There's a high likelihood of infringement (head high contact). There's a strong possibility of injury to self and/or opposition. Balance those against the reward, the small possibility of a smother executed legally, and there's a clear reason why player don't do this often, why it's not a "football act" you see hundreds of times a game.

Personally, I believe that once you choose to leave the ground, you know that split-second decisions in mid-air are likely and that you have less control over your body. There are football situations where this happens repeatedly and players choose to do so because it's a percentage play to win the ball, e.g. in a marking contest. In these situations that happen hundreds of times a game, players are on roughly equal footing in terms of spatial awareness of the players around them. More importantly, all players are expecting contact. They (should) expect that someone might come in from the side or from behind, etc. In those situations, there's a chance of a spoil going awry, a knee from the back or someone landing badly on top of you, with terrible consequences. There's typically no responsibility assigned to individual players so long as they act in a reasonable and expected way in the situation and within the rules.

In this instance, the two players weren't on equal footing, so in my view, one had a duty of care to the other, in the same way that the tackling player has duty of care. Angus had his eyes forward and on the ball, with some awareness of a player coming at him. The reason he was so "open" to the contact, though, was that no player would reasonably expect that they'd be taken out high and with such force by a smothering player in this situation. Maynard's focus was on Angus. He knew exactly where he was because his focus was to smother the ball. I personally don't think he was intending to take Angus out, just that his actions were reckless in making that a likely outcome. This is not an approach to the ball carrier that we should want to see in our game.

You'd think it would be hard to top the sickening nature of what unfolded, yet somehow the media response and that of some Collingwood fans has done so. I'll get no satisfaction from a suspension. Thinking of Angus and his family, teammates and all fans affected by witnessing this and the aftermath.

Great post if I may say so as the sole remaining Member of the Opposition.

Forgetting Player Maynard, it is all about where we can go from here. Contact sport versus concussion reality.

[daisycutter 29,090]

11 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Not nearly enough on this forum, mate.

I will keep explaining the legal reality to you people until I am proved wrong or until you all admit that passionate support for our Dees has carried you away.

The next poster who says that I am not sad for the consequences for Gus will get a visit from the Benalla bikies, who can be persuasive.  :)

 

but you haven't given any legal reasoning except to say it will be "rules based" which says nothing in itself.

if i follow the afl rules as i understand them he gets 3 weeks.

no need to get all smug when you haven't really contributed anything

[jnrmac 19,862]

You can't get away from the fact he ran at full pace and jumped at Gus's body and then shouldered him in the head.

The behind the goals footage shows he was nowhere near the ball nor was he going for the ball. In fact you can see him run straight at Gus

It is malicious, dangerous and reckless. So much so it hasn't happened in the last 20 years that I am aware of (except for maybe the Cripps incident which we all know was a joke because he was Brownlow favourite)

[Demon17 4,972]

30 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

I have lost faith in humanity.

Now the rabid Collingwood mob is blaming our doctors for letting a player wearing a helmet play. They are suggesting he got concussed in a previous play. 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

This is [censored]. Just watched the free kick play

The high contact with Angus is at the 1 minute mark into the game. Pies forward pocket.

Brayshaw bounces up and does a clever handball over the mark sideways and jogs on.

This is scurrilous by Collingwood and fans to plant this story. Tribunal will laugh it out. As Caro has.

Further evidence of bankrupt arguments.

 

[YearOfTheDees 3,223]

9 minutes ago, binman said:

Are you ok?

Shhh he's arguing with himself there. Let him be.

[Demon17 4,972]

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

a lot of commentators have said she overrode christian and that christian was not even going to make any charge.

i can see that this could be deduced but there are other possible explanations too

afaik no one at the afl (including christian) has actually made any statement on these claims. 

Yes the over riding issue is just conjecture. The press release is fascinating though.

[Brownie 5,801]

2 hours 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.

Such a great point.I thought exactly the same thing. A bottle of red wine really?

Just a big stunt. Such a genuine guy hey.

He deliberately chose to drive his shoulder into Gus's head.

I can only wonder what Danielle wanted to do with that bottle of wine when he showed up on their doorway.

[rollinson 65 181]

10 minutes ago, speed demon said:

 

In 2017, cardiothoracic surgeon Patrick Pritzwald-Stegmann was punched in the head by a patient at Boxhill Hospital. A month later he died of his injuries, leaving behind a wife and two young children as well as all the people that could have benefitted from his knowledge and skills over the remainder of his career. 

Violence towards healthcare workers was already on the increase but the response had been inadequate. Following the enormous publicity around Patrick’s death (as opposed to the non-existent publicity about daily episodes of violence with less extreme outcomes) the Victorian government invested an extra $20 million in security for public hospitals and initiated the “violence against health workers is never OK” (depressing that some people need to be informed of this message). Of course, the problem still persists. However, these changes had an immediate and lasting beneficial impact.

Although, thankfully, the two cases are not on the same scale, there are parallels here to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. This is perhaps the highest stakes concussion in AFL history. In the early stages of a final between Victoria’s best teams watched live by over 800,000 people, a reputed enforced cannonballs into the head of a helmeted player with a history of concussion. A player whose fiancé’s father died affected by CTE. A generous interpretation is this was an attempted smother performed carelessly. An alternative view is this was an intended hit masquerading as a smother. The outcome of the final was influenced, a player’s season is likely over, his career possibly ended prematurely and his long-term well-being jeopardised.

The AFL, in the middle of a billion-dollar class action for compensation for the impact of concussion, is in a fierce spotlight. Lawyers watch with interest. Parents wonder about their children playing AFL if actions such as Maynard’s leading to outcomes such as Brayshaw’s are not disincentivised; “maybe soccer instead? Weren’t the Matilda’s great!” 

Will the AFL shrink away or take a stand? The recent appointment of Laura Kane, footballer, lawyer and advocate, as executive general manager of football is opportune. Like Patrick’s death, the Brayshaw/Maynard incident will be an inflection point in institutional responses to occupational violence. The tribunal’s finding – and the AFL’s response – will shape the conception of “duty of care” in football in Australia.  

Another great post, if I may so so.

These are starting to appear on the Pies fan sites as well. Let's all talk about how we can move forward. All I have heard on this board so far is a new consequences-based Rule, which goes against ingrained notions of reason, justice and fairness. Together, we may come up with some solution. Kane has inherited a really difficult problem and I wish her well. If she comes up with a solution that pleases nobody, she will have done well IMO.

 

[YearOfTheDees 3,223]

So it's on at 4pm Tuesday. 

[dice 659]

4 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

So it's on at 4pm Tuesday. 

3 weeks. Straight to Appeals Board, where the lawyers hopefully re-enact the incident in person

Edited September 11, 2023 by dice

[layzie 32,383]

56 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

All this stuff about "what could he do?" as if he had no choice once committed to the jump. He had an opportunity and time not to turn his shoulder.

An Olympic diver can change from a pike to a somersault in mid-air and control their fall to enter the water head and arms first, all in fractions of a second.

 

If someone like me who initially thought there was nothing else he could do can now see it differently then surely these media figures can do likewise and not double down just because they don't want to lose face. 

I can forgive a lot of people for thinking this was just a smothering action at first. The bump element hadn't even entered my mind, duty of care starts on the ground. He lept, lost control, it went horribly wrong and there is a penalty. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by layzie

[daisycutter 29,090]

5 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Another great post, if I may so so.

These are starting to appear on the Pies fan sites as well. Let's all talk about how we can move forward. All I have heard on this board so far is a new consequences-based Rule, which goes against ingrained notions of reason, justice and fairness. Together, we may come up with some solution. Kane has inherited a really difficult problem and I wish her well. If she comes up with a solution that pleases nobody, she will have done well IMO.

 

yeah sure. like attempted murder vs actual murder which attracts a higher penalty (consequences)

the sticking issue here is not the impact grading but the accidental vs careless grading

but i'm sure a kc or two will be able to twist that around with legalese.

but i do agree the afl need to tidy their act up a lot with better processes

[sue 8,972]

33 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

OMG straight out of the Trump playbook.

The Appeal (if it even proves necessary) will be independent and Rules-based.

If you don't believe in the Courts as the third arm of government in this Country, God help us all. 

Funnily enough I do believe in the courts (I'll leave God out of it) and I think you thoroughly misunderstand Trump's playbook.    Your arguments smell of sophistry and you wonder why Dick the Butcher formed his opinion of lawyers.

There is a lot of hypocrisy spoken about rules based order in international politics. Who writes the rules and who ignores them when they don't suit - everyone.  Let's not have more of it here.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,962]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yeah sure. like attempted murder vs actual murder which attracts a higher penalty (consequences)

the sticking issue here is not the impact grading but the accidental vs careless grading

but i'm sure a kc or two will be able to twist that around with legalese.

but i do agree the afl need to tidy their act up a lot with better processes

How long has there been a call for that dc ?

The AFL is a [censored] show given it is a squllion dollar industry!

[sue 8,972]

14 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Another great post, if I may so so.

These are starting to appear on the Pies fan sites as well. Let's all talk about how we can move forward. All I have heard on this board so far is a new consequences-based Rule, which goes against ingrained notions of reason, justice and fairness. Together, we may come up with some solution. Kane has inherited a really difficult problem and I wish her well. If she comes up with a solution that pleases nobody, she will have done well IMO.

 

Sadly consequences do affect the outcome of trials.  Punch someone in the head and they land on soft grass and you are done for assault. If their head hits concrete and they die you can be up for manslaughter.  Are you saying you want to change the rules based order for general criminal acts as well as those committed on the field of play?

[rollinson 65 181]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but you haven't given any legal reasoning except to say it will be "rules based" which says nothing in itself.

if i follow the afl rules as i understand them he gets 3 weeks.

no need to get all smug when you haven't really contributed anything

Sorry not to be clear, Dais. In previous posts, I tried to say the lawyers (Tribunal or on Appeal) will be looking at the real-time footage. Fractions of seconds. To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions on that real-time footage is IMO impossible.

On previous threads, I have tried to explain a little about how lawyers think. I apologise if this came across as smug. It was not my intention. 

If a poster who is an expert bricklayer or accountant gives an opinion on here on matters of expertise, I would not question it. But it seems us lawyers are fair game. Also, another lawyer on here has questioned my analysis, so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

Player Maynard will get off IMO at the Tribunal or on Appeal. Have a close look at the Toby Bedford case. There are parallels in the legal reasoning. 

  

[rollinson 65 181]

15 minutes ago, dice said:

3 weeks. Straight to Appeals Board, where the lawyers hopefully re-enact the incident in person

Entirely possible, Dice.  :)

[OhMyDees 1,812]

Do what Maynard did off the footy field and you’d be in jail.

Edited September 11, 2023 by OhMyDees