5 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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. 

  

why are you talking of malice or intent?

that is already a non-issue as determined by the mro

it was graded as careless.  intentional is a higher classification with higher penalties

now i'm really convinced you haven't done much research at all

51 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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's going on here?

28 minutes ago, Brownie said:

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.

Well it rhymes with stunt anyway.

6 minutes ago, sue said:

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?

No, Sue.

I am trying to get us to forget about this one incident (where we can't affect the outcome) and move on to a discussion about what the AFL can do about the issue of contact sport versus concussion. As I have said previously, I can't think of any new Rule that can address this conundrum. 

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

What's going on here?

I have a few gift cards form the guys for past favours.  :)

I am feed up with the cheap shots, mate.

Make your points, people, but do not question my passion for the Dees or my sadness for Gus.

I will have the final post on this thread. (Could be an apology). 

10 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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. 

  

The difference between a lawyer’s expert advice and a bricklayer is that we all have views on issues of justice and fairness but not on mortar.  If not for non-lawyer input we’d still have the Star chamber and transport for forming a union in Dorset.

Sorry that you seem to feel lawyers can’t be challenged except by other lawyers. (I’m guessing you don’t really believe that but you come across like that)

57 minutes ago, monoccular said:

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

Nothing's off the table when it comes to filth supporters.

A couple of classics i heard on SEN when they first called in prior to turning it off...

"Gus shouldn't even be playing given his history of concussion"

"He took a step to the right which caused him to run into Maynard's shoulder.  Not maynard's fault"

"Why didn't he baulk and just go around or avoid Maynard!??"

1 hour 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. 

I only have to refer to the Pell stuff to know exactly what you mean. In other words, if this is the third arm of government  - as though the first two arms aren't ridiculous enough -God help us!!!!!

3 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I have a few gift cards form the guys for past favours.  :)

I am feed up with the cheap shots, mate.

Make your points, people, but do not question my passion for the Dees or my sadness for Gus.

I will have the final post on this thread. (Could be an apology). 

They can suspend Maynard, so that the next player who goes to smother a ball thinks twice before leaving the ground, leaping forward, turning their body and cannonballing themselves shoulder first into an opponent. 

When they started suspending players for cheap shots off the ball, guess what happened? cheap shots off the ball stopped occurring. 

Likewise sling tackles. They have told players not to sling a player 360 in a tackle motion and drive them into the ground head first. They suspend players who do, even though tackling is still 100% allowed in AFL. 

 

10 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

No, Sue.

I am trying to get us to forget about this one incident (where we can't affect the outcome) and move on to a discussion about what the AFL can do about the issue of contact sport versus concussion. As I have said previously, I can't think of any new Rule that can address this conundrum. 

A lot of us are not able to just “forget this one incident” and are very upset with the AFL media pack etc. if you want a discussion on new rules to address the issue, I suggest you start a new thread. 

This just makes me angry. Really angry. 

Tom Browne Twitter (X) comments 

“There is no suggestion Maynard jumped off the ground to knock Brayshaw out. 

He jumped off the ground to spoil. A football act”. 
 

“A lot of people are talking about Maynard turning his shoulder.

Jump up on the spot, and see how much decision time you have, when suspended in the air with your feet off the ground. Very little.

Maynard just braced at the last moment, which is reflex in the circumstances”. 
 

Tom Browne is the son of Collingwood chairman and president Jeff Browne. 

Surely he needs to declare a direct conflict of interest here and not comment directly in such a one sided basis in his media role.  It is quite sickening.

The truth is : 

it was careless (he had options, but he chose to turn to bump not brace) 

it was head high

it was severe impact 

there was a duty of care 

4 weeks suspension is the final word. 

1 hour 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.  :)

 

Now I know you were really a lawyer!!!!!

20 hours ago, dice said:

Why is Barrett on nickname terms with Maynard anyway?

He's not, but it makes it seem like Barrett HAS friends.  

2 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

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.    

“Rationonately”
 

Thanks for the further clarification, Dennis Denuto. 

How about you acknowledge the comment that put you off-side with most of your detractors?

Or are you no longer feeling “ashamed” to dwell amongst us? 

It’s perfectly acceptable if you feel Maynard will be let off, but the ill-will towards your comments could have been avoided if you worded your point of view in a far less arrogant manner. There wouldn’t be an enormous debate over this incident if it was a cut-and-dry case, and because of this, nobody is going to praise your big lawyer-brain if it happens to fall the way you’ve so courageously predicted. 

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

He's not, but it makes it seem like Barrett HAS friends.  

His only friends are Tom Browne and Hutchy.

15 minutes ago, sue said:

Sorry that you seem to feel lawyers can’t be challenged except by other lawyers. (I’m guessing you don’t really believe that but you come across like that)

Sounds remarkably like the current AFL media. Kane Cornes basically inferring that unless you've played the game you have no idea what you are talking about when you comment about this.  Which made it nice to hear Gerard Whately's comments this morning where he pointed out Dermie's take on the matter.

Edited September 11, 20232 yr by Ouch!

38 minutes ago, sue said:

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.

Yep, 'rules based order' what a tragic joke that term is.

23 minutes ago, layzie said:

What's going on here?

Trolling 

6 minutes ago, sue said:

The difference between a lawyer’s expert advice and a bricklayer is that we all have views on issues of justice and fairness but not on mortar.  If not for non-lawyer input we’d still have the Star chamber and transport for forming a union in Dorset.

Sorry that you seem to feel lawyers can’t be challenged except by other lawyers. (I’m guessing you don’t really believe that but you come across like that)

Good point, Sue.

But we cannot affect how the lawyers at the Tribunal (or on Appeal) will interpret the real-time footage. Sure, we can be critical or even disgusted, but those lawyers will be objectively looking at the real-time footage. I have looked at it many times, and I honestly cannot see Player Maynard not being acquitted. The MRO saw this and did not cite Player Maynard. That will be a telling factor if it goes to an Appeal.

30 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions on that real-time footage is IMO impossible.

malice or intent does not apply.

was the action careless or not is the question for the tribunal to ponder.

If you think it is not careless please explain why

16 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Nothing's off the table when it comes to filth supporters.

A couple of classics i heard on SEN when they first called in prior to turning it off...

"Gus shouldn't even be playing given his history of concussion"

"He took a step to the right which caused him to run into Maynard's shoulder.  Not maynard's fault"

"Why didn't he baulk and just go around or avoid Maynard!??"

Why didn’t she just not wear a Handmaids Tale outfit before going out that night?

Why did she dress like that

victim blaming

12 minutes ago, Monbon said:

I only have to refer to the Pell stuff to know exactly what you mean. In other words, if this is the third arm of government  - as though the first two arms aren't ridiculous enough -God help us!!!!!

Sounds like we agree about Pell. The prosecution was doomed by the death of the the crucial witness.

The third arm will save us.

God, as usual, is just amused.

Just now, BDA said:

malice or intent does not apply.

was the action careless or not is the question for the tribunal to ponder.

If you think it is not careless please explain why

According to all precedence this and last season it's careless ,severe and high( head).

Ticks those boxes ..its actually pretty straightforward even if we can accept, (easily enough) ,,that he didn't expect to concusss or even hurt Brayshaw,merely smother his kick.

The penalty is set in the book...appeals come after that so he can get off or maybe just one week

The Pies were smothering lazy kicks all night

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sounds like we agree about Pell. The prosecution was doomed by the death of the the crucial witness.

The third arm will save us.

God, as usual, is just amused.

Which God are you referring to? Glad we agree about Pell- we have 2 things in common now...

20 hours 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

Does that mean I am in the 'not 2b' camp? :-)