Jump to content

  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    Demonland has made the difficult decision to not to permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials ...

    We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

    However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

    The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

    Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

    We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

    WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

    Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.


Maynard must get at least four weeks



Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demonland has made the difficult decision to not to permit this platform to be used to discuss & debate the off-field issues relating to the Melbourne Football Club including matters currently being litigated between the Club & former Board members, the culture at the club & the personal issues & allegations against some of our players & officials.

We do not take these issues & this decision lightly & of course we believe that these serious matters affecting the club we love & are so passionate about are worthy of discussion & debate & I wish we could provide a place where these matters can be discussed in a civil & respectful manner.

However these discussions unfortunately invariably devolve into areas that may be defamatory, libelous, spread unsubstantiated rumours & can effect the mental health of those involved. Even discussion & debate of known facts or media reports can lead to finger pointing, blame & personal attacks.

The repercussion is that these discussions can open this website, it’s owners & it’s users to legal action & may result in this website being forced to shutdown.

Our moderating team are all volunteers & cannot moderate the forum 24/7 & as a consequence problematic content that contravenes our rules & standards may go unnoticed for some time before it can be removed.

We reserve the right to delete posts that offend against our above policy & indeed, to ban posters who are repeat offenders or who breach our code of conduct.

WE HAVE BUILT A FANTASTIC ONLINE COMMUNITY AT DEMONLAND OVER THE PAST 23 YEARS & WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CLUB WE LOVE & ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT.

Thank you for your continued support & understanding. Go Dees.

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.

  • Haha 2
  • Clap 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). 

  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!??"

  • Like 1
  • Vomit 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Angry 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ouch!
  • Like 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

  • Like 1
  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Clap 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    TRAINING: Friday 1st December 2023

    Demonland Trackwatchers WERRIDEE, HAWK THE DEMON, DEMON WHEELS, WALKING CIVIL WAR, SCOOP JUNIOR & KEV MARTIN ventured down to Gosch's Paddock to bring you their observations from Friday's Preseason Training Session which closes out the first week back on the track for the Demons. WERRIDEE'S RUNNING COMMENTARY OF HIS OBSERVATIONS: Farris-White and Sestan out there early kick to kick Rivers and Bowey running laps Roo and Laurie kick to kick Billing’s in no33

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    PODCAST: Jason Taylor Interview

    I'm interviewing the Melbourne Football Club Recruitment Manager Jason Taylor early next week on the Demonland Podcast. I'll be asking him about moving up the draft order, our new recruits (both Draftees and Trades), Daniel Curtin, our recent recruits who have yet to play a senior game, who he thinks will be the next Judd McVee and more. If you have any further questions let me know below and I'll see if I can squeeze them in. I will release the podcast either Monday or Tuesday.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Melbourne Demons 76

    TOO LITTLE TOO LATE by Meggs

    It was a hot afternoon at IKON where the ferocious Cats came to play, had read the manual on how to beat us and the Demons were unable to match them for the first three quarters.     With physical pressure, they took the game on with relative ease and though our resistance seemed better than the previous two weeks it was still not good enough.     Within the opening minute, Kate Hore marks within range, but her shot was a miss-kick, like a fat iron, and it kinda set a flat tone f

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    TURNAROUND by Meggs

    Following successive comprehensive defeats by fellow Top Four heavyweights the Demons play down a division this Sunday against the highly promising Cats.     Strangely, no games against the Cats for five seasons and now we play them twice in one season.     With the blueprint on how to defeat the Dees available on the dark web the real question is, will we crumble again under the finals pressure cooker or will we rediscover our #DemonSpirit and execute a turnaround?   Mak

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    THE SECRET IS OUT by Meggs

    We were expecting that after last week’s comprehensive defeat by Brisbane, our coach Mick Stinear would have his charges coming out breathing finals fire. Instead, it was North who had the aggression, the numbers, who blocked our scoring avenues and rendered us impotent, unable to match the Kangas during any phase of the match.   Darren Crocker, the North coach, later highlighted that how to beat Melbourne is no secret following recent losses to Adelaide and Brisbane and now North.  

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    CATCH EM ON THE HOP by Meggs

    A sunny Sunday afternoon feast of finals footy awaits at our team’s favourite home ground, Ikon Park.  Great vibes at Princes Park where we remain undefeated from 7 matches and counting. Expect the Dees to come out strongly, sparring and outmuscling the Kangaroos in the middle.  With Paxy back firing and our gun forwards mesmerising, hopefully we catch ‘em on the hop. Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane have filled ten of the twelve Grand Final spots in AFLW history, and this dominance

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    COLD AGGRESSION by Meggs

    “Cold aggression”, Lions star full forward Dakota Davidson called it. Brisbane outmuscled, outran, and ultimately overwhelmed us. They certainly came to play and exorcised their 2022 grand final grudge defeating the Demons in the rematch by 25 points. Stats count and Brisbane won the key ones. Inside 50s 42 to 24, centre clearances 8 to 6, uncontested possessions 133 to 75 and 51 marks to 27. The Lions’ sustained pressure is the kind we usually bring for other teams.   There

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    HOME PRIZE by Meggs

    Big stakes this weekend. For the winner, will it be a Dees minor premiership and potential home grand final or will it be a Lion‘s Top Four finish and a double chance?    Huge interest circulates in the how the ladder unfolds over this weekend’s final round of the 2023 home and away season with some 10 teams vying for 8 places.     It’s AFLW Pride Week, a celebration of people from all walks of life coming together, being respected, loved and accepted. Women’s football continues

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    WICKED WIND by Meggs

    Hang out to your hats. The strong blustery conditions made it extremely difficult for either team to execute footy skills but nonetheless an entertaining match ensured for those brave enough to venture down to Casey Fields on Saturday. Impressive Irish player Aine Tighe was a late withdrawal for Freo. Maddie Gay was also a late change, and she was replaced with 19 year-old Georgia Gall, the 6-foot ex Melbourne Stars BBL cricketer who has been impressing the coaches in scrimmage games.

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...