Jump to content

Maynard must get at least four weeks

Previously known as LITD.
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

9 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

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.

How dare Whately have an opinion on this, given he hasn't played the game. /sarcasm.

But it's a spot on opinion.

    • Like 1
     
    41 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    To try to prove malice or intent in Player Maynard's actions ...

    Irrelevant. No-one has to prove that for him to be suspended.

    • Like 4
    • Clap 2
    6 minutes ago, 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

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

    Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

     
    1 minute ago, bing181 said:

    Irrelevant. No-one has to prove that for him to be suspended.

    Read the Toby Bedford decision.

    1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

    Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

    Only a lawyer can have an opinion on the interpretation of this?!  FMD

    As for The Toby rationale, on the basis of the past behaviour of all things AFL, why would anyone not think the AFL might go hard or not in an appeal on the basis of other agendas. 

    • Like 2

    23 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    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. 

    When i read this post, i noticed his comments were blocked. Real rock solid piece of reporting there. They are going full media blitz with this. 

    • Like 1
    On 9/9/2023 at 6:55 PM, rollinson 65 said:

    The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

     

    2 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

    No, changed my mind because of all the cheap shots.

    Not desisting until you are all dead.

    Kind regards,

    Rollo

     

    1 hour 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.  :)

     

    It's unsurprising that you are Maynard's greatest advocate since it seems you see the solution to all issues through the prism of violence.

    You're probably suffering from PTSD from a lifetime of associating with career criminals through your legal practice.

    Seek help before it's too late.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
    • Shocked 1
    3 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

    Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

    not as simple as that

    it depends whether maynard had options or not. so no intent required. Duty of care is important where maynard had options (choices)

    as i've said before

    1. he took option to smother, in a manner, where collision was inevitable

    2. after failed smother with impact imminent he took option to change his stance and bump with his shoulder. he had other options

    neither of these 2 options are new to afl deliberations

    • Like 3
     
    2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

    Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

    Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
    Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
    If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

    Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

    • Like 2
    • Clap 1
    2 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

    Had she not intervened this likely wouldn’t have even gone to the tribunal!!!! That alone is enough for me. 

    WCW, Michael Christensen graded the incident as careless, severe impact and high impact and under the Tribunal Guidelines all reportable severe impact incidents are automatically referred to the Tribunal. Here is the link to the actual match review as reported by the AFL.

    https://www.afl.com.au/news/1026111/match-review-collingwood-magpies-defender-brayden-maynard-learns-fate-over-angus-brayshaw-collision

    The above directly contradicts the false narrative that Michael Christensen did not deem the incident as reportable.  If I were to speculate the reason for the joint report is that Laura is backing in and supporting the MRO in what is a very high profile incident, while the media is looking for the best headline.

    • Like 3

    30 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    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”. 
     

    I just tried jumping on the spot in a smothering motion. I found it impossible to have time to change my body shape into a dangerous bumping shape leading with my shoulder.  This is pretty impressive by Maynard. and indicates it is not a reflex but premeditated

    Arguing with these ****wits is starting to be like arguing with anti-vaxxers. they are so belligerent they don't even listen to other views 

    • Clap 1
    2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

    Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
    Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
    If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

    Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

    Remember also, Butters dove head first towards the ball.

    In no way Hunter was culpable of that contact yet he got the suspension.

    Malice or no malice is irrelevant.

    Do I need to be found to act with malice while DUI to receive a punishment? Wouldn't think so.

    The sad part is it doesn't matter at all what the MRO or tribunal say. We know they will appeal.

    can we just skip to the appeal? the rest is all BS.  Not until 11pm on thursday night will be know anything

    • Like 2
    Just now, DubDee said:

    The sad part is it doesn't matter at all what the MRO or tribunal say. We know they will appeal.

    can we just skip to the appeal? the rest is all BS.  Not until 11pm on thursday night will be know anything

    Well the tribunal may still find him not guilty. I doubt it but they could. 
    As you say tho, the appeals board is the problem. How much influence does the AFL have over them? Because we know the tribunal is just a puppet show run by the chief. 


    9 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

    Toby Bedford never left the ground. He didn’t even have eyes on the player. 
    Maynard left the ground. Once you choose to leave the ground according to the AFL you have a duty of care to your opponent. That’s not my rules that’s the rules that they’ve demonstrated over and over again with many other cases. 
    If you choose to leave the ground and lunge at a player with forward momentum, it does not matter if your intention was to smash them, smother the ball, fart in their face or kiss them, you have a duty of care to avoid their head and not render them concussed. 

    Please explain how Hunter got suspended for a footy action trying to get a loose ground ball, because he accidentally collected Butters, but Maynard should avoid suspension for trying to smother the ball and concussing Gus in the process? 

    Jaded there is no rule, either in the laws of the game or tribunal guidelines, about leaving the ground. The Tribunal Guidelines specifically refer to high bumps being automatically graded as rough conduct but does not distinguish between whether player has left the ground. Similarly there is no reference to whether a player must have eyes for the ball.

    Edited by chookrat

    2 minutes ago, Mickey said:

    Seems a few of the Dees weren't too pleased with Maynard's visit

    https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/11/melbourne-teammate-left-angered-by-maynards-awkward-brayshaw-visit/

    No doubt that teammate was Viney and he had to excuse himself from dropping that piece of dog [censored] to the ground and pouring the goon sack he brought over on his head. 
     

    0 good intentions in that visit. Just a pathetic PR exercise. 

    Edited by Jaded No More

    • Like 5
    11 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    Read the Toby Bedford decision.

    You read the Toby Bedford decision. Not even a mention of "intent", it was all about the level of force (and thus the grading).

    You really should stop.

    "We accept it was open to the Tribunal to find that there was contact by the body of Bedford with Fisher’s head, however in our view neither the evidence nor the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was “forceful” as required by the AFL regulations.

    Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Tribunal."

    • Like 1

    So if Maysie does the same to Little Nicky next year, the Pies fans will say it was OK?

    • Like 1
    1 minute ago, chookrat said:

    Jaded there is no rule, either in the laws of the game or tribunal guidelines, about leaving the ground. The Tribunal Guidelines specifically refer to high bumps being automatically graded as rough conduct but does not distinguish between whether player has left the ground. Similarly there is no reference to whether a player must have eyes for the ball.

    It might not be in the written rules, but it’s been used many many times to get players suspended. 
    When you leave the ground or you don’t have eyes for the ball the tribunal more often than not will say you didn’t act with a duty of care. 

    • Like 3

    23 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless. The real-time vision does not go even close IMO.

    Another lawyer on here has disagreed with my analysis so I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

    I’m pretty sure if Bedfords action had led to the Blues player being knocked out cold for 2 minutes he’d of got 3 weeks. 

    • Like 1
    18 minutes ago, old55 said:

     

     

    It's unsurprising that you are Maynard's greatest advocate since it seems you see the solution to all issues through the prism of violence.

    You're probably suffering from PTSD from a lifetime of associating with career criminals through your legal practice.

    Seek help before it's too late.

    Don't give a [censored] about Maynard, mate.

    Let's not shirk the major question. Contact sport versus concussion. Give us an opinion.

    29 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    Careless requires intent to be careless.

    You don't need intent to be careless. It's like having an intent to be an i d i o t

    Edited by mauriesy

    • Like 5
    • Haha 3
     
    27 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

    You just need to read the Toby Bedford decision.

    Careless requires intent to be careless.

    Nonsense. This from the Tribunal itself. After reading it, delete your post.

    "A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the
    Player to all other Players."

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Love 1
    8 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

    So if Maysie does the same to Little Nicky next year, the Pies fans will say it was OK?

    Little Nicky is a great nickname. 🤣


    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • 25 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Clap
        • Love
        • Like
      • 232 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All