19 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Can someone tell me how to put this clown on ignore. 

I am sure the Mods can explain the simple procedure for you.  :)

4 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

What are the rules around appeals. Surely you can't just appeal you must need some kind of grounds.

Supposed new information is required I think, although in the Cripps appeal last year it had something to do with wording or lack of info if I recall .

26 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

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

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

Dear Fellow Pell Despiser: You are coming across as a Magpie Troll.

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

The AFL Tribunal is not a Court of Law - your continued insistence that the rules of law courts apply is erroneous.  It has its own documented processes and procedures:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/01/9c9bdc05-2377-4ffb-a8a0-885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Page 10

"Careless conduct

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. 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.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

Maynard breached his duty of care to Brayshaw.

 

 

Nice one Old.Thanks on behalf of this Lawyers picnic thread

25 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Little Nicky is a great nickname. 🤣

Let's leave Little Nicky out of this. He's a first class footballer, son of another great. He has noting to do wid did discussion, see...

2 hours 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.  :)

 

I reckon the mods will be far more interested in this comment mate. 

10 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Just what are you on about. Post here whatever it is from that decision that illustrates the points you think you're making.

Though to save you the trouble ...

"Reasons for Appeal Board decision:

We recognise in coming to this conclusion that the Tribunal faced the most difficult case in all circumstances and for that reason we propose to hand down written reasons in the near future.

In essence, we accept the submissions made by Ihle (Giants) on behalf of Bedford relating to the evidence or the lack of evidence that was before the Tribunal.

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."

Thanks for posting this. The continued references to the Bedford decision are misleading and diversionary. Just not comparable to the current incident.

25 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Can someone tell me how to put this clown on ignore. 

Um, after your pdst to me about 4 times...Glad we're back in the same corner.

47 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? 

Summed it up perfectly. Duty of care lies with the person coming in who elected to leave the ground, end of discussion nothing further to be added, everything else is deflection.

25 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I wish there was a further paragraph that read "it was at this point as Maynard was leaving the residence that he tripped on the front door door frame and somehow fell head first into the brick letter box in the front yard several times. Maynard had to have surgery to remove the metal letterbox plate from his broken jaw. Multiple Melbourne players were able to verify the details of the unfortunate accident".

Quote from Jack Viney "I gave the poor bugger a soft pat on the back with both hands to console him, similar to the pat on the back that Ed Langdon got running into an open goal which made his kick miss and go through for a point in the third quarter. Nothing in it really. It all happened so quickly, we had no time to react to Maynard's head being rammed into the brick fence repeatedly. It was a pure domestic accident (sic act)"

Surgeons hope to save at least two of Maynard's remaining teeth.

Obviously given up on saving his remaining brain cells...Assuming they found one.

5 minutes ago, drysdale demon said:

Supposed new information is required I think, although in the Cripps appeal last year it had something to do with wording or lack of info if I recall .

Sigh again./ football act

No, it is an Appeal "as of right". The grounds must be presented, sure, but not to justify the lodging of the Appeal itself. The Senior Counsel preparing the grounds will have plenty of time. My best guess is that the Filth will go simple. Fractions of sections/ football act/ look at Bedford.

ordi

I sincerely hope Maynard finds himself dining at the same restaurant as May in the off season

1 minute ago, Deebymistake said:

I sincerely hope Maynard finds himself dining at the same restaurant as May in the off season

May and melksham.

7 minutes ago, Deebymistake said:

I sincerely hope Maynard finds himself dining at the same restaurant as May in the off season

I sincerely hope he finds himself lining up next to Viney next season. Because he won’t play again this year. 

17 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Dear Fellow Pell Despiser: You are coming across as a Magpie Troll.

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago.

Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower? 

1 minute ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago.

Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower? 

Nothing better than a poster who never shows their ugly head on here until they have something negative to say. 

It was better when you were ruining Demonology instead. 
 

8 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago.

Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower? 

I'll happily vouch for the fact that you've been posting rubbish in both places for the best part of 20 years and it's time you were called on it.

10 minutes ago, Deebymistake said:

I sincerely hope Maynard finds himself dining at the same restaurant as May in the off season

This thread is becoming really weird again. We are critical of Player Maynard for alleged violence on the field but we are hoping for violence in response off the field?

Let's get a grip. Forget about Maynard. Let's have some intelligent discussion about contact sport versus concussion. What is the answer? 

 

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

This thread is becoming really weird again. We are critical of Player Maynard for alleged violence on the field but we are hoping for violence in response off the field?

Let's get a grip. Forget about Maynard. Let's have some intelligent discussion about contact sport versus concussion. What is the answer? 

 

Once again, you’ve literally threatened violence against people here. 

While nobody here takes that threat - or you - seriously, you did it nonetheless. 

So as for “let’s get a grip”, you’d be best following your own advice. 

17 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Sorry to disappoint you, Monbon, but there are a host of posters on here who will vouch for my credibility on Demonland and Demonology years ago.

Rollinson refers to Trevor Rollinson who you have probably never heard of. Played beside Ray Biffen in the days of Robbie Flower. I assume you have heard of Robbie Flower? 

What does the name you go by have to do with anything.

5 hours 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.

Yes -some dimwitted Pies supporter just rang 3AW and basically said that. 😡

13 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Nothing better than a poster who never shows their ugly head on here until they have something negative to say. 

It was better when you were ruining Demonology instead. 
 

I thought Demonology got wrecked by others, leaving us no choice but to come over to try to improve demonland.

I think you people have succeeded without much help from me.

On this thread, my only intention has been to prepare us all for disappointment about Player Maynard.

8 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

This thread is becoming really weird again. We are critical of Player Maynard for alleged violence on the field but we are hoping for violence in response off the field?

Let's get a grip. Forget about Maynard. Let's have some intelligent discussion about contact sport versus concussion. What is the answer? 

 

I said nothing about violence, just wishing them a pleasant meal in the same restaurant!  You want an answer to concussion in contact sport?  Start by getting the AFL to acknowledge all of the research that is out there and implement real change rather than tokenistic half baked attempts to make them look like they give a stuff. 

6 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I thought Demonology got wrecked by others, leaving us no choice but to come over to try to improve demonland.

I think you people have succeeded without much help from me.

On this thread, my only intention has been to prepare us all for disappointment about Player Maynard.

It got ruined by the mulner bros or whatever their names were, then lots of ppl got offside with Range Rover, then I gave up and shut it down so we had an amicable single place to come chat….. dland 

4 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

I thought Demonology got wrecked by others, leaving us no choice but to come over to try to improve demonland.

I think you people have succeeded without much help from me.

On this thread, my only intention has been to prepare us all for disappointment about Player Maynard.

Rollo just after your opinion on the similarities between this incident and the one involving Kozzie and Baz?

Kozzie launched his body at Baz but he did not get K0 d like Gus.

Am  i wrong when assuming that jumping in the air and bumping to the head is against the rules?