Maynard must get at least four weeks

[daisycutter 29,743]

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I, like your goodself...and many others know where it should go... however we probably know where it will probably go. 

Look at the narrative.... who's running it.

It's the AFL... not about right or wrong.

AFL cant walk and talk ...sadly..

yes, i have little faith in what the afl is plotting behind closed doors

reminds me of how they closed out the hawthorn race report. lots of lawyers then too

but hey, what would we do without lawyers? especially pet ones.

Edited September 11, 2023 by daisycutter

[KLV 1,768]

3 hours 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.  

Really thoughtful and compelling post.

it is hard to believe that Maynard will get off, that the afl would risk undoing all their work with the community about the sanctity of the head, not only exposing themselves as hypocrites but to the financial risk that will come with ongoing litigation.

Having said that, I fully expect him to be free to play in the remaining final/s

[Deestar9 1,649]

11 minutes ago, defuture15 said:

Not many players from the big clubs end up getting suspendef.

I still reckon that Kozzies hit was the same as this one without the concussion

So it’s not the same one !  You seem to diminish the very serious consequence..concussion !!

[Demon17 5,203]

7 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

I have a history in the law and in building. So I have strong views on both lawyers and mortar. There are some similarities.

So have I. Welcome.

Everyone watch afl 360 from tonight.

Whitely and robbo  went at it really hard  summaring both sides from their own personal view.

Robbo naturally was no suspension . Ignoring the rules and not appearing to know that the field umpire paid the freekick downfield ALSO reported Maynardat the time. Whately pointed this out. Robby was surprised.

Whateley sees a suspension and put the issue why succinctly. I'm backing whateleys logic and rules interpretation.  My conclusion also.

[58er 6,567]

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

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

[Macca 17,034]

I'm baffled that so many have convinced themselves that Maynard's actions was a footy act so therefore he should get off

Have they not noted the 60+ plus players who have been suspended this season for bumping & tackling.  These are also footy acts

And the consequences of all those suspensions from all those footy acts were not as drastic as the Gus concussion

But that's if it was a footy act.  All the tackles and bumps looked like footy acts but Maynard's was a fake smother.  Token and designed to confuse.  A con

[I'va Worn Smith 981]

If the Tribunal finds in Maynard's favour, the AFL better leverage up their legal advice, because this has an undeniable potential to become very litigious down the track.  In my many years of watching footy, I have never seem anything like what Maynard did and those that say it was a footy act are kidding themselves.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

1 minute ago, Demon17 said:

Everyone watch afl 360 from tonight.

It was good. Whateley is articulate and considered.

Also very interested when he said as an aside that Brayshaw wanted nothing to do with Maynard Thursday night post game, and was angry.

How he feels the AFL will know, and they will know ugly this can get for them.

[Bystander 903]

3 hours 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. 

  

Make that 2.

 

[Emerald 1,744]

25 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergard said:

Probably been said on here, but I am yet to hear it in the media.

If Maynard could twist right to hit his shoulder into Brayshsw's head, why couldn't he twist left and possibly miss his head?

Go watch the incident from the behind the goal camera angle at 0.25 speed and your theory will be validated.

[kev martin 10,417]

Seems the words that the Wooden's are using, are "hard but fair".

Well, the outcome of the collision points to, coward and nasty. Careless in the least, had intent to take the body of Gus.

Why he doesn't say, I made a mistake and am sorry is beyond me.

Keèp fighting number 4!

Playing footy is more important than common human empathy, and respect. 

Edited September 11, 2023 by kev martin

[Demon17 5,203]

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

I'm baffled that so many have convinced themselves that Maynard's actions was a footy act so therefore he should get off

Have they not noted the 60+ plus players who have been suspended this season for bumping & tackling.  These are also footy acts

And the consequences of all those suspensions from all those footy acts were not as drastic as the Gus concussion

But that's if it was a footy act.  All the tackles and bumps looked like footy acts but Maynard's was a fake smother.  Token and designed to confuse.  A con

My thoughts exactly and why I cannot for the life of me understand why most on here think Maynard gets off.

An earlier poster didn't trust the afl re the hawks race scandal cover up.

But imo has anyone seen a more public and debated violent act on the field with 90,000 witnesses. All with an opinion. No covering this up.

Laura Kane gets this I suspect and Maynard's going down. Everyone apart from media sycophants and the nuff nuff army will agree.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

17 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

 i believe the chances of Maynard being suspended are somewhere between nil and zero.The AFL is not even proceeding in good faith .They have made the referral a joint referral rather than a review officer referral which is unprecedented and then  leaked to the media that Christian did not want to proceed  with any charge .It is tantamount to a prosecutor telling a jury that "we dont think the accused is guilty but you can convict him in any case" .This is just a show trial and nothing more. Afterwards The AFL will  then say "concussion is a big issue and we are there to  protect the player so we are disappointed by the result.."A complete load of [censored] .

 

13 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

That’s the way I see it going.

No chance Maynard gets rubbed out, unfortunately.

Agreed.

The circus masters are gathering and concocting.

The snake oil's already being plied by the magician's assistants (media cronies and probably Eddie behind the scenes!)

The culprit asked to visit the victim as a staged show of remorse.

The ultimate magic trick will then be unleashed on Thurs at the appeal which will see Mayfart free to play in a GF (should they make it)...

 

[Redleg 41,467]

4 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

My thoughts exactly and why I cannot for the life of me understand why most on here think Maynard gets off.

An earlier poster didn't trust the afl re the hawks race scandal cover up.

But imo has anyone seen a more public and debated violent act on the field with 90,000 witnesses. All with an opinion. No covering this up.

Laura Kane gets this I suspect and Maynard's going down. Everyone apart from media sycophants and the nuff nuff army will agree.

Dermie, Lethal and Malthouse saying he will be suspended.

He initiated contact, which turned into a bump to the head with his shoulder, knocking a bloke out for 2 minutes and damaging his health and career.

What else could he do, not turn his shoulder into Gus’s head. Anything else and he would be fine.

Lastly, if he had time to dip the shoulder, he had time not to.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Redleg

[Roost it far 8,627]

1 hour ago, Monbon said:

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

Well he just kept at it, I was happy to give him the benefit of the doubt but there’s a point where it becomes ridiculous. Anyway he’s been ignored by me. 

[Demon17 5,203]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Dermie, Lethal and Malthouse saying he will be suspended.

He initiated contact, which turned into a bump to the head with his shoulder, knocking a bloke out for 2 minutes and damaging his health and career.

What else could he do, not turn his shoulder into Gus’s head. Anything else and he would be fine.

 

At least I'm in good company now. Dermie should know.

But your post summarises Whateleys view.

Robbo asks what else could he have done. Whateleys response to robbo.

"Anything but what he did".

3 weeks minimum. Take him down Constable 

[Macca 17,034]

30 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

My thoughts exactly and why I cannot for the life of me understand why most on here think Maynard gets off.

An earlier poster didn't trust the afl re the hawks race scandal cover up.

But imo has anyone seen a more public and debated violent act on the field with 90,000 witnesses. All with an opinion. No covering this up.

Laura Kane gets this I suspect and Maynard's going down. Everyone apart from media sycophants and the nuff nuff army will agree.

Not sure it's most D13 but nonetheless, a good percentage are thinking that way (that he could or might walk free)

But the thought has crossed my mind as it probably has for most

Why? Because we don't trust all those involved in the process.  The MRO & the Tribunal has been nothing but inconsistent for any number of years now.  As for the AFL, they are a law unto themselves and have a history of pandering

So he could walk free or maybe just get 1 game off.  If that happened I'd be bitterly disappointed but not surprised

In advance, I've prepared for disatisfaction but am holding out hope that he cops a 4 or 5 game penalty

To be honest, I'm far more concerned about Gus' welfare

As for Maynard, he'll get his right whack one day soon anyway.  You do the wrong thing enough times, bad luck ends up befalling you

Edited September 11, 2023 by Macca

[OhMyDees 1,834]

Rules change as they did for the head bump and sling tackle. You can’t smash into someone’s head after trying to smother, surely this will be brought in next year. 

If Brayshaw puts his health before footy as he should and never plays again then we deserve a 1st Round compensation pick taken from Collingwood!

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by OhMyDees

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,869]

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Dermie, Lethal and Malthouse saying he will be suspended.

He initiated contact, which turned into a bump to the head with his shoulder, knocking a bloke out for 2 minutes and damaging his health and career.

What else could he do, not turn his shoulder into Gus’s head. Anything else and he would be fine.

Lastly, if he had time to dip the shoulder, he had time not to.

Surprising. All three were t#$%s and are unreconstructed p%#(Ks.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

[defuture15 900]

23 minutes ago, Deestar9 said:

So it’s not the same one !  You seem to diminish the very serious consequence..concussion !!

Same guilt different outcome

[bandicoot 1,395]

43 minutes ago, kallangurdemon said:

 i believe the chances of Maynard being suspended are somewhere between nil and zero.The AFL is not even proceeding in good faith .They have made the referral a joint referral rather than a review officer referral which is unprecedented and then  leaked to the media that Christian did not want to proceed  with any charge .It is tantamount to a prosecutor telling a jury that "we dont think the accused is guilty but you can convict him in any case" .This is just a show trial and nothing more. Afterwards The AFL will  then say "concussion is a big issue and we are there to  protect the player so we are disappointed by the result.."A complete load of [censored] .

Read the room mate.. there is no possible way the AFL will let Maynard off. Brayshaw was defenceless and lay unconscious on the ground for 2 minutes in front of an audience of 1m people. 
All they’ll need to prove is that he had another option. Instead of turning mid air with his shoulder he had the option of landing with hands forward in a bracing motion. 

[The heart beats true 18,145]

Watch Chris Scott on 360 tonight. He specifically says ‘we coach our players not to turn their shoulders in to others as there’s not much we can do to help them then. That’s what we’ve been advised by the AFL’

Before that Ross Lyon was asked if he thought the rules exist, and can be applied, to this incident and without thinking he said ‘They are being applied. That’s why it’s going to the tribunal’.

The industry knows. It was a dog act.

Edited September 11, 2023 by The heart beats true

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

It would not be impossible to think that the MCC have already been contacted by someone in the Media asking how the MCC would handle a fully fledged riot on display, should  the circumstances prevail that way.

Their reaction of course, would be to suggest to the AFL as well as the State Government in turn. "just make sure it doesn't".  They have several courses of action in my book.

 

[I'va Worn Smith 981]

On talkback radio today some of the nuffies were blaming Gus for not baulking or trying to evade Maynard.  Just about says it all really.  Let's not forget the ramifications of any decision made in this case.  Massive really.

[Gorgoroth 13,023]

27 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

So have I. Welcome.

Everyone watch afl 360 from tonight.

Whitely and robbo  went at it really hard  summaring both sides from their own personal view.

Robbo naturally was no suspension . Ignoring the rules and not appearing to know that the field umpire paid the freekick downfield ALSO reported Maynardat the time. Whately pointed this out. Robby was surprised.

Whateley sees a suspension and put the issue why succinctly. I'm backing whateleys logic and rules interpretation.  My conclusion also.

Whately is correct. As soon as he turned and lowers the shoulder he was guilty. Even Dermie agrees that this is a suspension.

Like the tackling these days you have a duty of care. 
As the great Lionel Hutz once said 

I rest my case.
Judge Snyder: You rest your case?
Lionel Hutz: What? Oh no, I thought that was just a figure of speech. Case closed.