Look at the replay

It's not a smother .. it's an uncontrolled head on jump from metres away

Never seen one like it before

36 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Yes, but how do we change this concussion carnage?

Macca has suggested red and yellow cards. I am on board with that as long as it leaves the team that receives the red card with only 17 players on the field until (maybe) the siren sounds to end the quarter ??

At long last, we are finally talking about important stuff on this thread, If you have time to read, it is being echoed on the Pies sites.

Trawling for work, do you chase ambulances as well, have a police scanner attached to the zimmer frame?

But seriously, I actually read all 17 pages of the pies thread on the subject, (on Nick's Pies, Big footy is so bad I almost want to renounce citizenship). Lots of woes is us, the world wants to screw us, lots of victim blaming, some very minor acceptance of the fact that he is a good chance to go.

In response to the concussion carnage question, I really cannot understand why former players have such an [censored] covering mentality with this. Players do make decisions within a second, extraordinary levels of dexterity are displayed, and unlike the Lynch incident and many others that are offered as examples of why Maynard should get off, this is clearly different:

1, Gus and Maynard were coming at each other with full awareness, predictable movement and time to plan, with no other players affecting the matter. (Unlike the Lynch incident which was a marking contest with multiple players and the uncertainty of where the ball was.

2, If you can't get/affect/protect the ball without taking someone's head, don't do it. The one exemption is the mark but even that I am for placing liability onto the person taking the mark, so if Kozzie put his knee in the back of someone's head, and there is an injury, he's gone, on the shoulder glancing the head, pay the mark. And Kozzie's marking attempts need to be realistic btw.

3, An accident for me, is if you both arrive at the same time, and both have eyes for the ball, and you don't shape up in a way that increases the chance of injury. So a head clash is an accident, lifting your arm is not, turning your shoulder is not (if it means the head is involved). In NFL they are talking about taking helmets off (I don't think it will happen though). In rugby you have to tackle with your arms open, there are examples where you have to own the contact.

In non-contact sports such as frisbee (at an elite level) I have seen people both competing for the disc at warp speed in the air (miss), then tumble away so as not to take the body of the opponent, losing significant amount of skin the process, they re willing to compete, and accept the consequences so as not to injure another person. Now I like that Aussie Rules is contact, I want it that way and the heavy body contact, but I still think we can have contact and find ways to be more careful about not taking the head with it.  

Lastly, I think AFL has also gotten better (apart from flooding and zoning, looking at you Ross and Clarkson), once upon a time (my youth) you would not attempt certain skills seen now, because you were setting yourself up to be knocked out. Now players, I think try more artful plays because they expect a decent level of protection and not a late clip to the ear. It still requires huge courage, the hits and tackles still hurt, the fear and the need to overcome it is still there. But the skill level has gone up. If you want fight watch boxing.

 

3 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Because that’s what we fear will happen, and that fear is warranted. Cripps getting off last year means every subsequent appeal is highly likely to be successful despite how ridiculous it is.

Fear not WCW. Cripps was found guilty but the case was thrown out on a legal technicality in the the Chair didn't adequately brief and what options they had. Nothing to do with the guilty verdict which wasn't changed. The case was abandoned and Gil was furious and the rules changed to ensure it doesn't happen again. He is either guilty or not no downgrades lets wait and see 

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Look at the replay

It's not a smother .. it's an uncontrolled head on jump from metres away

Never seen one like it before

And for all of his line up and preparation, he couldn’t even touch the ball

This is a legal challenge for the afl .

If they let him off saying its a footy act then they are allowing these sorts of incidences to continue 

 

This will result in many legal proceedings for high impact injuries that result in lasting affects on players later in life .

The afl will do what is required to protect itself so I think he will get 3 weeks then Collingwood will challenge it and it will be reduced to a 1 or 2 weeks that's my take on it 

7 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Nah, Macca, been more agreeably engaged.

I have purchased this thread from Demonland. It cost me $14.

As the new owner of this thread, here are the Rules:

One. Anyone who disagrees with me once receives a  censure. 

Two. Anyone who disagrees with me twice, will be executed.

Three. Anyone who disagrees with me three times, will be tortured before execution.

Four, Anyone who disagrees with me more than three times will be dug up out of their grave and drawn and quartered before reburial in 4 different States.

 

Seriously, who cares about Maynard? He will get off IMO. Should we not be turning our attention to our next game against the Baggers?

I have a love/hate relationship with this thread. It has reminded me of the cut and thrust on Demanology  all those years ago. So many memories, so many grudges to be carried to the grave.

The last post on this thread now belongs to me. Bring it on !!

 

Can you please limit the death (been over a few posts) references, torture and assaulting posters and Hitler. It’s offensive and in poor taste to some of the broader discussion of a players welfare.

If you want to post about things other than Maynard like the upcoming Carlton game, there is already a seperate thread for this.

Lastly, I’d suggest that if you're asking “who cares about Maynard” in a thread titled “Maynard must get 4 weeks”, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Move on mate.

 

5 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

My tips would be (in order) Jack, Maysy or Clarry.

There will be way more spite than the duck dinner game next time we play Collingwood.  Will be rip the head off the Magpie time.

All comments aside it is so sad that a genuine lover and fair player of the game in Brayshaw may end up playing his last game for the Club he loves. 

Footy aside I just hope he does what is best for his future as the brain plays longer in life than a footy life.

As for Maynard visiting Brayshaw at home....  Yeah.... bet he would not have done it if the hit was not as serious as it may well become.

One final point and that is .............. if Maynard at the tribunal of his defense raises one statement about how sincere he is by visiting Brayshaw I will know that it is all an act on his part. Just look at his history.

And as for Buckley's comments....  He should be rubbed out... for what he said about the incident.

"Collingwood legend Nathan Buckley says he doesn’t believe Brayden Maynard’s collision with Angus Brayshaw warrants suspension, suggesting there’s too much “grey area” in the AFL’s focus on duty of care."

 

If it’s true Dillon, Gillon and Kane all stepped in then I think Christian’s position is untenable. Or, he may find he has some co-MROs next year. 
 

Good to see current coaches infer Maynard did the wrong thing - the comparison with what he’d do at training, is very important in the context of protecting the potential victim. 
 

I am feeling more confident he’ll get at least a few weeks

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say this will 4 weeks reduced to 3. The AFL is many things but it’s not stupid. Anything but a big penalty here and they open themselves up in ways they won’t want. 

8 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Don't like the idea of a Red card but you watch all these types of event stop if they did.

 

Wizen up people you're dealing with a gigantic narcissist here.

8 hours ago, KLV said:

Ha ha, he was wearing sandals. I mean sandals are fine on a warm day on a day off, they just looked a little nqr tonight.

 

always looks like a bum when shown on tv doesn't seem to care much for his appearance

Anyway he has time to go shopping now

7 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Hey, Balls.

You are now officially censored. Take care to read tins entire thread (are we up to 60 pages now?) before sticking out your neck again.
  

all the afl need to do is prove that Maynard had another option but to bump. 

I’ll take mundys assessment over yours. 

“When you’ve jumped up and you’re in the air and there’s a player underneath you, you have the ability to almost catch yourself as you’re falling on top of them. It would have been really awkward and they’d have had a tumble, but that response has a much lesser chance of resulting in serious health concerns."

6 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

No, Balls in in my sniper sights.

Dang.

Damn, dang, darn! 

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Look at the replay

It's not a smother .. it's an uncontrolled head on jump from metres away

Never seen one like it before

It's surprising that you haven't given it was a' footy act"

Can't wait to hear some more garbage from pundits when he's deservedly suspended.

Edited September 11, 20231 yr by leave it to deever

29 minutes ago, loges said:

 

If one team is a player down, it does even the playing field.

Not in this case but yea it's not like umps don't get it wrong sometimes.

I wonder if a Maynard throwing his arms up while he jumped forward help propel him even higher. The more I watch the footage the more I ask, how could have Maynard not have thought he would collide with poor Gus? The intent for some impact was certainly there. Since he's fluffed the truth once, I'm not sure he even cared about the smother. If the Afl doesn't stop this act with a hefty penalty, we will see plenty more " smothering" in the game and lots of careers jeopardized. 

1 hour ago, David-Demon said:

for Maynard visiting Brayshaw at home....  Yeah.... bet he would not have done it if the hit was not as serious as it may well become.

Or if Jack Viney was visiting at the same time.

9 hours ago, Macca said:

The league should have or could have brought in an order off rule decades ago ... even just as a fail-safe method

If the QF had have been a GF, then we'd look back at the result being possibly decided by a violent act.  And that's no way to win or lose a GF

The 1973 GF was arguably decided by 4 blatant, violent acts.  The bloodbath GF in 1945?  There's been plenty of moments for change

The 1989, 1990 & 2000 GF's?

Macca, as a fan of the round ball game what do you think the outcome would be if a goalkeeper did a similar action?

2 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Macca, as a fan of the round ball game what do you think the outcome would be if a goalkeeper did a similar action?

There are different rules in place and the goalkeeper has a bit more scope in terms of spoiling and taking a player out at the same time (or not being able to take a player out)

Depends on the actual circumstances, where the ball is and the goalkeepers movement & motive

13 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I wonder if a Maynard throwing his arms up while he jumped forward help propel him even higher. The more I watch the footage the more I ask, how could have Maynard not have thought he would collide with poor Gus? The intent for some impact was certainly there. Since he's fluffed the truth once, I'm not sure he even cared about the smother. If the Afl doesn't stop this act with a hefty penalty, we will see plenty more " smothering" in the game and lots of careers jeopardized. 

You've extracted the essence of this event.

Maynard always intended to collide with Gus. That was the whole purpose of his effort. In his mind he was hoping to dusguise his real motive with the comical theatre of a smother. 

He's an opportunist...he can't help himself.

8 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Amazing how well co-ordinated players can be when trying to win or do something with the ball, the  turn into such clumsy oaths when there isn't any incentive to control their actions.

Similarly, I think Tommy Hawkins got away with a reckless act when he threw his arms out everywhere and broke Steven May's face a few years back.  ...Melbourne player, no story to answer here.

Bloody Oaf

57 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

all the afl need to do is prove that Maynard had another option but to bump. 

I’ll take mundys assessment over yours. 

“When you’ve jumped up and you’re in the air and there’s a player underneath you, you have the ability to almost catch yourself as you’re falling on top of them. It would have been really awkward and they’d have had a tumble, but that response has a much lesser chance of resulting in serious health concerns."

I think Mundy has really summed it up well. Better than almost anyone. 

It would have been an awkward collision and most likely they would have ended in a tangle.

He had time to think, turn, and tuck his shoulder in for impact. Gone

Brayshaw goes down with an act deemed reportable,   In the first few minutes,

Red card to Maynard   Off the ground no replacement.   
 

does this change the outcome of the game.

most probably   Just like us losing Gus probably cost us the game.

It bemuses me that a lot of the commentary both here and the media is made with little if any acknowledgement of the notion that this isn't just footy....it's finals footy.  As such the leashes at let loose...all bets off so to speak. There is an element of no tomorrows and we'll deal with the naughtiness later in the mean time win the flag....however you can.

If there were any semblance of Queensberry Rules through the h/a they most certainly get jettisoned by many come September.  Youd practically have to commit murder to be rubbed out if you happen to belong to certain clubs. And they know it...and use it.

Smell the flowers folks.... no level fields here.

There's no medal for nice....just for winning.