Any word on Angus?

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,655]

17 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

You reckon Maynard practices those types of 'football acts' on Murphy at training?

 

He certainly had a crack at him in the grand final.  If you watch the incident where Murphy was concussed, Maynard collided with him just seconds prior.  Involving his head.

[Guest]

On 10/10/2023 at 11:49 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think what will be more awkward for the AFL is if the rules are not changed to make clear that what Maynard did will no longer be considered a "football act". I have no doubt that the AFL would prefer players who do what Maynard did to be suspended. The process which has been followed gives the AFL all the evidence it needs to change the wording of the relevant rule to ensure players with the ball are properly protected. 

Do they though? I mean, do they at all times want a suspension for such an act? Clearly they don’t, for if they did they would’ve made a strong, or at least, passable case at the hearing, instead of that pathetic mealy-mouthed presentation they dished up. They also would’ve appealed the ridiculous outcome, had they been serious about wiping this sort of action out. But they didn’t. Begs the question, why didn’t they? The answer is because they are Collingwood’s submissive, kowtowing little b!ttch. Collingwood threatened the AFL in advance with taking it all the way to the Supreme Court should the suspension be upheld. They threatened to pull out all stops. This is a fact. Source? That’d be “trust me bro” 😉 

[hemingway 7,627]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Do they though? I mean, do they at all times want a suspension for such an act? Clearly they don’t, for if they did they would’ve made a strong, or at least, passable case at the hearing, instead of that pathetic mealy-mouthed presentation they dished up. They also would’ve appealed the ridiculous outcome, had they been serious about wiping this sort of action out. But they didn’t. Begs the question, why didn’t they? The answer is because they are Collingwood’s submissive, kowtowing little b!ttch. Collingwood threatened the AFL in advance with taking it all the way to the Supreme Court should the suspension be upheld. They threatened to pull out all stops. This is a fact. Source? That’d be “trust me bro” 😉 

Yep agree. AFL had the opportunity to make a stand and they squibbed it. Unforgivable. We will remember this cowardice for a long time. And the repercussions for Angus may well last a lifetime. 

[Longsufferingnomore 1,631]

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Do they though? I mean, do they at all times want a suspension for such an act? Clearly they don’t, for if they did they would’ve made a strong, or at least, passable case at the hearing, instead of that pathetic mealy-mouthed presentation they dished up. They also would’ve appealed the ridiculous outcome, had they been serious about wiping this sort of action out. But they didn’t. Begs the question, why didn’t they? The answer is because they are Collingwood’s submissive, kowtowing little b!ttch. Collingwood threatened the AFL in advance with taking it all the way to the Supreme Court should the suspension be upheld. They threatened to pull out all stops. This is a fact. Source? That’d be “trust me bro” 😉 

Not like you to "mince words" WCW😊

Edited October 11, 2023 by Longsufferingnomore

[chookrat 4,247]

57 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Yep agree. AFL had the opportunity to make a stand and they squibbed it. Unforgivable. We will remember this cowardice for a long time. And the repercussions for Angus may well last a lifetime. 

I disagree, if the Tribunal suspended Maynard then the suspension would have been squashed on appeal.  The AFL had already tested this re the Van Rooyen spoil, which while different in that it was a spoil in a contest compared to a smother, is the same principal that players are allowed to spoil, smother, etc and these actions are not deemed rough conduct. There is a specific rough conduct provision for bumps and tackles but not for spoils, smothers, kicks etc. Maynard argued that he left the ground for a legitimate spoil, which he is allowed to do, and once in the air the high contact was unavoidable - there was no argument the Tribunal could have made that would be upheld on appeal.

I believe the AFL will make a change in the off season where players will have a duty of care towards each other for any action, e.g. if a player leaves the ground to spoil and they collect a player high the AFL will argue that the player chose to leave the ground and bears some responsibility for the outcome.  The same as if a player attempts to spoil and collects an opposition player high, such as in Van Rooyen's case.

[Go the Biff 3,414]

On 10/10/2023 at 3:30 PM, Jaded No More said:

Didn't Pies fans carry on that Melbourne were negligent to let Gus play despite his previous concussion issues?

They didn't seem to mind Murphy playing.

If only they were bright enough to understand what irony is.

That ignores the fact that Gus has played 6 years without any concussion incidents. In that time he's taken some pretty big hits. Hits that have had my heart in my mouth hoping he gets up unconcussed. And he has.

The hit from Maynard would have laid out anyone. Concussion history or not. 

[Go the Biff 3,414]

6 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

They were lead on by that [censored] article by Tom Browne.  Who let's not forget is the son of the Collingwood president.  There is absolutely no evidence, nothing but pure speculation but it hasn't stopped the filth being led by fake news created by a Collingwood lackey in the media who, let's face it, has always been [censored] at his job.

I'm not bitter.  Much.

Tom Browne's appearance on my TV screen always causes me to enter a period of deep reflection. 

I'm led to review my life in an effort to recall what heinous act I've committed to deserve the corpulent head of this gormless twit to invade the peace and serenity of my lounge room. 

Somewhere I must have been a proper bastid. 

It's not what you know........

[frankie_d 1,471]

All too late, but I was surprised that the biomechanical evidence wasn't challenged. 

Sure, once he had left the ground, his trajectory was ballistic, and he couldn't alter it. But actually, the trajectory of his centre of mass was ballistic. He was perfectly able to reconfigure his body around that centre of mass - he chose to go into a bump configuration. He could have done otherwise. 

NRL has eliminated the kicker being flattened like Gus was. 

[ElDiablo14 4,998]

9 minutes ago, frankie_d said:

All too late, but I was surprised that the biomechanical evidence wasn't challenged. 

Sure, once he had left the ground, his trajectory was ballistic, and he couldn't alter it. But actually, the trajectory of his centre of mass was ballistic. He was perfectly able to reconfigure his body around that centre of mass - he chose to go into a bump configuration. He could have done otherwise. 

NRL has eliminated the kicker being flattened like Gus was. 

Exactly!

Humans are not boulders or projectiles, we can use momentum to spin or bodies (e.g. figure skaters).

That f-ing biomechanics expert was full of BS, and btw I hear the rumour he was brought from the 34th ranked university in the country... No wonder he/she had no clue!! 

[frankie_d 1,471]

4 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Exactly!

Humans are not boulders or projectiles, we can use momentum to spin or bodies (e.g. figure skaters).

That f-ing biomechanics expert was full of BS, and btw I hear the rumour he was brought from the 34th ranked university in the country... No wonder he/she had no clue!! 

He just wasn't asked the right questions. That's how adversarial hearings work. If your counsel doesn't know (or get) good advice, then the 'tribunal/court' only hears one side's expert 

 

[manny100 1,552]

Its the poor decision that should have seen him suspended. Irresponsible and putting another in danger.

Players get paid to make good decisions at the elite level.

Something not quite right about no penalty.

[biggestred 5,076]

What do kids do when they realise they are about to run into another kid?

They instinctively put their hands up infront of their chests. Everyone does the same thing.

Maynard had to go PAST this position from his hands in the air to tuck his shoulder in and turn. He could have been front on with his hands infront of himself to protect himself but he didnt. It would have been awkward as all hell and they would have collided still but gus wouldnt have been knocked out and it wouldnt have even been a free kick. 

Still  makes me sick.

 

[binman 42,896]

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

What do kids do when they realise they are about to run into another kid?

They instinctively put their hands up infront of their chests. Everyone does the same thing.

Maynard had to go PAST this position from his hands in the air to tuck his shoulder in and turn. He could have been front on with his hands infront of himself to protect himself but he didnt. It would have been awkward as all hell and they would have collided still but gus wouldnt have been knocked out and it wouldnt have even been a free kick. 

Still  makes me sick.

 

This times 1000.

As Scott said on 360, what do you think Maynard would have done in that exact scenario, ie jumping to smother from a distance, at training and he was about to collide into a teammate.

Does anyone seriously think he would have turned his body to and hit his teammate in the head with his shoulder? Or, as you suggest put his hands out to protect his teammate, which is the instinctive reaction (unless you are a thug).

Even if just falling over face first, say onto a mattress, the instinctive reaction is to put both hands out in front to brace for impact and cushion the fall - not turn and hit the ground shoulder first. 

I cant believe the biomechanics expert was not asked about the the latter point (ie 'what is the instinctive, natural way to break a fall?')

And i can't believe Maynard was not asked how he would have acted in the same situation at training.

Scratch that. I can believe it. The fix was in.

[Adam The God 30,220]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, Lucifers Hero said:

In this article about Murphy nathan-murphy-could-be-forced-to-retire-concussion-history it says:

"...the AFL’s general counsel Stephen Meade is expected to make a recommendation to Murphy imminently.  The concussion panel earlier this year recommended Sydney’s Patrick McCartin retire after he’s suffered nine career concussions – including eight at St Kilda".

I suspect this panel will play a role in Gus' future plans.

They may well er on the side of more caution given who his family and father in law was.

[Adam The God 30,220]

On 10/10/2023 at 11:29 AM, Older demon said:

It is curse time. The last instance of a Collingwood player decking a Melbourne player and winning a flag was 1958. It took them 32 years to win another with the development of the Colliwobbles. I hope the karma bus hits them again and it another 32 years before they win a flag and have lots of close misses and losses. 

I think it'd be even better if they got nowhere near another one for 32 years. That'd be nice. They'd drop a few supporters along the way in that instance.

[DeeMee 873]

There was no prosecution - counsel was inept. 

[biggestred 5,076]

1 hour ago, binman said:

This times 1000.

As Scott said on 360, what do you think Maynard would have done in that exact scenario, ie jumping to smother from a distance, at training and he was about to collide into a teammate.

Does anyone seriously think he would have turned his body to and hit his teammate in the head with his shoulder? Or, as you suggest put his hands out to protect his teammate, which is the instinctive reaction (unless you are a thug).

Even if just falling over face first, say onto a mattress, the instinctive reaction is to put both hands out in front to brace for impact and cushion the fall - not turn and hit the ground shoulder first. 

I cant believe the biomechanics expert was not asked about the the latter point (ie 'what is the instinctive, natural way to break a fall?')

And i can't believe Maynard was not asked how he would have acted in the same situation at training.

Scratch that. I can believe it. The fix was in.

Yep.. no one will ever convince me it wasnt -at the least- careless. 

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

On 10/6/2023 at 2:59 PM, ElDiablo14 said:

Him and Cox 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢

Can I add that little twerp that wears his old man’s footy shorts when he gets a game for the Filth (Ginnivan) to the list?

Edited October 11, 2023 by Wodjathefirst

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,655]

16 hours ago, frankie_d said:

All too late, but I was surprised that the biomechanical evidence wasn't challenged. 

Sure, once he had left the ground, his trajectory was ballistic, and he couldn't alter it. But actually, the trajectory of his centre of mass was ballistic. He was perfectly able to reconfigure his body around that centre of mass - he chose to go into a bump configuration. He could have done otherwise. 

NRL has eliminated the kicker being flattened like Gus was. 

This is what I find galling about the whole thing.  He got off because no one in that tribunal hearing challenged his numerous lies.  First he said he did not travel forward while in the air, then he admitted he did, but only 1 - 2 metres.  He stated he felt the ball hit his hand, video evidence shows it went past his right elbow and missed it by about 5 inches. He stated he leapt from a standing position on both feet, video shows he was running full pelt and leapt from one foot from his running action.  The most galling is him saying Brayshaw changed direction before he kicked it.  This to me blows his whole "It was an attempted smother" argument - the tribunal accepted he was in the air before Brayshaw kicked the ball.  So if he wasn't expecting him to change direction, it can't be a smother, because he would be expecting the ball to go wide to his left.  It didn't, it went to the right of him.  Ergo, it was a charge, not a smother. 

And they let him get away with it.

[Katrina Dee Fan 3,655]

11 hours ago, biggestred said:

Yep.. no one will ever convince me it wasnt -at the least- careless. 

It was a charge. No one can convince me otherwise.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,720]

The AFL legal counsel was inept during that hearing, one has to think on purpose.

It was all a publicity stunt to make it look like they AFL care about head knocks and to try point to it for future litigation.

Was actually blindingly obvious and it would be nice if someone in the media had a modicum of integrity and went at them for it.

[RDBhero 65]

6 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

This is what I find galling about the whole thing.  He got off because no one in that tribunal hearing challenged his numerous lies.  First he said he did not travel forward while in the air, then he admitted he did, but only 1 - 2 metres.  He stated he felt the ball hit his hand, video evidence shows it went past his right elbow and missed it by about 5 inches. He stated he leapt from a standing position on both feet, video shows he was running full pelt and leapt from one foot from his running action.  The most galling is him saying Brayshaw changed direction before he kicked it.  This to me blows his whole "It was an attempted smother" argument - the tribunal accepted he was in the air before Brayshaw kicked the ball.  So if he wasn't expecting him to change direction, it can't be a smother, because he would be expecting the ball to go wide to his left.  It didn't, it went to the right of him.  Ergo, it was a charge, not a smother. 

And they let him get away with it.

I was there....this is SPOT ON summation....it was a premeditated charge which Brayshaw tried to brush off.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

1 hour ago, RDBhero said:

I was there....this is SPOT ON summation....it was a premeditated charge which Brayshaw tried to brush off.

Taken out….

Never Forget 

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,720]

Just saw something from Sam Edmund saying medically Gus is ok and plans to complete pre-season as normal.

Did anyone else hear this?

[monoccular 17,423]

On 11/10/2023 at 18:58, frankie_d said:

He just wasn't asked the right questions. That's how adversarial hearings work. If your counsel doesn't know (or get) good advice, then the 'tribunal/court' only hears one side's expert 

 

He wasn't asked the right questions because the gutless AFL (yes, specifically you Gil and Dill - get a mirror though no doubt Gil spends hours daily preening himself)) did not want the distraction and embarrassment of appeals / court etc.    Just plain gutlessness.