2024 MRO & Tribunal

[Ollie fan 3,408]

11 hours ago, picket fence said:

Absolutely correct DEESGRACCCCE

Not to mention Patrick "Brownlow" Cripps...

[Ollie fan 3,408]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Indeed.

But the real issue was smother or pressure is immaterial.

He should have got weeks because he chose to turn and bump - and flushed Gus with his shoulder.

Text book.

He had the option to put his hands out to protect himself and Gus.

Which as Brad Scott said, is EXACTLY what he he would have done if that incident happened at training and Pendulbury was the player he was running at to spoil.

Or as a posters noted here, a brilliant analogy i thought, if your 3 year old was on your bed and you fell towards them.

To protect your child, would you turn your body in mid air, brace  and flush them.with your shoulder?

Or would you remain chest on and put your hands out in front to do everything you could to protect them.

Hell, do the same thing wirh no child, just you but falling ro the ground.

What's your natural instinct? 

What's the natural instinctive reaction to protect yourself?

Every time its putting both hands out to cushion your fall.

NOT turn your body and smash your shoulder into the ground.

It's why the AFL's prosecution was so pathetic. They completely allowed the pies movement expert to spout rubbish and not push back.

Pathetic.

The fix was so in

It infuriates me.

1000% agree

[mauriesy 7,296]

11 hours ago, Gunna’s said:

Times have changed….for the better.

They have.

I remember when Matty Whelan got lauded by us for his hit on James Hird.

[dpositive 1,665]

I recall a time when a Melbourne player was suspended for an "attempted" trip.

In the weeks surrounding the suspension other teams performed actual trips without penalty, (not even a free kick).

In the following week I recall Viney being tackled twice in what became a trip. He received a holding the ball call.

Its arbitrary and subject to the umpires discretion. Melbourne receives little discretion from the umpires.

I have suggested that the club invite/employ umpires to come to the club and tell us what is wrong with our actions,  train with our players to embed correct tackling technique. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,735]

11 hours ago, chookrat said:

Monoccular, the Rough Conduct provisions specifically cover bumps but there is no provision for football actions such as smothers or spoils. Even if the Tribunal had suspended Maynard it would have been overturned on appeal.  The JVR spoil case earlier in the season made it clear that the AFL Tribunal could not impose an additional duty of care on players outside of the existing rules and while a key difference in the JVR case the ball was in dispute this isn't relevant in the way the rules are currently written.

I think the AFL have missed the opportunity to protect the ball carrier, by both making any bump a reportable offence regardless of whether there is high contact due to its potential for high contact, while imposing a duty of care for any high contact that results in injury on the ball carrier.

But the argument then becomes, the bump occurred after the initial action to smother, so cannot be seen as a 'football action'. The way it was prosecuted was so weak, but my line of questioning would've have been around from the point your arms were outstretched in the air looking to smother your next motion was to turn your body and drop your shoulder into Brayshaw's head. One option you had was to put your arms out in front of you to lessen the blow to Brayshaw, why didn't you do this instead?

This idea that it was a football action is nonsense, it was a split second decision and he got it wrong but wasn't penalised.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,735]

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

I just hope the club talks to Kozzie and tells him not to ever bump again. We can’t lose him for 7 weeks

100%. I love his aggression, but he risks missing big chunks of the season if he keeps attacking the man like he does.

Focus on the ball Koz not the man.

[biggestred 5,088]

i will never be convinced ma****D executed his duty of care to gus. ever. 

[Slartibartfast 17,279]

2 hours ago, mauriesy said:

They have.

I remember when Matty Whelan got lauded by us for his hit on James Hird.

Now there is an inconvenient truth!

14 hours ago, chookrat said:

With the SPP and Jimmy Webster incidents I think it has become clear that they AFL has made a huge mistake in not banning the action of bumping a player who is in possession of, disposing of or has just disposed of the ball.

chookrat thanks for your explanation regarding the Maynard decision and while I'm firmly in the Binman corner I do appreciate your explanation.

I think we all know that it was the opening minutes of the first final and Maynard wanted to make a "statement". He missed the smother and then found himself in the position to make that statement and made a very positive decision to do so.  And I'll hate him for making that decision forever.  

I'm not so angry about there being no suspension.  It's a little like a murderer getting 20 years, it doesn't bring the murdered person back to life. I still wonder if Brayshaw could sue Maynard for loss of income, it's not about the money, it's about Maynard being recognized for the brutality of his decision and the impact it has had on a fellow competitor.

[640MD 3,376]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

it's about Maynard being recognized for the brutality of his decision and the impact it has had on a fellow competitor.

It’s about his duty of care to his fellow player.  And about the AFL’s decision and direction for the future 

and they have failed 

[leave it to deever 17,511]

15 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Justice has been served) McGuire

The blokes an absolute [censored].

Didn't play footy himself.

Justice disappeared in that hearing.

Edited March 6 by leave it to deever

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,735]

1 hour ago, leave it to deever said:

The blokes an absolute [censored].

Didn't play footy himself.

Justice disappeared in that hearing.

He's a shocker Eddie.

So many things he has done and said over the years is disgraceful. The Adam Goodes one is the first that springs to mind! Genuinely racist.

[chookrat 4,250]

13 hours ago, binman said:

Indeed.

But the real issue is whether it was a smother or pressure is immaterial.

He should have got weeks because he chose to turn and bump - and flushed Gus with his shoulder.

Text book.

He had the option to put his hands out to protect himself and Gus.

Which as Brad Scott said, is EXACTLY what he he would have done if that incident happened at training and Pendlebury was the player he was running at to spoil.

Or as a poster noted here, a brilliant analogy i thought, if your 3 year old was on your bed and you fell towards them what would you do?

What would your instinctive reaction be to protect your child?

To protect your child, would you turn your body in mid air, brace and flush them with your shoulder?

Or would you remain chest on and put your hands out in front to do everything you could to protect them?

Hell, do the same thing with no child, just you but falling face first to the ground.

What's your natural instinct? 

What's the natural instinctive reaction to protect yourself?

Every time its putting both hands out to cushion your fall.

NOT turn your body and smash your shoulder into the ground.

It's why the AFL's prosecution was so pathetic. They completely allowed the pies movement expert to spout rubbish and not push back.

Or even ask the questions above - which i would have thought are the logical questions.

Or perhaps ask:

'Mr Maynard, you CHOSE to to turn your body and bump to protect yourself. That choice clearly protected you, but not your opponent. In hindsight, what other ways might you have CHOSEN to protect yourself AND show a duty of care to your opponent and minimise the risk of head trauma?

Was turning your body and choosing to bump your opponent in the head REALLY the only option you had to protect yourself and your opponent?'

 You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.

Or you might call YOUR OWN biomechanical expert as a witness to rebut theirs.

One that might for instance explain how many decisions can be made in a spilt second and how for example divers and gymnasts turn their body ALL THE TIME in a split second to minimise the impact of a mistimed dive or jump.

Pathetic.

The fix was so in

It infuriates me.

I agree with everything except for the ability of the AFL to successfully uphold and suspension. It is worth remembering that we successfully appealed JVR's suspension for the exact reason that Maynard would have been successful on appeal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102335210

Under the rules last year a player does not owe any duty of care to the impact if their actions unless they have breached a rule such as rough conduct which covers bumps and contact below the knees but does not apply to incidental or careless contact during a smother or spoil.

[binman 42,972]

1 hour ago, chookrat said:

I agree with everything except for the ability of the AFL to successfully uphold and suspension. It is worth remembering that we successfully appealed JVR's suspension for the exact reason that Maynard would have been successful on appeal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102335210

Under the rules last year a player does not owe any duty of care to the impact if their actions unless they have breached a rule such as rough conduct which covers bumps and contact below the knees but does not apply to incidental or careless contact during a smother or spoil.

But he DID bump.

That's the point.

That was never in question 

Choose to bump. Pay the price - that's the rule whether it occurs during a careless or incidental contact or not. 

Or a 'football act'.

They didn't debate he bumped Gus.

They argued he was merely protecting himself whilst engaged in a football act. A reasonable choice to make in the circumstances 

A shepperd is unarguably a football act.

But CHOOSE to bump and you knock.a player out you are gone.

Just as Maynard should have copped weeks when he CHOSE to bump rather than, say, just putting both hands out to Gus's chest to minimise the potential for harm for BOTH of them.

If in that latter scenario he accidentally hit Gus in the head and knocked him out, yes that would not be reportable.

BUT HE DIDN'T - HE CHOSE TO BUMP. 

Maynard owed Gus a duty of care once he chose to bump -  and did not meet that duty of care when he hit him flush to the head.

Edited March 6 by binman

[monoccular 17,429]

14 hours ago, binman said:

Indeed.

But the real issue is whether it was a smother or pressure is immaterial.

He should have got weeks because he chose to turn and bump - and flushed Gus with his shoulder.

Text book.

He had the option to put his hands out to protect himself and Gus.

Which as Brad Scott said, is EXACTLY what he he would have done if that incident happened at training and Pendlebury was the player he was running at to spoil.

Or as a poster noted here, a brilliant analogy i thought, if your 3 year old was on your bed and you fell towards them what would you do?

What would your instinctive reaction be to protect your child?

To protect your child, would you turn your body in mid air, brace and flush them with your shoulder?

Or would you remain chest on and put your hands out in front to do everything you could to protect them?

Hell, do the same thing with no child, just you but falling face first to the ground.

What's your natural instinct? 

What's the natural instinctive reaction to protect yourself?

Every time its putting both hands out to cushion your fall.

NOT turn your body and smash your shoulder into the ground.

It's why the AFL's prosecution was so pathetic. They completely allowed the pies movement expert to spout rubbish and not push back.

Or even ask the questions above - which i would have thought are the logical questions.

Or perhaps ask:

'Mr Maynard, you CHOSE to to turn your body and bump to protect yourself. That choice clearly protected you, but not your opponent. In hindsight, what other ways might you have CHOSEN to protect yourself AND show a duty of care to your opponent and minimise the risk of head trauma?

Was turning your body and choosing to bump your opponent in the head REALLY the only option you had to protect yourself and your opponent?'

 You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT.

Or you might call YOUR OWN biomechanical expert as a witness to rebut theirs.

One that might for instance explain how many decisions can be made in a spilt second and how for example divers and gymnasts turn their body ALL THE TIME in a split second to minimise the impact of a mistimed dive or jump.

Pathetic.

The fix was so in

It infuriates me.

"You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT."

And it is as clear as day that the AFL did NOT want a Magpie to miss a final - FFS they had a Magpie member put up THE weakest "prosecution case" ever, and he didn't question let alone rebuff the biomechanics.  A f'n disgrace Gil!

13 hours ago, mauriesy said:

They have.

I remember when Matty Whelan got lauded by us for his hit on James Hird.

As I recall it was a classic shirtfront, shoulder to chest.  OK then, maybe not now dependent upon who and when.

[binman 42,972]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

"You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT."

And it is as clear as day that the AFL did NOT want a Magpie to miss a final - FFS they had a Magpie member put up THE weakest "prosecution case" ever, and he didn't question let alone rebuff the biomechanics.  A f'n disgrace Gil!

As I recall it was a classic shirtfront, shoulder to chest.  OK then, maybe not now dependent upon who and when.

And don't forget another ex pie didn't even consider it worthy of being looked at!

[chookrat 4,250]

13 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

But the argument then becomes, the bump occurred after the initial action to smother, so cannot be seen as a 'football action'. The way it was prosecuted was so weak, but my line of questioning would've have been around from the point your arms were outstretched in the air looking to smother your next motion was to turn your body and drop your shoulder into Brayshaw's head. One option you had was to put your arms out in front of you to lessen the blow to Brayshaw, why didn't you do this instead?

This idea that it was a football action is nonsense, it was a split second decision and he got it wrong but wasn't penalised.

Good point, 

 

2 hours ago, binman said:

But he DID bump.

That's the point.

That was never in question 

Choose to bump. Pay the price - that's the rule whether it occurs during a careless or incidental contact or not. 

Or a 'football act'.

They didn't debate he bumped Gus.

They argued he was merely protecting himself whilst engaged in a football act. A reasonable choice to make in the circumstances 

A shepperd is unarguably a football act.

But CHOOSE to bump and you knock.a player out you are gone.

Just as Maynard should have copped weeks when he CHOSE to bump rather than, say, just putting both hands out to Gus's chest to minimise the potential for harm for BOTH of them.

If in that latter scenario he accidentally hit Gus in the head and knocked him out, yes that would not be reportable.

BUT HE DIDN'T - HE CHOSE TO BUMP. 

Maynard owed Gus a duty of care once he chose to bump -  and did not meet that duty of care when he hit him flush to the head.

Its worth noting that Viney successfully appealed an MRO suspension on the basis that he was bracing and not bumping. The Maynard argument is that he left the ground to smother and that he had a right to brace for contact when contact was inevitable. Per other posters I think that if Maynard was required to have a duty of care to Gus that he probably would have kept his arms outstretched and therefore not caused brain trauma to Gus.

It would be interesting to see the percentage of concussions in AFL that are to the ball carrier as the result of bumps or other incidents where the opponent is careless towards the ball carrier. I suspect these would account for the majority of concussions and could be reduced by making it clear that bumps are not allowed and that defenders owe a duty of care to the ball cartier, and that these changes would have next to no impact on the quality of the game.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,735]

9 hours ago, chookrat said:

Good point, 

 

Its worth noting that Viney successfully appealed an MRO suspension on the basis that he was bracing and not bumping. The Maynard argument is that he left the ground to smother and that he had a right to brace for contact when contact was inevitable. Per other posters I think that if Maynard was required to have a duty of care to Gus that he probably would have kept his arms outstretched and therefore not caused brain trauma to Gus.

It would be interesting to see the percentage of concussions in AFL that are to the ball carrier as the result of bumps or other incidents where the opponent is careless towards the ball carrier. I suspect these would account for the majority of concussions and could be reduced by making it clear that bumps are not allowed and that defenders owe a duty of care to the ball cartier, and that these changes would have next to no impact on the quality of the game.

I personally think there was a fairly big difference between the two acts.

Viney had his eyes on the ball and it was in dispute and only looked at his opponent in the last split second and then braced.

Brayshaw was running with the ball, so Maynard actually had eyes for Brayshaw the whole time and ran directly at him. Maynard left the ground and had a lot more time to make a decision.

[binman 42,972]

He had the right to brace for contact?

Yep, that's exactly what he argued.

A ridiculous argument.

Because, one he initiated contact.

Two, since when is bracing for contact defined as turning your body and bumping an opponent with your shoulder to their head?

In fact to brace for contact in a situation where you are falling is defined in the Collins dictionary as:

'If you brace yourself against something or brace part of your body against it, you press against something in order to steady your body or to avoid falling'

A definition difficult to apply to Maynard's decision to bump.

And easy to apply to the logical way of bracing for contact when falling towards someone - putting both hands out to brace the fall.

Why did the AFL not challenge Maynard's defence he was bracing for contact by choosing to bump rather than the way 95 people out of 100 would do in such circumstances if the aim was to protect himself?

Again, try this experiment. Stand and fall face first to the ground. 

What is your INSTINCTIVE reaction to brace for the inevitable contact with the ground and protect yourself from harm? 

I'm not sure about you, but for the vast majority of people it ain't turning your body and smashing your shoulder into the ground.

And (getting into the territory of whether this was in fact an unavoidable incidental football act, as opposed to the reckless act it so clearly was - as evidenced by the sickening impact) Gus was not really the 'ball carrier' as such.

It's interesting you raise the viney example.

IIRC he braced for contact, by turning his shoulder, when a player with the ball ran at him. He did so to protect himself from a danger HE DIDN'T INITIATE.

And further, he wasn't moving towards his opponent, his opponent was moving - at speed- towards him

In such circumstances, his decision to get into a ball to protect himself was completely reasonable. And unlike Maynard's decision to bump to brace for contact, is EXACTLY what most people would do to protect themselves in such circumstances.

Unlike Viney, Maynard initiated contact. 

And critically, very much unlike the Viney incident, the ball had left the area. Remember, his argument was he merely attempting to smother. Well he got nowhere near doing so. The ball was 20 metres away by the time of contact.

And finally, why did the AFL not drill down on the defence it was a football act?

The obvious rebuttal to that spurious defence was that, sure a smother is a football act, but was that really a smother as it is generally understood?

Running full tilt at someone who is running at you, jumping 10 foot in the air and completely missing the ball? That's a smother?

A smother is generally understood to mean diving at the foot of the kicking player, hoping to literally smother the ball as it leaves the boot.

So the person smothering has to be pretty damned close to the kicker - not 30 metres away.

Besides, if it really was a 'football act' why is that first time (as far as I'm aware of) that a scenario like that has ever happened, where a player knocks out an opponent when attempting to smother?

Edited March 7 by binman

[Demonland 72,193]

 

[spirit of norm smith 16,459]

weak as … 😡 … surely a $5000 fine as a penalty for his arrogance and stupidity 
 

Collingwood big man Mason Cox has been reprimanded by the AFL for pushing GWS ruck coach Shane Mumford in a bizarre incident before their opening-round match.

After apologising on Monday for making contact with Mumford, Cox will have no further action taken against him after the AFL completed their investigation.

Noting Cox’s contrition and the club’s commitment in supporting him to be more aware in the future, the AFL has determined to issue a reprimand to Cox and take no further action,” the league statement read

[sue 9,106]

22 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

weak as … 😡 … surely a $5000 fine as a penalty for his arrogance and stupidity 
 

Collingwood big man Mason Cox has been reprimanded by the AFL for pushing GWS ruck coach Shane Mumford in a bizarre incident before their opening-round match.

After apologising on Monday for making contact with Mumford, Cox will have no further action taken against him after the AFL completed their investigation.

Noting Cox’s contrition and the club’s commitment in supporting him to be more aware in the future, the AFL has determined to issue a reprimand to Cox and take no further action,” the league statement read

what a joke.   Totally risible. So now any player can do it and then express contrition and his club will 'make him more aware in future'.   Probably not. But I bet the first player penalised will not come from a 'big' club.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,247]

On 06/03/2024 at 15:52, DistrACTION Jackson said:

He's a shocker Eddie.

So many things he has done and said over the years is disgraceful. The Adam Goodes one is the first that springs to mind! Genuinely racist.

Saw this on another forum .... 

Having had the sheer displeasure of meeting Eddie McGuire on numerous occasions, he is an unpleasant, loathsome, self-serving, over-exposed pillock, who delights in bullying people and thinks that gifting his two sons Joe and Xander media gigs is not nepotism.

 

 

 

 

[640MD 3,376]

22 minutes ago, Winners at last said:

Saw this on another forum .... 

Having had the sheer displeasure of meeting Eddie McGuire on numerous occasions, he is an unpleasant, loathsome, self-serving, over-exposed pillock, who delights in bullying people and thinks that gifting his two sons Joe and Xander media gigs is not nepotism.

 

 

 

 

I for one would like to know what this person really thinks about Mr McGuire

Can he (?) make it clearer !

[Demonland 72,193]

 

[monoccular 17,429]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Kicking is one of the lowest acts on a footy field - he is bloody lucky not to have started with 4 regardless of impact.  
Cannot be tolerated