On 05/03/2024 at 20:19, 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. The player with the ball is just too vulnerable to contact and too often this action results in head trauma.

I've listened to what Andy said on the podcast here, what Simon Goodwin has said for at least two season re instructing our players not to bump, and Gus's comments re the need for the AFL being proactive rather than reactive.  While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules, I do wonder whether a shift in attitude towards contact when a player is disposing of the ball may have changed Maynard's action.

The players react to split decisions and if the option to bump is removed then logically it should reduce these sort of brain fart incidents which make no sense in the context of a practice match.

The AFLs prosecution was absolutely [censored] poor and crack handed

if I recall

 

no mention of recklessness

duty of care

i mean you can’t mention if it had been a daicii under him as he knocked Murphy out

he has history

absolute Clayton’s prosecution - the one you’re having when you’re not having one

hate

our club failed gus on this also

18 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

I know the MRO triggers you Red from every angle, but Kozzie was extremely lucky he didn’t catch Smith in the head last year. 

Yes he was, but he didn’t and got 2 weeks. That’s the very point.

They are just so inconsistent.

The MRO and Tribunal said Maynard did nothing wrong. He knocked an opponent out cold, ended a guy’s career and possibly cost us a flag, but the 2 bodies responsible for this said “nothing to see.”

Yes the MRO and Tribunal trigger me.

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

he left the ground to contest the ball. then in the air realised he wouldn’t get it. what can he do in the air?

That's the excuse Maynard used in ending Brayshaw's career. We'll see what the tribunal thinks.

10 hours ago, Dee-monic said:

That's the excuse Maynard used in ending Brayshaw's career. We'll see what the tribunal thinks.

I think with Gus retired, they realise the whole Maynard thing was a debacle.

A side thought on  the Wright case. If he had just stuck his knee out and broken 3 ribs on Cunnningham instead of using is shoulder he'd have no case to answer. The collision look a little similar to me in terms of the angle both players were coming from. Using the knee as a battering ram a la Cox and Chol must be reportable. 

11 hours ago, Dee-monic said:

That's the excuse Maynard used in ending Brayshaw's career. We'll see what the tribunal thinks.

the difference is Wright was jumping to contest the ball. Maynard was not. he took Angus out and pretended it was a smother

47 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I think with Gus retired, they realise the whole Maynard thing was a debacle.

The Gus “debacle” was a well planned faux prosecution designed to keep the assailant playing finals.

I'm going to poke the bear here.  Isn't it interesting how one of the factors that got Maynard off was the opinion (I say that loosely) that he attempted to spoil the kick.  Yet what got Max King suspended for a week? Ill-attempt of spoiling.  Such [censored].

 

15 hours ago, DubDee said:

he left the ground to contest the ball. then i’m the air realised he wouldn’t get it. what can he do in the air?

Duty of care not adhered to, because he took his eye off the ball at the last two seconds, and went to the player to brace for contact, with shoulder.

It actually happens quite a lot, but some protagonists  get better treatment than others.

12 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

 

54 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

It will be interesting to see on what grounds.  

I'd suspend Wright purely for the fact he's an essendon player

4 hours ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

It will be interesting to see on what grounds.  

not enough force - downgrade it to a fine (as per sicily)

 

With 8.03 left in 2nd Quarter, Chol runs up behind Max and lifts his knee, hitting Max in the back.

We know he hit May and he also got JVR high with a knee in a ruck contest.

This knee first type of play is more than coincidence imo.

 

23 minutes ago, Redleg said:

With 8.03 left in 2nd Quarter, Chol runs up behind Max and lifts his knee, hitting Max in the back.

We know he hit May and he also got JVR high with a knee in a ruck contest.

This knee first type of play is more than coincidence imo.

 

Has been noticed in previous games because he takes speccies a lot, and has a habit of getting to contests late.

4 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Really interested to hear from tribunal:

What should Wright have done differently?

When in the sequence should he have made that decision to act differently? And how long did he have to act?

What is a reasonable penalty for failing to make that choice?

 

The more I watch, the more I feel there was so little time for Wright to act differently?

While similar argument on Maynards was made, this is different from Maynard incident, IMO, as the act of lead-up running at the ball is so normal (Maynard attempted a very abnormal ambitious leap into a smother when Brayshaw was clearly going to have kicked the ball). And both Wright and Cunningham reached ball almost at the same instant, and Cunningham was approaching running diagonal to ball flight and Wright

 

EDIT - didn't expect Guilty plea to all aspects of the charge...

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

27 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Really interested to hear from tribunal:

What should Wright have done differently?

When in the sequence should he have made that decision to act differently? And how long did he have to act?

What is a reasonable penalty for failing to make that choice?

 

The more I watch, the more I feel there was so little time for Wright to act differently?

While similar argument on Maynards was made, this is different from Maynard incident, IMO, as the act of lead-up running at the ball is so normal (Maynard attempted a very abnormal ambitious leap into a smother when Brayshaw was clearly going to have kicked the ball). And both Wright and Cunningham reached ball almost at the same instant, and Cunningham was approaching running diagonal to ball flight and Wright

 

EDIT - didn't expect Guilty plea to all aspects of the charge...

He never went for a ball that was there to mark. He braced and hit a player going for the ball. He could have even just put his arm out and spoiled.

That is the problem.

IMO the concussion came from the player hitting his head on the ground.

 

 

The tribunal is a joke, they are now supposedly going hard on head high hits, when last year they totally ignored Maynard, more than ignored it, someone made a statement about not wanting a player to miss out on such an important game. Max gets hit most games in the head from spoils and is lucky if he gets a free. Mason Cox sticks his knee in to Max and every other ruckman as part of his ruck routine and that is ok with the umpires and the tribunal. i dont see what the AFL is doing is protecting players but trying to protect themselves from potential law suits.

 

Not sure how people are arguing that Wright doesn’t deserve weeks. 
 

No realistic attempt at the ball which ended in a nasty concussion is pretty straight forward. 
 

And I’m sick of hearing about players “protecting themselves”. Give me a spell. The bloke going back with the flight didn’t get an opportunity to “protect himself”, so why should the 110kg guy running at full speed from behind get to? How about not committing to contact if you’re worried you’ll need to “protect yourself”. P1zzweak excuse. 

2 hours ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Really interested to hear from tribunal:

What should Wright have done differently?

When in the sequence should he have made that decision to act differently? And how long did he have to act?

What is a reasonable penalty for failing to make that choice?

 

The more I watch, the more I feel there was so little time for Wright to act differently?

While similar argument on Maynards was made, this is different from Maynard incident, IMO, as the act of lead-up running at the ball is so normal (Maynard attempted a very abnormal ambitious leap into a smother when Brayshaw was clearly going to have kicked the ball). And both Wright and Cunningham reached ball almost at the same instant, and Cunningham was approaching running diagonal to ball flight and Wright

 

EDIT - didn't expect Guilty plea to all aspects of the charge...

done differently? attempted the mark or attempted to punch the ball or spoil. both, very viable in this case.

a great example is tracc's spoil in last qtr. didn't even touch the player, but then tracc wasn't intent on making the other player "earn his kick". wright knew the other player was vulnerable and had a duty of care