Christian Petracca

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,902]

21 hours ago, Redleg said:

the resultant lack of any penalty is just bewildering, other than the fact that the Tribunal Chairman and MRO are admitted Pies supporters. Neither of them should have officiated in either case.

I'm not sure the tribunal and MRO being Pies supporters was the factor in the Maynard case though, because if my memory those people actually initially handed down a reasonable (yet possibly still slightly lenient in hindsight) penalty. 

I lay the blame more so with Collingwood for taking it to court to challenge what was clear to everyone else in the game an action that shouldn't be accepted and the AFL for not having the gumption to counter challenge Collingwoods legal action or threaten Collingwood into submission before it went to court in the first place by whatever means.  The fact the AFL changed rule in the off season was an admission of guilt that they had essentially Fffed up.  As for the McGuire behaviour after Maynard got off - don't even get me started. 

AFL Power club politics at its best.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[Roost it far 8,696]

Players deserve protection from grotesque injuries. You do not need to jam your knee into an opposition players side to spoil or take a mark. It should always be a vertical motion as opposed to horizontal. Just watch how Jeremy Cameron marks high balls. Moore drives his knee into players week in week out. He’s caused several really significant injuries and the fact the AFL isn’t discussing this just shows how asleep at the wheel they are…..Oh but Kozz gets 3 weeks….give me a break. It’s laughable.

[Ethan Tremblay 31,011]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Players deserve protection from grotesque injuries. You do not need to jam your knee into an opposition players side to spoil or take a mark. It should always be a vertical motion as opposed to horizontal. Just watch how Jeremy Cameron marks high balls. Moore drives his knee into players week in week out. He’s caused several really significant injuries and the fact the AFL isn’t discussing this just shows how asleep at the wheel they are…..Oh but Kozz gets 3 weeks….give me a break. It’s laughable.

Agree with this. But, they (the AFL) aren’t asleep at the wheel. They’re just too scared to do anything that will make Collingwood upset or angry. 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Ethan Tremblay

[leave it to deever 17,531]

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Players deserve protection from grotesque injuries. You do not need to jam your knee into an opposition players side to spoil or take a mark. It should always be a vertical motion as opposed to horizontal. Just watch how Jeremy Cameron marks high balls. Moore drives his knee into players week in week out. He’s caused several really significant injuries and the fact the AFL isn’t discussing this just shows how asleep at the wheel they are…..Oh but Kozz gets 3 weeks….give me a break. It’s laughable.

I argued the angle issue at the time but was dismissed by not a few.

I'm still convinced that a knee horizontally " planted" doesn't produce any further lift. But in full disclosure I'm obviously not a body movement expert or whatever the name of that guys position was bought in by cwood for the defence of Maynard.

Certainly we need to be careful so as not to jeopardize the occurrence of the specky but we need to protect players from career ending injuries too.

I can't say I've watched enough of Moore to claim he has form but I certainly won't agree that his knee action was a natural reaction to help facilitate a mark. 

So in agreeing that the action was not a natural football act in helping Moore achieve elevation, one has to wonder what his motivation was 

Perhaps there was none. Maybe he gets the benefit of doubt in that it's just a protection habit done out of muscle memory over the years.

That said, it's not something one wants to see happen on a regular basis because it could have ended Trac's career and or someone elses. But as mentioned with a bob each way, it would be tricky to outlaw given the sanctity of the specky. 

But perhaps it should be examined. Like Maynard's so called smother, the old knee  in the spleen routine to reach new heights, could in the feet of some, be used for "moore" sinister purposes if the magpies playbook so requires.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did have form though. Not necessarily because he's not a good bloke but the rather due to the whole culture of thuggery celebrated by pies supporters as evidenced by their cheering when por Gus was lying prostrate in the middle of hallowed turf of the MCG.

Sorry to be so negative during these times of festive holidays but a good deal of them are simply just dogs. In fact I take that back. That's an afront to the entire canine population.

[Gator 17,489]

5 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

That's rubbish.  The players that can actually get elevation to take screamers do so because they get most of there momentum going up and not forward into the players back.  If you can't do that, don't go for the mark in that way and don't raise your knees into their back.  What Moore did was like an unrealistic attempt with neglect for the players welfare.  Similarly poorly executed attempts like Chol on May should be looked at.  Again massive knee raise.  From memory it was Chol or someone similar that almost took out someone's head/kneck in the next week.  Can't have the head being sacrosanct whe  you bump, but then have it being OK to make full contact with a knee during a controlled action.

People also say that Maynard was within the rules and do you want to take out players committing to the contest.  I think it's all about players playing with an extent more control and being aware that they can't just be human wrecking balls out on the field, but that that still leaves plenty of room to play the game it should be played.

It use to be more of the 6' and less athletic types that could actually jump they flew for this sort of mark and now they have given licence to every man and his dog to go for them.  Similarly, I don't think players would have got away with jumping straight into someone's back like Chol and Moore way back when, because there would have been an even-upper.

Interesting.  I find your post complete ''rubbish''.

[Roost it far 8,696]

19 minutes ago, Gator said:

Interesting.  I find your post complete ''rubbish''.

Rubbish in what way? Players need to be protected from serious injury just as they are now protected from concussion. You can no longer allow ruptured spleens, collapsed lungs and broken ribs without at least looking at the rules. I don’t want to see the high mark outlawed, I also don’t want to see players out of the game because of avoidable injuries. Moore does not need to lift his knee. He owes a duty of care to Petracca as Chol does to May. It’s not hard to expect players to leap without driving the knee into players backs. 

[Willmoy1947 4,148]

On 26/12/2024 at 13:42, Demons11 said:

I am as one eyed as the next person but Darcy Moore did absolutely nothing wrong.  If you are trying to take this out of the game, then no players can fly for marks 

There is a vast difference from putting your knee into someone and putting your knee on someone, a la for a ride and timing is everything too presumably to achieve both.

When I was just starting, I used to look at Jesaulenko's marks all the time.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,950]

On 28/12/2024 at 11:36, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'm not sure the tribunal and MRO being Pies supporters was the factor in the Maynard case though, because if my memory those people actually initially handed down a reasonable (yet possibly still slightly lenient in hindsight) penalty. 

I lay the blame more so with Collingwood for taking it to court to challenge what was clear to everyone else in the game an action that shouldn't be accepted and the AFL for not having the gumption to counter challenge Collingwoods legal action or threaten Collingwood into submission before it went to court in the first place by whatever means.  The fact the AFL changed rule in the off season was an admission of guilt that they had essentially Fffed up.  As for the McGuire behaviour after Maynard got off - don't even get me started. 

AFL Power club politics at its best.

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

[Ghostwriter 1,992]

On 28/12/2024 at 11:36, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'm not sure the tribunal and MRO being Pies supporters was the factor in the Maynard case though, because if my memory those people actually initially handed down a reasonable (yet possibly still slightly lenient in hindsight) penalty. 

I lay the blame more so with Collingwood for taking it to court to challenge what was clear to everyone else in the game an action that shouldn't be accepted and the AFL for not having the gumption to counter challenge Collingwoods legal action or threaten Collingwood into submission before it went to court in the first place by whatever means.  The fact the AFL changed rule in the off season was an admission of guilt that they had essentially Fffed up.  As for the McGuire behaviour after Maynard got off - don't even get me started. 

AFL Power club politics at its best.

McGuire’s middle name ain’t humility, that’s for sure. Nor is it decency, sensitivity, tact, respect, the list goes on. And why the hell was he the MC at RDB’s memorial last year?! Some posters on here said it’s because he’s so good at the job but I don’t care how good he is at MC-ing, they should’ve appointed a Melbourne or Carlton person, not him. It was bad enough when he first walked out onto the stage, just his mere presence. But he mentioned Collingwood at least eight times (we were counting) at points in proceedings when there really wasn’t a reason for it. That egotistical fat-head POS makes me sick.

End of rant. 
As you were.

😁

[Sir Why You Little 37,166]

4 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

You are right, but the AFL’s case against Maynard was pathetic 

[Ghostwriter 1,992]

4 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

The AFL put forth the flimsiest, weakest ‘argument’ and it was painfully obvious that it was a token show of doing the right thing re head trauma. They couldn’t have argued more pathetically if they tried. 

[rjay 25,113]

15 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

Some posters on here said it’s because he’s so good at the job but I don’t care how good he is at MC-ing,

I think Sarah Jones is much better...has humility and respect.

An EFC supporter, she doesn't throw it in your face.

I would be happy to see the end of the boys club. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,333]

26 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

The AFL put forth the flimsiest, weakest ‘argument’ and it was painfully obvious that it was a token show of doing the right thing re head trauma. They couldn’t have argued more pathetically if they tried. 

The AFL were determined that Maynard was not going to miss finals.

[redandbluemakepurple 366]

32 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

McGuire’s middle name ain’t humility, 

It should be .  Around 20 years ago, he emceed a show where the viewers did a tests to determine their IQ.  His came in as a routine 100 and was obviously expecting more.  He looked like he was eating a **** sandwich.  Tough but fair and all amusing..

[Ghostwriter 1,992]

On 28/12/2024 at 13:49, leave it to deever said:

I can't say I've watched enough of Moore to claim he has form

Didn’t Moore injure both Kieren Briggs and Jarrod Witts last season with a similar action? Not as devastating as the Tracc incident but I’m sure one of them ended up with a fractured vertebra as a result. 

[Redleg 41,598]

14 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

No he wasn’t, he was sent directly to the Tribunal by Laura Kane, against the decision of former Pies player and MRO Michael Christian.

The pathetic case put forward by the  AFL, in front of admitted Pie supporter Tribunal Chairman Gleeson, got the desired result.

As I said at the time, the AFL would outlaw that action after the season ended, which they did.

PS: Most ex players and media said he deserved a suspension. Nathan Buckley and Eddie were two who disagreed, of course.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Redleg

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,950]

56 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No he wasn’t, he was sent directly to the Tribunal by Laura Kane, against the decision of former Pies player and MRO Michael Christian.

The pathetic case put forward by the  AFL, in front of admitted Pie supporter Tribunal Chairman Gleeson, got the desired result.

As I said at the time, the AFL would outlaw that action after the season ended, which they did.

PS: Most ex players and media said he deserved a suspension. Nathan Buckley and Eddie were two who disagreed, of course.

Don't disagree that the case put forward by the AFL wasn't overly great in the tribunal hearing.

But the facts remain that the MRO in conjunction with the AFL suspended Maynard for at least 3 weeks, and it was Collingwood's right to appeal the suspension under the system available to them. And their defence team got the job done, unfortunately for Brayshaw and the MFC.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1030973/live-blog-collingwood-magpies-defender-brayden-maynard-faces-afl-tribunal-over-melbourne-demons-angus-brayshaw-bump

COLLINGWOOD'S Brayden Maynard was staring at a ban of at least three matches as he faced the Tribunal on Tuesday night but had his rough conduct charge for the controversial bump on Melbourne's Angus Brayshaw overturned.

the Match Review Officer and executive general manager of football Laura Kane graded it careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, referring him directly to the Tribunal.

[Redleg 41,598]

30 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Don't disagree that the case put forward by the AFL wasn't overly great in the tribunal hearing.

But the facts remain that the MRO in conjunction with the AFL suspended Maynard for at least 3 weeks, and it was Collingwood's right to appeal the suspension under the system available to them. And their defence team got the job done, unfortunately for Brayshaw and the MFC.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1030973/live-blog-collingwood-magpies-defender-brayden-maynard-faces-afl-tribunal-over-melbourne-demons-angus-brayshaw-bump

COLLINGWOOD'S Brayden Maynard was staring at a ban of at least three matches as he faced the Tribunal on Tuesday night but had his rough conduct charge for the controversial bump on Melbourne's Angus Brayshaw overturned.

the Match Review Officer and executive general manager of football Laura Kane graded it careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, referring him directly to the Tribunal.

No BBP the 3 weeks was a Tribunal minimum if found guilty.

He was referred directly to the Tribunal which was without penalty and it was then up to the Tribunal.

That staring at 3 weeks was exactly that, it was a comment by the writer, that he had not been given 3 weeks or any weeks actually, but would get that as a minimum if Tribunal found him guilty.

It was not an appeal, but a direct sending to the Tribunal, as it was graded serious.

Hope that clarifies it.

[Left Foot Snap 2,480]

15 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

For the AFL to have mounted a better case in at the tribunal. And then appealled to show they are serious about protecting the head.

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,950]

13 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No BBP the 3 weeks was a Tribunal minimum if found guilty.

He was referred directly to the Tribunal which was without penalty and it was then up to the Tribunal.

That staring at 3 weeks was exactly that, it was a comment by the writer, that he had not been given 3 weeks or any weeks actually, but would get that as a minimum if Tribunal found him guilty.

It was not an appeal, but a direct sending to the Tribunal, as it was graded serious.

Hope that clarifies it.

Thanks Redleg for the clarification.

My take is that the AFL wanted at least 3 weeks as a starting point, and sending it to the tribunal showed how serious they treated the incident.

At worst they could have initially cleared him, which IMV is worse than putting up a flimsy argument at the tribunal.

Anyway, what's done is done. Terrible outcome.

 

 

[Wrecker46 3,039]

16 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Agreed.

Everyone around here blames the AFL for Maynard getting off but he was initially suspended for the grand final. What more do you want?

I blame Maynard. Watch him before the game he get's asked who he will target. You don't get asked that unless you are suspecting a snipe

[Redleg 41,598]

50 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Thanks Redleg for the clarification.

My take is that the AFL wanted at least 3 weeks as a starting point, and sending it to the tribunal showed how serious they treated the incident.

At worst they could have initially cleared him, which IMV is worse than putting up a flimsy argument at the tribunal.

Anyway, what's done is done. Terrible outcome.

 

 

Agree.

Kozzie would have got a lifetime ban if it was him doing that action.

[Redleg 41,598]

1 hour ago, Left Foot Snap said:

For the AFL to have mounted a better case in at the tribunal. And then appealled to show they are serious about protecting the head.

How can you have an admitted Pie supporter, chairing a Tribunal, in an incident that could affect his team’s finals chances?

I am still furious about this.

[Left Foot Snap 2,480]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

How can you have an admitted Pie supporter, chairing a Tribunal, in an incident that could affect his team’s finals chances?

I am still furious about this.

Totally agree Red.

[GS_1905 10]

On 28/12/2024 at 11:36, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'm not sure the tribunal and MRO being Pies supporters was the factor in the Maynard case though, because if my memory those people actually initially handed down a reasonable (yet possibly still slightly lenient in hindsight) penalty. 

I lay the blame more so with Collingwood for taking it to court to challenge what was clear to everyone else in the game an action that shouldn't be accepted and the AFL for not having the gumption to counter challenge Collingwoods legal action or threaten Collingwood into submission before it went to court in the first place by whatever means.  The fact the AFL changed rule in the off season was an admission of guilt that they had essentially Fffed up.  As for the McGuire behaviour after Maynard got off - don't even get me started. 

AFL Power club politics at its best.

I wouldnt underplay this. For those that scoff at the idea that the AFL and powerclubs are not in bed with each other, id kindly suggest you wake up. I wouldnt say there is out right corruption, but there would be very questionable and highly unethical decision being made in the 'interest of the game'.