The 132 games including a flag for Collingwood ex player mro officer threatened to quit if Maynard went to the tribunal and had to be overruled by Laura Kane ...

‘It was a dramatic day’: AFL heavyweight threatened to quit over internal conflict as ‘bluff called’

What a disgrace

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Agree.

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

lifetime ban? they would have reintroduced capital punishment for cozzie

Lest we forget, and it will never be. That grub deserved weeks. And Angus of all people.

I always think what would have happened had May ironed out Pendlebury exactly the same way….6 weeks no questions. 

7 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

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'. 

Clear as day. The VFL/AFL has always been run by special interests, the Commission/Executive was meant to remove club influence but if people think it's not still there they have rocks in their head.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

I always think what would have happened had May ironed out Pendlebury exactly the same way….6 weeks no questions. 

Take that to the bank.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

I always think what would have happened had May ironed out Pendlebury exactly the same way….6 weeks no questions. 

That, and if he would have done the same thing if it was at training and little Nicky had the centre clearance.... and we all know the answer to that

10 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

Totally agree Red.

Couldn't Neitz have asked for " conflict of interest" to be a prime factor here and leaked it to the media?

9 hours ago, GS_1905 said:

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'. 

It would seem that most AFL decisions are made "in the interest of the game" which could be interpreted as being favouring those that bring in the biggest crowds. 

3 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Couldn't Neitz have asked for " conflict of interest" to be a prime factor here and leaked it to the media?

I don't actually follow you Will. Was Neita involved or vocal in any way? Real question as I didn't see it if he was/did.

23 hours 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.

None of this matters. And it didn’t matter at the time. He was simply never missing finals. The outcome was decided probably as early as within minutes of the incident, or it may as well have been since Maynard was playing in finals come hell or high water.

As @Redleg pointed out, Collingwood supporters (the MRO and Gleeson) making such important decisions about a Collingwood player is wrong on every level. Imagine if it was you who had to adjudicate and it was a Melbourne player and finals were on the line. I know I would struggle with impartiality.

Fact: the AFL is Collingwood’s little b!ttch.

PS: at the time, for about five minutes I admired Laura Kane. I was sucked in. I thought wow she’s actually going up against the MRO, this is ballsy. But she’s just like Dillon and co… weak as pizz. Spineless. Impotent. Puppets on a string. 

Edited December 30, 2024Dec 30 by Ghostwriter

21 minutes ago, Ghostwriter said:

PS: at the time, for about five minutes I admired Laura Kane. I was sucked in. I thought wow she’s actually going up against the MRO, this is ballsy. But she’s just like Dillon and co… weak as pizz. Spineless. Impotent. Puppets on a string. 

Kane is one of the worst appointments I can remember.  Utterly hopeless.

2 minutes ago, Gator said:

Kane is one of the worst appointments I can remember.  Utterly hopeless.

One example of (too) many: She was tasked with explaining why no 50-metre penalty was awarded to North in the final minute of a match vs Collingwood when North were trailing by one point and Bailey Scott marked and was immediately rushed at by two Collingwood players, Sidebottom and I think it was Beau McCreery. A 50-metre penalty would’ve put Scott in the goal square, almost guaranteeing a five-point win.

What does Kane do? She publicly admits she sought advice from Brad Scott when it came to explaining this howler. Then she declares that in future she’ll not be fronting the public on matters such as this. What??! If I’m sch!ttt at an important part of my job I don’t get to say welp, not doing that anymore, and still expect to keep my job, let alone getting paid the same. 

I agree re Kane being one of the worst appointments we've seen in a long time.

You could provide a long list of things her and the rest of the AFL have ruined over the last few years but the one that continues to get my gripe is the sub rule.

Didn't it come out that majority of senior coaches had voiced their concern to the AFL around the need to scrap the sub rule all together, so what do Kane and rest of the [censored] do? Reinstate it for another.

 

laura kane is just another product of the melbourne uni law school / uni blacks / employed by a consultancy firm / consultant to the afl / employed by a club / poached to head office boys' club

she just happens to be a women is all

vlad started it when he appointed trust fund baby gil cos he was desperate to be part of the toff's clubs that he was born with a membership in

18 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I always think what would have happened had May ironed out Pendlebury exactly the same way….6 weeks no questions. 

I thought the same at the time. Although I was thinking Daicos rather than Pendelbury. 

 

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

laura kane is just another product of the melbourne uni law school / uni blacks / employed by a consultancy firm / consultant to the afl / employed by a club / poached to head office boys' club

she just happens to be a women is all

vlad started it when he appointed trust fund baby gil cos he was desperate to be part of the toff's clubs that he was born with a membership in

I always thought Adrian Anderson was the heir apparent but he let our tanking fiasco blow up when Demetriou was overseas instead of shutting it down and it led to his demise (on the AFL executive gravy train).

13 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

I don't actually follow you Will. Was Neita involved or vocal in any way? Real question as I didn't see it if he was/did.

Does Neita have a position in the AFL strata? Basically I suppose that is what I'm getting at, and, if so, couldn't he have at least asked the question, based on relevance?

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I always thought Adrian Anderson was the heir apparent but he let our tanking fiasco blow up when Demetriou was overseas instead of shutting it down and it led to his demise (on the AFL executive gravy train).

I still don’t understand how Anderson is invited back to the club in any way. Why he represents us at the tribunal is mind boggling. 

On 30/12/2024 at 12:53, 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.

I don’t think I will ever get over this incident. I still feel angry and the mere mention of that POS name makes me want to vomit. Don’t get me started on MC. Having had dealings with him over the years I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. How does he still hold that position of power. It’s beyond me.

1 hour ago, Nietaphart said:

I still don’t understand how Anderson is invited back to the club in any way. Why he represents us at the tribunal is mind boggling. 

I think his record for us is abysmal.

Agreed that Adrian Anderson has been an appalling representative for us over the last couple of years. We need to try our luck with someone else next year.

However I could have sworn we had a major victory with Anderson at least once. Was it as long ago  as Jack Viney winning his appeal against Adelaide in 2014 or JVR’s appeal in 2023 Vs GC?

On 29/12/2024 at 13:45, Willmoy1947 said:

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.

If you look at "Rhetrospective" on YouTube, there are instances of players being penalised for kneeing an opponent in the back. And this was in the biffo era of the 60s. It seems the afl administrators are bent on preserving certain forms of violence to keep up with the other thuggish codes.

9 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Does Neita have a position in the AFL strata? Basically I suppose that is what I'm getting at, and, if so, couldn't he have at least asked the question, based on relevance?

Sorry, I can't answer you Will, I just just don't know.

Interesting news of Petracca splitting from Connors management.