Leaderboard

The MRO officer imo should be replaced immediately. I just learned from 360, that the Umpire Reported Maynard immediately on the ground. We have also learned that Christian, an ex Pies player, wanted no penalty and was overruled by the Top Brass at the AFL. So despite a report on the ground by an umpire, close to the incident and the fact that a player had been knocked out for 2 minutes, with his career and health impacted, Christian attempted to whitewash the whole incident and not even have it tested by the Tribunal. With the AFL heavily concerned with avoiding head injuries, the actions of Christian imo reek of conflict, ex old time footballer bias and looking after the old club and imo he should be replaced immediately. He has been the subject of much criticism, in this role and it is time for a change now. Even his total lack of support for the umpire, imo makes his position untenable. At the very least he should have referred it on for a full tribunal hearing.

The talk from some posters here about May or Viney “taking out” Maynard if we’re in the fortunate position of playing the Pies again is very misguided and I simply can’t stand by it. It should be Hibbo.

There has always been an element of legitimising violence, in football. "Contact sport" and "let him earn it!", they would crow. I remember at school, you had mates who would flatten you in the contest, and laugh down at you as you picked yourself up off the ground, "left yourself wide open for that, didn't you?" Everyone laughs. Maynard lined him up, and mate or not, that is part of the culture of football. Always has been. Societal values are changing. Not long before he died my father conceded, "I s'pose I might've given you a few clips round the ears..." When I was a boy he belted the schitt out of me daily, with his belt, the bread-knife, a lump of wood, whatever. Went for the head with his fists. Thought it was all good, along with cold showers and Man magazine. Treated my mother with disdain, while throwing her the odd endearment. Died thinking all of that was par for the course. Times are changing, and domestic violence, child abuse, teachers using the cane, racism against our indigenous people and so much more, all of it is being challenged. The rearguard don't want to lose the licence to continue their bullying and disregard of anyone's comfort and freedom other than their own. And ordinary people elect Tony Abbott's and Donald Trump's. People at the football bay for blood, and cheer the Maynard's. And after the game, make children cry. The AFL has made some half-hearted and compromised efforts to reduce thuggery - but probably only out of fear of the litigation that is beginning. With Angus unconscious on the ground the commentators all discussed Maynard's well-being, and Collingwood supporters behaved as described in this thread. Is there really any understanding of how ugly and unacceptable ritualised tribal violence is? Do we football supporters really want things to change? Or are we packing the Colosseum with the same underlying mindset as the Romans did? I wonder if I am kidding myself, following AFL. Maynard did what people have always done. He is unlucky as much as Angus is - caught out when the game (as it is played and always has been) delivered an outcome that must seem to him to have ambushed him. Maybe the game itself, and its total culture, and the primal nastiness in all of us that has failed forever to define where the line is - maybe that's the real fault. I'm not sure I am equal to the spectacle of what we have been made to look at, here. I don't like violence. How can I follow "contact sport"?

In Maynard's defense I felt he hung near Angus trying to check on him. And I don't believe he intended to do this kind of harm. But it's a bit like the bloke who throws a shove or a punch at a pub and then gets a shock when his victim drops. Of course he didn't mean to knock them into next week but when you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. Maynard deliberately tried to put physical pressure on the kicker. And did it in a careless, uncontrolled manner that resulted in concussion.

In 2017, cardiothoracic surgeon Patrick Pritzwald-Stegmann was punched in the head by a patient at Boxhill Hospital. A month later he died of his injuries, leaving behind a wife and two young children as well as all the people that could have benefitted from his knowledge and skills over the remainder of his career. Violence towards healthcare workers was already on the increase but the response had been inadequate. Following the enormous publicity around Patrick’s death (as opposed to the non-existent publicity about daily episodes of violence with less extreme outcomes) the Victorian government invested an extra $20 million in security for public hospitals and initiated the “violence against health workers is never OK” (depressing that some people need to be informed of this message). Of course, the problem still persists. However, these changes had an immediate and lasting beneficial impact. Although, thankfully, the two cases are not on the same scale, there are parallels here to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. This is perhaps the highest stakes concussion in AFL history. In the early stages of a final between Victoria’s best teams watched live by over 800,000 people, a reputed enforced cannonballs into the head of a helmeted player with a history of concussion. A player whose fiancé’s father died affected by CTE. A generous interpretation is this was an attempted smother performed carelessly. An alternative view is this was an intended hit masquerading as a smother. The outcome of the final was influenced, a player’s season is likely over, his career possibly ended prematurely and his long-term well-being jeopardised. The AFL, in the middle of a billion-dollar class action for compensation for the impact of concussion, is in a fierce spotlight. Lawyers watch with interest. Parents wonder about their children playing AFL if actions such as Maynard’s leading to outcomes such as Brayshaw’s are not disincentivised; “maybe soccer instead? Weren’t the Matilda’s great!” Will the AFL shrink away or take a stand? The recent appointment of Laura Kane, footballer, lawyer and advocate, as executive general manager of football is opportune. Like Patrick’s death, the Brayshaw/Maynard incident will be an inflection point in institutional responses to occupational violence. The tribunal’s finding – and the AFL’s response – will shape the conception of “duty of care” in football in Australia.

Watch Chris Scott on 360 tonight. He specifically says ‘we coach our players not to turn their shoulders in to others as there’s not much we can do to help them then. That’s what we’ve been advised by the AFL’ Before that Ross Lyon was asked if he thought the rules exist, and can be applied, to this incident and without thinking he said ‘They are being applied. That’s why it’s going to the tribunal’. The industry knows. It was a dog act.

Just going to rant here for a second. Got to get it off my chest somewhere and this is it. One thing I keep coming back to is how often do you see a player leave the ground to smother in this fashion (vertically, with significant momentum behind them)? Rarely. Why is that the case? It's not from lack of ability, fear of physicality, psychological weakness or any such thing, as we know professional players have those covered. It's because it's a low percentage play. There's a high likelihood of infringement (head high contact). There's a strong possibility of injury to self and/or opposition. Balance those against the reward, the small possibility of a smother executed legally, and there's a clear reason why player don't do this often, why it's not a "football act" you see hundreds of times a game. Personally, I believe that once you choose to leave the ground, you know that split-second decisions in mid-air are likely and that you have less control over your body. There are football situations where this happens repeatedly and players choose to do so because it's a percentage play to win the ball, e.g. in a marking contest. In these situations that happen hundreds of times a game, players are on roughly equal footing in terms of spatial awareness of the players around them. More importantly, all players are expecting contact. They (should) expect that someone might come in from the side or from behind, etc. In those situations, there's a chance of a spoil going awry, a knee from the back or someone landing badly on top of you, with terrible consequences. There's typically no responsibility assigned to individual players so long as they act in a reasonable and expected way in the situation and within the rules. In this instance, the two players weren't on equal footing, so in my view, one had a duty of care to the other, in the same way that the tackling player has duty of care. Angus had his eyes forward and on the ball, with some awareness of a player coming at him. The reason he was so "open" to the contact, though, was that no player would reasonably expect that they'd be taken out high and with such force by a smothering player in this situation. Maynard's focus was on Angus. He knew exactly where he was because his focus was to smother the ball. I personally don't think he was intending to take Angus out, just that his actions were reckless in making that a likely outcome. This is not an approach to the ball carrier that we should want to see in our game. You'd think it would be hard to top the sickening nature of what unfolded, yet somehow the media response and that of some Collingwood fans has done so. I'll get no satisfaction from a suspension. Thinking of Angus and his family, teammates and all fans affected by witnessing this and the aftermath.

Further to the above, I also sent an email to Gerard Whately (see below). What I say is true. The only post game reports I've read or seen are on Demonland, and in reality that is probably less than 5% of the total posts. Hello Gerard, I was at the MCG Thursday night. I saw the Maynard bump on Angus Brayshaw live and replayed on the big screen. I have deliberately not watched any football shows or even the replay with commentary since. Why? Because I know how the majority of the media react when it comes to big names and/or clubs. I can just hear the 'football action' or 'what other option did he have' rhetoric now. It would simply get me angry and frustrated. To those who I suspect said such things, and it's not hard to guess which ones, I say this. Let's pose a hypothetical. You are playing football with your 10yo. You find yourself mid air, your son has just kicked the ball over your head. Do you lower your arms and meet him with your hands on his chest? Or do you tuck your arms in, turn side on and hit him in the head with your shoulder. The quality of your next Fathers Day present, and the health of your marriage depends on your answer. We know Collingwood will appeal and appeal again so it will remain the top story all week. I will tonight watch On The Couch and AFL 360 in the hope that the experts I respect most see the act for what it was.

I think it's very likely we're working behind the scenes to promote with the AFL that head contact is out of the question and that Maynard should get his just desserts. It would be pretty hypocritical to challenge JVR's suspension at the same time

I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for Maynard if it only came out in the off season that he called gus to check if it was ok he came round to visit and apologize had gone and visited Gus. You know, keep it between the players, no need to big up myself for being a decent person who checks on the welfare of a fella i knocked out cold, no need to broadcast my decency to the world. But no, he visits in what appears unseemly haste like he is family or a teammate and the Pies make sure everyone knows about it. I mean seriously does anyone really believe that wasn't stage managed? And a bottle of wine? For a fella probably in a dark room avoiding all light with a raging headache. And he brings a bottle of wine? FMD.

Let’s be clear on this. You chose to cite both your experience in Australian Rules football and your legal background as some kind of muscle-flex, then added further that people who were in favour of Maynard getting suspended made you feel “ashamed”. You refer to people here taking “cheap shots” at you, but no shots came cheaper than this comment First of all, citing such experience (in vague terms) on an internet forum is not only weak currency, but it makes the supposition that nobody else here has the necessary insight to assess the situation. It’s as arrogant as it is dumb. Further to this, your argument as an “ex-player” seemed to be “Back in my day people got concussed and didn’t sook about it”. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that this mindset is a relic. You probably have a t-shirt that says “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche”. Yes, there was a lot more “biffo” when you played for (insert irrelevant amateur club name here). Did it make the game better? Hardly. You’re suggesting a time when a bunch of semi-fit blokes with second jobs who could only kick a ball with their preferred foot is to be revered as the pinnacle of the game Basically, if you’re going to pull out your résumé as a reason why we’re making you feel “ashamed”, you’d want to back it up with a solid argument. But instead you’ve come across as half Mark Jackson, half Lionel Hutz.

Look at the behind the goal footage. If he was really attempting to smother the ball he would have jumped in line across the kick. In the end he waved a right hand at it as it went past, he was nowhere near in line with the ball. He ran directly at Gus. His attempt was to put pressure on the kicker purely and simply...and he came unstuck. I wish Kornes and some of the other past players would be just tell the truth and not come up with this football act garbage. It was an old football act to take out your opponent in play and that's yesterdays game thank goodness. I've played and coached enough to know what he was doing.

On channel 10 sport tonight his brother Hamish said Angus was getting a brain scan tonight by the doctor that monitored him last time. He said Angus appeared much better than previous concussions and was up and about.

Lets say they are the right and there is nothing he could have done to avoid contact. So what? That's is not the issue, the issue is he decided to turn and bump. He had other options to protect himself (and Gus) from being hurt - for example putting his hands out and pushing gus in the chest with them. But he decided to turn and bump. If he had time to do that he had time for other options. Whether contact was inevitable or not is neither here nor there. It is a complete furphy as is the whole football act palaver. Once Koz left the ground to bump Smith, contact was inevitable but that didn't mean he got off when he chose to bump and got Smith in the head. The rules are clear - elect to bump and if you hit a player in the head you're gone.

I feel your pain Katrina, but the nickname is an insult to innocent dogs.

I have been left so angry and upset since Thursday night. I'm angry at Maynard who did this to an apparent friend. Jeez, if I had friends like that, who needs enemies? I'm angry about his crocodile tears, about his decision to charge (I maintain it was a charge, not a smother, given he went at him full pelt, feet off the ground before Gus even kicked the ball) then turned the shoulder instead of attempting to push Gus, which would have had a totally different outcome. He is a dog, and I don't care who I upset by calling him that. From now on I'm referring to him as The Dog. I'm angry at the Collingwood filth for chanting "Collingwoooooood" while Gus was unconscious on the turf, for cheering The Dog every time he went near the ball, for daring to complain about Viney remonstrating with The Dog (jeez, if they're more outraged by Viney pushing and shoving than they are about The Dog's act of flattening Gus, their values are screwed), of trying to excuse the chanting and cheering as a response to The Dog being booed, of not showing one ounce of concern over Gus, and for their putrid behaviour on social media. They vindicated my pure, unadulterated, visceral hatred for The Filth. I'm angry at the media for not only putting this down to "a football act", "what could he have done differently?" but then in the case of Tom Browne and Tom Morris, putting the blame on Gus. Those two can join The Dog category. They deserve to lose their journalism accreditation for that piece of filth. That's not journalism, that's equally a dog act. More than anything I'm upset for Gus, the impact this has on him, and the fact this could have longlasting affects on his future wellbeing. I would be very surprised if he does play football again, and I would not be surprised if he decides to pull the pin on his career after this. He is an intelligent man, he'll make the right decision for him. I just hope his health will not be adversely affected by this dog act. But if he does decide it's the end of his career, I hope to hell he sues the [censored] of The Dog.

I am still so upset and angry about this. Try living with a Collingwood supporter who believes Maynard is a top bloke who didn’t intentionally go out to hurt anyone and he will get off as he has done nothing wrong. Were all Pies supporters born missing some vital brain cells??

I am astounded how the smother action is so front and centre in the discussion, especially by former “Old Guard”footballers. All the precedents thrown up by the Old Guard about footy actions often involve a footy in dispute, a marking contest, a collision of players hunting a bouncing ball. In this case we have a ball carrier being taken out at high speed, front on by a player who made a bee line for him. It’s a front on charge. Forget the jump in the air that is only relevant in that it made the collision worse, it does not excuse the result. Let us be honest it was a case of White Line Fever, three minutes into a do or die final, gone astray with dire consequences for Brayshaw. Maynard failed to show a duty of care for his opponent in this case. No doubt the lawyers will differ.

If the Tribunal finds in Maynard's favour, the AFL better leverage up their legal advice, because this has an undeniable potential to become very litigious down the track. In my many years of watching footy, I have never seem anything like what Maynard did and those that say it was a footy act are kidding themselves.

I'm baffled that so many have convinced themselves that Maynard's actions was a footy act so therefore he should get off Have they not noted the 60+ plus players who have been suspended this season for bumping & tackling. These are also footy acts And the consequences of all those suspensions from all those footy acts were not as drastic as the Gus concussion But that's if it was a footy act. All the tackles and bumps looked like footy acts but Maynard's was a fake smother. Token and designed to confuse. A con

I’m picking up on the vibe that we may get less supporters turning up this Friday than last week. I hope this is not the case. If this did happen, it would be shameful. Pretty much all of us have waited a lifetime to see the Mighty Dees being up there as a seriously competitive team. For obvious reasons most of us did not get a chance to actually be in WA to see them win the premiership. Then all the talk that followed was that the faithful wanted to experience seeing us get a flag at the G. Since then we have been a top four side. That in itself is a pretty good effort. Right now we are still a chance. It’s going to be tough and the odds are against us. I get it. If we get vastly outnumbered on Friday and the crowd get Carlton over the line, what then? How will we feel? We will certainly deserve the tag that we are soft fair weather supporters. I seriously do not want to experience the shame, to face up to the truth of the perception that the rest of the football world has about our softness of our supporter base. The reality is this. All the chatter on this forum (and elsewhere) about how good or bad we are, what we could / should do really is just that, chatter. Membership numbers are just numbers. It is bums on seats that count. The only real way we can tangibly help our team is to turn up to the game and actually show our support. Everything else is just talk. We need to be loud and proud. It will be interesting to see what happens this Friday.

absolutely cannot believe michael christian was going to let it go. unbelieveable. needs to be sacked on the spot.

This 'debate' about a football action is irrelevant. If you choose to tackle or bump or smother and KO someone you are out. Doesn't matter what your intentions are. [unless you are from 'big' club and its a final] So corrupt

Haven't had the chance to read all this thread, so apologies if this is repetitive. THIS WAS NOT A FOOTBALL ACT. I've played and coached footy for over 40 years and never once have we practice (trained) to smother a ball like this. Smothers are part of training, but it was two arms across the body as the kick left the boot, not more than two metres afterwards!!! In fact if player did attempt this "footy act", I would teach them not to, as they'd be as likely to get hit in the face; or sidestepped. Of course presently sidestepping is not a consideration as no-one would expect this "footy act" to actually occur. Brayshaw had kicked the ball with more than enough time to ensure it could not be impacted by the oncoming player, and under the rules and any normal act of footy that should be the end of it. He or anyone would not have been expecting any form of contact; particularly contact that amounted to an old fashion shirt-front!!!! Also if Maynard had of made contact with the ball, then this would have delayed his action to tuck his shoulder in to "protect" himself. Missing the ball by inches doesn't mean you were in the contest, it actually highlights you were never in it and that's as close as you could have gotten - Maynard couldn't have moved any quicker, but if he somehow did, Brayshaw would have just kicked it earlier!!!!!

This thread is becoming loopy. It's should not be about collision sports and concussion, it should not be about Brayshaw's history, it should not be about dumb comments by so-called self styled "experts" or "commentators". It should be only about what happened to Brayshaw in an unprovoked, deliberate act of unjustified violence against his body and head. The thug deliberately hurt him and no amount of excuses (he was only spoiling, Brayshaw could have avoided him) can mitigate the extreme brutality of the offence. He was off the ground and tucked his shoulder, purportedly to brace himself against a collision that he created, but in reality to hurt an opponent. What a farcical situation. I am starting to believe that unless he gets minimum four weeks (if not more) then our great game of footy is fatally doomed. It is that serious. GO DEES

So did I. I shed more than a few tears looking at that image, and thinking of his parents and Danielle and her mum listening to those Collingwood inbred cheer while Gus was motionless on the ground, and rushing down to the rooms to see how he is doing. I think it's little wonder why so many of us are feeling so flat about Thursday. A loss is a loss, we've all seen plenty of them and plenty worse, but this incident, and the frankly pathetic follow up in the media and online since, has really just left a horrible bitter taste in our mouths. If our season ends on Friday, I'll be upset, but if Gus is ok then that is truly what matters. Bigger picture.

but you haven't given any legal reasoning except to say it will be "rules based" which says nothing in itself. if i follow the afl rules as i understand them he gets 3 weeks. no need to get all smug when you haven't really contributed anything

You can't kick up a fuss over Maynard and then expect your player to get off for unnecessarily elbowing a guy in the head in the same match. You look like an [censored] doing that.

Since when does it matter if his was a footy action? Tackling is a footy action, and tackles that result in concussion lead to suspensions. Why are the rules suddenly different? Because it's a big name player from a big club?

Such a great way of putting it. Stupidly, I read your post at 3am after my 3yo had just woken me up. Spent the next 90 minutes thinking about the Brayshaw and Frawley families and what they are going through. I’ve also had a similar train of thought but related to the smother attempt. If the smother actually worked and the ball was live in the area, I guarantee he lands with his hands ready to push off Brayshaw and win the ball back. The whole thing stinks, if Maynard cared for Brayshaw in the manner he said, it would have been the first thing he mentioned when they interviewed him. Instead he was already pleading his case. I liken it to someone being upset for being caught, rather than for the act itself.

Probably been said on here, but I am yet to hear it in the media. If Maynard could twist right to hit his shoulder into Brayshsw's head, why couldn't he twist left and possibly miss his head?

Reports are that Maynard's lawyer has just called in Joffa as a character witness at the tribunal

Tom Browne Twitter (X) comments “There is no suggestion Maynard jumped off the ground to knock Brayshaw out. He jumped off the ground to spoil. A football act”. “A lot of people are talking about Maynard turning his shoulder. Jump up on the spot, and see how much decision time you have, when suspended in the air with your feet off the ground. Very little. Maynard just braced at the last moment, which is reflex in the circumstances”. Tom Browne is the son of Collingwood chairman and president Jeff Browne. Surely he needs to declare a direct conflict of interest here and not comment directly in such a one sided basis in his media role. It is quite sickening. The truth is it was careless (he had options, but he chose to turn to bump not brace) it was head high it was severe impact there was a duty of care 4 weeks is the answer

PART TWO THE GAME If JSOS is fit bring him in and have him play a negative role on Lever, don’t let him near it and let Charlie go one on one with May. I rate the chances of us going up against big Max with only one ruck as slightly less than 0%. With H out (very likely) and dees having two very good tall defenders, going to be critical that tdk take a few grabs and at the very least split their defence and make Charlie’s life a bit easier. The pressure Martin applies in the forward half is insane. We expect him to play on the edge, he plays on the edge...will be missed if suspended. Melbourne are a bit soft, I don’t think playing Hollands is as big a concern as v swans and I reckon we could do with some more run. Probably the last word I'd use to describe the Dees. They play a pretty hard style of footy similar to us. That last game against them was as tough and uncompromising a game as it gets for modern footy. Pitto doesn't need to out mark Gawn. Just hammer him black & blue Last time we played Melbourne Charlie wasn't really double teamed that much, he was just played really close by May and probably beaten on the night. You cannot underestimate the quality defender that May is, very strong very capable. Charlie just needs to try and get separation more often because body on body he's got not much hope. I hope the Dees overcompensate for their lack of viable tall forwards and pick Grundy. His selection is probably the best way to counter Gawn’s influence. As much as I want it to happen, I don't think they will bring Grundy or Schache back in - they are liabilities - and Goodwin seems determined to play Gawn only as a ruck, despite him being their most dangerous marking forward. Given their forward line issues, I fully expect Melbourne will line up with Petracca at full forward. Would love for them to throw Petracca up forward, would be a massive win for us. Would be the easiest possible way for us to nullify his influence- starve the forward line by repeat centre clearance wins. Defeated Melbourne by 4 points last time with our VFL midfield in. Can’t wait for them to see Walsh and Cerra together! Charlie will [censored] may it's actually the team defence that we need to combat We will need,to be at our best to beat Melbourne, cannot possibly be thinking about Brisbane. Not that this is a free hit for us by any stretch, but there’s a hell of a lot more pressure on Melbourne. Going to be another slog. Both teams going to need to find better forward system and efficiency. Two things in our way to make a prelim: Petracca, Gawn. Melbourne should have beaten Collingwood. We will need the 22 at its best and focused. This will be the biggest challenge this year. Regardless of who wins this we'll all be cheering on Brisbane on GF day. Similar to the Swans, we have some finals payback to dish out to this mob after losing our last three (1988, 1994, 2000) FAVOURITE? Not much humour or wit but this gave me a chuckle: Let's face it. McKay needs to see a hypnotist. All time low tonight. I usually give a prediction but this is too hard to call. Just 🙏we win. Otherwise a miserable end to the year that just a week ago was so promising...😢

Cheers Layzie. Have been listening to Gerard this morning and he is very much in our camp which is good. He certainly has influence on AFL thinking. I deliberately hadn't listened to Cornes, knowing how he 'thinks'. Apparantley he has said 'only people who have never played the game would believe Maynard to be guilty'. Gerard took a couple of calls after that who, whilst not reaching Cornes' unmatchable low, still pointed the finger a bit at Brayshaw. They have convinced me to look at history differently. JFK should have seen the bullet coming. He has to accept some of the blame. FFS!

Thanks for this 🙏🏼 I must admit I also am still coming back from everything that happened. Asking deeper questions. The “Ritualised violence” at the G was getting more real than ritualised. I feel like a line was crossed. The hit then the moronic collingwood chant, the collingwood fans in general at the game, the media stupidity…blind to what they’re saying yes to. Someday soon at a sports arena in this country there’s going to be a riot. And if that horrible event should ever happen i’ll be loud about pointing back to the reactions to this incident.

Still f**n angry about it. I've supported the sin bin idea for years knowing a plodder Backman would take out a star midfielder in a big game because the lack of disincentive. And it happened. And yet no one has brought it up in the media I bet because this barstard disguised his intention as a smother. Gaining an advantage in what is essentially a monumental "winner is the flag favourite" game was the incentive, and I bet he knows the club can win it without him, whether he gets 0 or 3. It will be worth it either way for a thug like him. Like others have said, I'm absolutely done with footy besides our dees games. And if I was eloquent and brave enough I'd shout it all over social media and talk back to show people what the result of this type of thuggery is. But I can't be bothered, knowing what kind of responses would come my way. It's kind of symbolic ain't it. The player wearing a helmet with a history of concussion taken out by a self confessed enforcer, and the ex players rushing in to defend him. Really turns you off the sport. Who'd want to be around such crassness?

A lot to unpack in their 31 pages so this week I've split it into two posts. THE HUBRIS get on board, we will spank em …we can confidently claim the 17th cup already :D We’ve already beaten our next three opponents - Dees, Port and Pies - easy run We got 'em without McKay/Cerra/Walsh/McGovern/JSOS last time, so this time around I think their outs are more significant compared to ours. "High impact" for Martin and two weeks. Wtf... that's bizarre. Bring out the fixer - to the tribunal and the high court if needed. We are Carlton, * the rest. i think we’ll be benching Charlie, Weiters, Crippa and Walsh late in this one, what do you guys think? If we make the GF, you could put out the AFL Team of the 20th century against us and we wouldn’t lose. We can’t do much about Gawn - TDK just needs to compete. But, shutdown Oliver, Trac & maybe Pickett - and we’ve got the game won. Bring on the Dees, chalk up the win and make our way to the 17th cup :D If we'd played the Dees last Thursday, we would have belted them frankly. Not to say they're to be taken lightly, but we know what they'll bring... Underdogs on paper only. Having ground one out earlier against Dees, I think we will ride the wave in this one. THEIR INJURIES Cripps can’t move, he can sacrifice himself and tag May and Dow can take his spot. Was it heeney who shouldered him across the rib cage?? Yes. The little [censored]. The way he reacted to a bump from Heeney don't think his ribs will be right till next year Im sure Viney will be giving Crippa's ribs a tickle or two this week aswell Acres looks extremely sore at the end and was carrying his arm, would have to be in some doubt. H, Martin and Acres out would be catastrophic for our chances. What's the news on Acres? I thought he look really ginger the last few minutes. Will he play? Vossy in his presser said that he'd pulled up o.k. and should be fie. He also confirmed that Harry had entered concussion protocols. Is JSOS fit? Did he play the practice game? Would be huge if he is. Pittonet is barely halving any contests outside the ruck tap, and I don't see that changing for the better on a dodgy knee with back to back finals. OUR INJURIES Sounds like Gawn is hurt so odds shortening that Grundy will play if that's accurate. Clayton Oliver didn’t train today and is accordingly in doubt for Friday night. Limping will stop him playing on Friday? Reckon you're having a laugh. What's the actual injury? Guarantee Oliver will play unless he’s dead or broken his leg in half (even then maybe) imo he’ll play. Tough as they come How about Petracca. That incident with his ankle getting caught looked like it would have hurt. He probably won't be running two-ways, they just might plonk him up forward. Reckon they’ll jab him and Trac will do what he does. Absolute animal 2 Dees, Gawn and Fritsch under a cloud I hear. Even if they make it, nothing wrong with some of our guys trying to find out if their feet actually hurt. Heeney had no issue asking Crippa about his ribs Before panic sets in that could be guess work from McGuire if he read the DL training thread.

Dermie, Lethal and Malthouse saying he will be suspended. He initiated contact, which turned into a bump to the head with his shoulder, knocking a bloke out for 2 minutes and damaging his health and career. What else could he do, not turn his shoulder into Gus’s head. Anything else and he would be fine. Lastly, if he had time to dip the shoulder, he had time not to.

Has anyone else read this on SEN? Seems awfully desperate to make amends which to me seems like he’s feeling guilty more than anything. If it was a complete accident, I’m not sure he’d go to these lengths. Also, who doesn’t call ahead?

Surprised Maynard didn't get 5 votes from Fly, seeing as how much influence one bloke had on the outcome of a the game.

He also head-butted Viney which conveniently the media has forgotten about.

I wish there was a further paragraph that read "it was at this point as Maynard was leaving the residence that he tripped on the front door door frame and somehow fell head first into the brick letter box in the front yard several times. Maynard had to have surgery to remove the metal letterbox plate from his broken jaw. Multiple Melbourne players were able to verify the details of the unfortunate accident". Quote from Jack Viney "I gave the poor bugger a soft pat on the back with both hands to console him, similar to the pat on the back that Ed Langdon got running into an open goal which made his kick miss and go through for a point in the third quarter. Nothing in it really. It all happened so quickly, we had no time to react to Maynard's head being rammed into the brick fence repeatedly. It was a pure domestic accident (sic act)" Surgeons hope to save at least two of Maynard's remaining teeth.

Clearly lots of challenges ahead for Gus. He was knocked out for two minutes. Two minutes. Despite all the media chanting the fair go for Maynard, to be clear, Gus is the victim. He will have reassess his future with Danielle and his family and his medical support. Serious concussion is highly likely to refer to challenges later in life. Gus will likely soon be having a young family and his long term health is the priority. Yet it’s disgusting that there has been very little concern from the media, including ex AFL players (not experts, ex AFL players) and especially from irrational journalists like Tom Browne and Tom Morris. I’m disgusted at their lack of understanding. Duty of care. Changed body to turn and bump. High contact. Severe impact. That’s the facts. That’s the Truth. That’s at least 4 weeks.

I am really struggling to see how people think Maynard’s thought process was anything other than ‘if I don’t get the smother, I’ll take a body’. His intent may not have been to absolutely hurt Brayshaw, but he definitely made the decision to jump knowing body contact would happen. This is where it begins and ends, he went ahead with his chosen action knowing contact would happen. NBA players can run full steam at players to try and block passes/shots in the exact same fashion and this outcome doesn’t occur.

For the first time in my life, I am feeling the same. This when we are potentially just 2 games from a GF. I can no longer guarantee I will not get physical if experiences like the following are repeated. I was sitting in the MCC members area, when shortly after the assault on Brayshaw, a Collingwood supporter behind me yelled 'just get him off the ground and get on with the game'. His obnoxiousness remained all game. I'll spare you the antics of the drunken woman in front of us 'minding' her sisters toddlers. It's getting hard to justify to myself the 5 hour round trip to see them at the G to experience that cr*p on a regular basis. I'm close to becoming just a TV viewer with the commentary off. Even that may not last. It's so depressing to think about it because I love the club and have been a MFC full member for 45 years.

mate, you don't get it it's not an issue of malice or intention to the mro in this case to warrant 3 weeks it's simply whether it was accidental or careless (another word for reckless) the mro found it was careless careless - high contact - severe impact which carries 3+ weeks suspension (no option of 1 or 2 weeks) there is no issue on high contact or severe impact so it comes down to just the careless bit (whether posters think it was deliberate, intentional or malicous is just their opinion and would be hard to prove. the mro has already gone with careless so that is all that is now relevant)

His brother sums is up pretty well:

Garry Lyon got this right tonight on On The Couch. It’s good viewing. He knows they’ll change the rules to legislate this out. Buckley and Brown tried to argue that Maynard had no other option. There’s a disgraceful amount of victim blaming happening in this incident. Talking about Brayshaw moving off his line. Absolute rubbish. I kept screaming at the TV every time they said it was a ‘football act’ to show me one single example of a player doing this in a game in the last 20 years. Players run out of the front of a centre bounce 10 times a game. Thats 35,000 example in 20 years. It’s never happened.

It was the anniversary of Danny Frawleys death yesterday. I'm sure these issues are resonating around the Brayshaw household (his wife Danielle is Danny Frawleys's daughter). I hope they are holding together.