Jibroni

As a fan of soccer I have been saying this for years. They use Red Cards in the Adelaide Football league to stop thug acts and seems to have had a positive effect.

Well done to everyone who brought tickets, the boys will really need it on the weekend.

That appears to be the problem with the current system, specifically contact to the head. The bump and tackle have all had some consideration in terms of what the AFL wants out of the game and law changes required to do this. Whether the ball was in dispute is key and the options available to Maynard to mitigate injury to Gus and himself; I would expect an independent Tribunal to consider this.

Its been that way for too long Layzie, hence why I don't listen to them.

Barretts view make no sense (unsurprising) as I thought the reason it was referred to the tribunal is to protect the AFL from the emerging exposure to class action claims about concussions. The MRO cannot clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so by way of an investigation. Hence the Tribunal process should be a form of “independence” which affords protection to the players and the AFL. In addition, there is also the risk of Insurers requiring compliance with any policy covering player injury claims ensuring insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in the future and the AFL need to demonstrate they have adequate systems and procedures in place to protect the welfare of players. I know there has been a lot of emotion on this and at the end of the day all we want is for Gus to be ok. As someone who previously worked in the insurance space my sense is that Collingwood will argue this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed and that the action to jump to smother was something a reasonable player would do. I hope the fact that Maynard acted in a "reckless" manner will also be taken into consideration.

Great career, All Australian, Premiership player and wonderful servant to the club. Enjoy retirement Hibbo.

In a finals context and with our current forward line yes. We lost to Brisbane up there too.

Were are a dangerous when our game is up and going, but at times we seem a bit mentally meek and happy with the recent flag.

Were gonna need a minor miracle to get past Carlton and Brisbane.

True, but when it comes to Port I like to rub it in.

Make an early tactical substitution. Immediately lose two players to injury, Hinkley masterclass.

Nothing against Cameron but I use to like the Country Road song

Port supporters are not exactly an intelligent breed Jaded, the busiest Centrelink is also in Port Adelaide.

The problem for Maynard is that while he appears to be applying a smother he left the ground while moving at speed towards another player and it was therefore his own responsibility to not make high contact. I would you use my shoulder as he would protect my face and my body would not be as exposed, as we were taught as juniors. If Viney had taken out Daicos i will expect the Pies would be shattered and angry to lose an important player in such a way. If Viney went over and spoke to Daicos shortly after the fact showing remorse and had a history of friendship with him then I'd believe that there was no genuine malice in it and 1 week off is sufficient as per this case. Would you be angry at Viney if he did the same?

Of course it's not all I'm saying I don't think Maynards intention was to take him out.

Sorry Binman but in not sure you can effectively ask players not to protect themselves in unavoidable contact or someone falling to the ground not to tuck their shoulders. The turning of the body by Maynard might have been a biomechanical process that just happened naturally because he jumped off a certain foot. He didnt turn that much just a little. The contact and body turn may have been unavoidable. Brayshaw also came at Maynard from an angle after kicking the ball with his right foot (again a biomechanical issue and not his fault). Had he not kicked or kicked with his left he would have probably missed Maynard. There was no decision after the smother attempt, It could be a case of just bad luck for Gus.

God I would do anything to see us destroy this mob next week.

And appears Gus wont play again this year :(

Early days but Sydney dont look up to it

I think Grant Thomas sums it up pretty well:

Apparently this the most similar incident in recent times, make of it what you wish:

Im not sure how did he do it deliberately when his intention was to smother the ball?

Yes, but dont seriously believe that was Maynards intention? Otherwise you need a rule stating you cannot make contact with a player while in mid air. There is a no more punchable head in the league than Maynard but where do we draw the line on what is/is not intentional? It's impossible to know the MRP process these days and the inconsistency of the tribunal. Why did Bedford get a week, why did JVR have to defend himself at the Tribunal over a football contest, why are some tackles dangerous and not others. not.

No he is not and the variance of opinions on this just show how much the AFL has cocked up their tribunal system (or lack thereof). I can't actually believe people are claiming that Maynard "lined him up", it was a clear football action and an obvious attempt to spoil. The turning of his body (a split second reaction) in ingrained in all football players, to protect oneself. What's he honestly supposed to do? Face plant into Brayshaw and possibly causing more damage, to both of them? At some point these blokes need to be allowed to actually play the game. It's awful what happened to Brayshaw, but it's a contact sport. He should only get a week no matter how much of a [censored] Maynard is.