Rodney (Balls) Grinter

2 hours ago, Demonsterative said:

He had some good VFL too. Hindsight says Jordan would have been better to replace Brayshaw, but the selection committee didn’t have a crystal ball or psychic at their meeting. 🥴

I'm definitely not against Laurie being given a go as a sub in some of the later games during the season.  And yes it's easier in hindsight, but I thought for a final the percentage play was to have Jodan as the sub as Laurie had shown glimpses, but nothing that suggested he could make as solid a contribution for even a quarter in a big game final compared to what Jordan has shown he can deliver in the past.

Hopefully this may be a chance for Jordan to solidify his spot in a finals team as I think he's a player we need to try to retain for the future if he hasn't already 100% committed elsewhere that I fear he might have.

I think the player really missing out of this conversation is Toby Bedford.  I know hindsight is a great thing, but I always saw him as a talent with abbilty that was close to cracking it and I'm sure would be getting a game this season with us.

Conversely, while he's racked up some big stats and maybe even some great games at Casey, I've yet to see Laurie look like making much of an impact at AFL level.  Doubt he'll get picked again this year, so I think it will need to be a big off season for him this year and him needing to reinvent himself to find himself a role in the side.  If he doesn't, I think he'll suffer the same fate as Baker.

In retrospect, I'm actually quite frustrated that Laurie was picked to be the sub last week, as even any of Grundy or Tomlinson or even Schache would have given us a whole lot more output than what Laurie did and if neither are selected in the main team, I hope they are at least sub over Laurie.  I think it's pretty much a given Bradshaw will be replaced by Jordan this week as I think we can be pretty confident he'll give a solid/reliable performance even if his best is not as outstanding as some of his peers that have kept him out of the side.

Nothing against Laurie personally, it's just my observations of him over the past season when he's been given game time.

17 minutes ago, sue said:

Courage doesn't come into it. They have a short-term commercial agenda and don't care much about the long term. They figure someone else will take over handling the lawsuits and the lack of kids taking up the sport.

Yeah, don't know about that one - is suspending Maynard really going to translate to less bums on seats or eyeballs on TV?  If anything the controversy has gained them more media attention.

Anyways, I think we are splitting hairs here Sue.  The issue is that the AFL are shirking the big picture issue in favour of hoping to make the issue go away in the short term.  You think it's dominated by commercial interests, I call it a lack of cougrage, conviction and integrity in the way they have acted with respects to protecting the head in just about all previous instances and scenarios in the past 3 to 4 years.

Honestly, I think the best solution to this is to play AFLW games as curtain raisers and/or straight after the men's games on the main AFL grounds.

There's now 18 AFLW games and having them play to the same audiences as the men's would be great.  It's a big commitment for people to attend x2 separate competitions when they play at different days/times & venues.

Ever since they got rid of the reserves, the pre-game entertainment at AFL games has sucked.  Conversely I always loved watching the end of the reserves games and I'm sure I'd likewise enjoy watching the AFLW games, if not more.

16 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

 

Couldn't agree more.

Despite all the talk of launching here, it isn't rocket science.

I'm sure the AFL are fully aware of all this, they just don't have the courage to take the actions the situation demanded.

11 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

If recent trends are followed, penalties will be extreme for incidents occurring during preseason and the first few rounds of the home and away. From that point forward certain perpetrators will be given special treatment to allow the AFL to showcase their big ticket stars rather than have them sitting in the stands suspended. By the last third of the season the application of the penalties for this action will be completely inconsistent and will depend entirely on the players and teams involved and what the impact will be on the clubs that the AFL will want to see in finals contention (to maximise profits). 

During finals, anything goes, unless you are a no name, rookie from one of the interstate or smaller Victorian clubs.

If the Maynard incident had occurred in round one this year, he would have been suspended, I have no doubt.

Spot on.

The AFL are a joke.  What's happened here is way worse than Cripps last season.

Eddy is a bloody half back flanker.  I'd love nothing more than for GWS to win this weekend and then go on to smash Collingwood and knock them out (metaphorically speaking) in a prelim.

Thanks @Mel Bourne, but not a great time to bump the thread 😂

Let's just make it clear - if Collingwood decide to put up an appeal on legal grounds to an AFL tribunal decision that rubs out Maynard for 2 weeks or more, what they are actually signalling to the rest of the league is that "Collingwoods premiership chances and our players are more important than anyone else's getting perminant brain damage".

I know Collingwood are one of the 'big clubs', but the AFL should be putting a very hard word on them not to legally appeal the tribunal decision, as should the AFLPA.

8 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Brown's point was clear, he believed Maynard wasn't guilty because as yet the AFL hasn't come down on poorly executed smothers as it has with bumps and tackles. He's wrong but it's not the worst opinion going around.

The AFL has made it pretty clear that whatever the action, it's principal has about taking reasonable care to protect the head.

Does there need to be a rule or explicit precedent to every 'football action' that if carelessly executed makes significant contact to the head?

This point seemed to be lost almost completely on Buckley and Brown.

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

Very few Melbourne supporters thought what Kosi did in round 2 was ok. I also haven’t seen a single person on this site suggest Roo should get off after he elbowed McStay in the head. 
Of course every supporter base is biased, but Melbourne fans don’t go around calling injured players weak, or wishing them or their family traumatic brain injuries. Ffs. 

I actually do think Roo was stiff in so far as the contact was both on the more incidental side, I actually don't think it was intentional (i.e. I think he was instinctively putting his arm out to protect himself/His space or for ballance and McStay also happened to be down low) and McStay also wasn't evaluated as having received concussion.

But given the borderline case and stance that the AFL's stance on protecting the head, I don't think it's worth arguing the toss with the AFL and the MGC have supported this stance by the AFL.

Conversely Maynard did KO the guy - to me that's automatically easily degree higher consequence than JVR .  If the tribunal uphold the suspension, which I'm almost sure they will, I think Collingwood need to think long and hard about going the legal option and I think it is a very poor reflection on them as a club if they do.

9 hours ago, David-Demon said:

"Collingwood legend Nathan Buckley says he doesn’t believe Brayden Maynard’s collision with Angus Brayshaw warrants suspension, suggesting there’s too much “grey area” in the AFL’s focus on duty of care."

Listening to Buckley and Brown talk about this and making excuese for Maynard on 'On The Couch' last night made me just question their intellect (as if I hadn't already).  I generally like them as comentators and think they offer a more reasoned ballanced and insightful viewpoint than alot, but last night they lost me.

In particular Buckley described the contact to Maynard as "incidental" .  If blokes getting knocked out is incidental, I don't know where we go to from here.  I suspect it was a mistaken word selection and he ment accidental, but that's an asides.

The point well made by hoast Garry Lyon is that we've accepted there is a responsibility of the player to have a duty of care during the football actions of tackling and bumping, then why not the same for smothering?  But Buckley and Brown seemed to take the dumb stance that this was an unavoidable 'football incident' inherent to the game, which I think is wrong.

17 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

No, Balls in in my sniper sights.

You do know who you're talking about here yeah?

Do you fancy eating through a straw like my old mate Terry?

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Is that more games than Cornes???

I think Mundy wins.

More games and more brains.

5 hours ago, Mickey said:

Seems a few of the Dees weren't too pleased with Maynard's visit

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09/11/melbourne-teammate-left-angered-by-maynards-awkward-brayshaw-visit/

My tips would be (in order) Jack, Maysy or Clarry.

There will be way more spite than the duck dinner game next time we play Collingwood.  Will be rip the head off the Magpie time.

2 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Hey, Balls.

You are now officially censored. Take care to read tins entire thread (are we up to 60 pages now?) before sticking out your neck again.
  

Seriously?

PO

3 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

https://www.6pr.com.au/david-mundy-the-afl-is-trying-to-adjudicate-the-game-they-want-tomorrow-not-the-game-were-seeing-at-the-moment/

David Mundy has weighed in on the Brayden Maynard incident which has divided the football world.

Speaking during his regular Monday night segment on Wide World of Sports, Mundy set the agenda off the top, setting phone lines alight.

“Laura Kane stepping in signals that the AFL is trying to adjudicate the game that they want tomorrow, not the game that we’ve had in the past, and not the game that we’re seeing at the moment.”

“If Brayden Maynard was falling and that was Scott Pendlebury underneath him, I think he would make a different decision than cover up and just protect himself and not worry about the other player.”

When asked by Adam Papalia what Maynard should have done differently, Mundy used all of his 376 games of AFL experience when building his response.

“When you’ve jumped up and you’re in the air and there’s a player underneath you, you have the ability to almost catch yourself as you’re falling on top of them. It would have been really awkward and they’d have had a tumble, but that response has a much lesser chance of resulting in serious health concerns."

Amazing how well co-ordinated players can be when trying to win or do something with the ball, the  turn into such clumsy oaths when there isn't any incentive to control their actions.

Similarly, I think Tommy Hawkins got away with a reckless act when he threw his arms out everywhere and broke Steven May's face a few years back.  ...Melbourne player, no story to answer here.

21 minutes ago, Macca said:

And if the lame attempt at smothering was dismissed out of hand (as it should be) then Maynard would be up for not only high contact with a severe outcome but also, the careless action could be replaced with malicious intent

6 or 7+ weeks

It will be interesting to see how hard Gleeson goes as he has gone hard before (if Gleeson is the prosecution officer in this case)

Spot on Macca.

This "he lost control once he chose to jump" [censored] is just that.

He was fully in control when he charged at the player with the ball, with no regard for where his momentum would take him.  When he jumped he gave away further control and care for his opponent.  That he then chose to protect himself at the expense of his opponent further demonstrates his disregard and recklessness.

Football action my backside.

The only football action in all this is Angus kicking the ball.  If you want to stop players doing that part, take your bat an ball and go home, because we won't have a sport.

38 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

She also said the AFL let Goodwin remarks go unfined due to what had happened.

How could Goodwin possibly be fined for what he said?

All he did was said look at the facts and that he'd been knocked out.  Can't get too much more vanilla than that.

The tone that he delivered it with and gravity of the situation really packed the punch.  The fact that it took Goodwin to deliver this and not others in the AFL and the media is a disgrace.

The way he stood up in our 2021 season when he returned from injury was a huge part of our rock solid defense and of us winning the flag.

Love the Pig Hibbo.

A most worthy bearer of the No.14 and I think whoever next receives the jumper will have big shoes to fill.

4 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Sure I heard him on commentary agreeing that there was nothing in it.

This was Saturday morning I heard him batting against Maynard.  Perhaps he'd had more time to reflect on his previous spur of the moment comments.

1 hour ago, dice said:

The problem will be on appeal when your former colleagues get involved and use all their cunning, trickery and legal jargon to get him off, as what happened with Cripps last year

The same legal jargon peddlers that will no doubt also be getting their cut when players start making claims on the league for duty of care.  They are such overpaid leeches on our society at times.

One thing I will say for Goodwin is that he rarely defends or makes excuses for one of our players that is in the firing line of the MRO for head high contact.

We copped Kossies 2 match suspension for a similar incident to Maynards on the chin so to speak and the the only time that comes to mind that we have appealed reciently was for the JVR spoil, which as a massive level less severe.

I do also like Goodies response post match against Collingwood, when he forcefully told the press to look at the facts of what had been the outcome with Guss.  You could tell this one is very personal to him and the way he stood up to the press and stood up for what had been done to one of our own makes me proud of him as our coach.

Conversely the way Maynard was immediately post match making excuses for himself trying to paint it as a football incident makes me sick.

1 hour ago, BDA said:

There is not much support for a ban in the media. Just looked at the Sunday footy show and none of Cornes, Lloyd, Nathan Brown or Damian Barrett think he should be suspended. What am i missing here? I haven't seen too many pundits make the case for a suspension. I reckon he's going to get off.

Somewhat unsurprisingly James Brayshaw was amoung the few that was advocating for the rightful suspension to be dealt out, but he also suggested that if Angus was the aggressor he'd also be telling him that he'd just have to cop the suspension.

I've had enough of all this 'football act' shouldn't be suspended rubbish.  In my mind, the AFL have set the benchmark on this over the past several seasons.  Kade Chanldler got suspended for 2 matches accidentally falling into the back of someone when being slightly over zealous applying a takle.  Maynard's actions were on another level of reckless compared to Kade's - he should be looking at 4 - 6 weeks, not 2 - 3.

Can't go changing the rules because of finals and Brownlow contention like Crips, that would be so weak.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

thanks, but i didn't get an email on friday from club

doesn't matter now i know, just curious why no email. i usually get all emails

No email on Friday for me either, it's only trickled through this afternoon at around 12:30pm.

Similar thing happened first week of finals.

I really don't understand why in 2023 we are left with such a messed up disorganised finals ticketing system that we need to log on and queue for tickets online at 10am on a week day?

The stress, hassle and expense of getting finals tickets is really taking some of the joy out of being a part of finals for me.

At Southern Cross waiting for my old man to arrive from the bush and there's too much black and white stuff around for my liking.