kev martin

Defenseless player is it. Acts of footy such as marking and spoiling, the players are aware of contact. When kicking the ball, your body is open, not much you can do to mitigate the impact. The entire collision and its outcome is determined by the one without the ball. Basic umpiring, protect the player with the ball, nether alone the Tribunal, as it must stamp this out.

Just saw some footage out of Casey training, ch10 news. Gus doing some light running and getting embraces from various players. Love the love. Brother said, "he needed to be in a dark room at the same time last concussion".

Must be, decision within that period of smother to impact, cannot be conscious. I would argue for the 2 seconds leading up to the acts, that premeditates the movement. He consciously wanted to hurt and prepared his body to execute.

No duty of care, as a result of a football act.

"Biomechanist: Based on the numbers and research, it's difficult to conclusively say Maynard would've been able to make any conscious decision to reposition his body." So his unconscious decision was to turn his shoulder into Gus's head. Should have premeditated it, and known that the collision would occur and be able to mitigate it based on duty of care requirements.

That for me is the most disappointing thing. It will follow number 4, for a long time. Cannot apologise to family, as he does not contrite. CTE maker as an enforcer. Time to be a man , and apologise.

He is claiming the collision was due to a football act. JVR got off his offence. Duty of care was lessened in a marking spoiling act. I think it is a problem and this adjudication and following appeal (if) will be about football acts and the relation to duty of care.

Not when marking or spoiling (JVR). Though this should set the presendence, as the outcome was unacceptable. I hope. Also believe, intention to hurt was there.

Are they setting up for the appeal. No duty of care is needed, when a football act is practiced.

He put his foot in his mouth. He did not take any duty of care into that football act. "Ihle (Pies): Did you consider at the time Brayshaw kicked the football he was in a vulnerable position? Maynard: No." The outcome proves otherwise. Duty of care is the main aspect of this adjudication.

Doesn't have to be a smother, could be trying to intercept any disposal. Straight line the ball, and hope they try and dispose of it, as they launch themselves into the ball user. Not a bump, but the ball was what I was hoping to get. No one will won't to get the ball, stuffs the game as chasers have been given huge incentives.

From the transcript number 4 is all confused. "After I smothered the ball". Did not even get close. Later reckons he touched it. "Didnt expect Gus to move in the way he did". Wow, he was running in a straight line at constant speed. Did not know he would collide. Wow, how unrealistic. Could not open his arms. Wow, he could have. Uses the wording, football act. Gets that in quickly. Chairman asks if he can see him. I can see the funny side if that, but assume it wasn't intentional as a response to Gus. "Flinched up", the turn of his body and playing his shoulder into Gus is a flinch! Finishes with, "no" to a duty of care question. Was Gus in a vulnerable position? Too many instructions from the Council. Won't be truthful, all about the words and not reality.

I'd also suggest an unrealistic attempt to smother (was not near its flight, or attempting to follow the balls movement), leading to a careless, and intentional bump. Any interpretation of where and what his eyes were focused on? Looking at the video, it appears to me that he didn't look at the ball. Eyes on Gus only. If he followed the ball, then he would have gone across the path of Gus, to his right.

That would be OK, and the other bits, IF the number 4 was willing to own up to his part in the collision. While he still (publically) sees it as a footy act, showing no attrition, or taking responsibility for his unnecessary act, the family will have to heal further before forgiveness could even be considered. (This lack of public attrition, could mean that if he had his time again, then the act and outcome would remain the same). Number 4, had to be able to "read the room", without that understanding, then his motives point to being self-serving.

You cannot hit players in the head. NRL could be a good source for examples of smothering the ball off the kick. Their kicker never goes down like how Gus went.

Seems the words that the Wooden's are using, are "hard but fair". Well, the outcome of the collision points to, coward and nasty. Careless in the least, had intent to take the body of Gus. Why he doesn't say, I made a mistake and am sorry is beyond me. Keèp fighting number 4! Playing footy is more important than common human empathy, and respect.

That is only my guess of the mess. I wished they used the natural skills of the players and stop the role play in order to make it easier to create fwd 50 stoppages. Which I believe is the main purpose, with bomb to the pack if you cannot pick out the lead. At least they aren't also pumping it near the boundary line too much now. Friitta is a great lead, JVR can outmark when one on one's, Kossie will burn them if one on one and it hits the ground, Tracc, one on one would be a nightmare, for the opponents. The forward congestion is also difficult to fathom, as is the stagnation, at times. Though again, makes it easier to hold it in.

That has been one of his drills over a period of time. He uses others types of drills, but seems to build the forward movement through the "ring a ring a rosie", style. He hopes to get mismatches, or a clear spacial advantage to a player. From that position his places himself in, Stafford can micro manage them, and I often see him using arm gestures, and after the play, chatting about it. Trying to indicate how far away they should be from each other, when the spread is used instead of the clump, or which way to run etcetera. He really is very active as a coach. My problem is the outcome in the game. The player with the ball cannot read from where the leading player is going to come from or lead to, and ends up bombing it in. Then looks silly on the replay as the open player was "there". Time for an ex-forward, to teach the forward craft. We need connection with the mids. Not leading patterns they cannot see happening.

No never seen him train forward of centre before today. Thought I read somewhere about Turner playing forward in the scratch match yesterday, and he did alright.

Barrett "jumped to smother a kick, and that was his sole intent" Add, knew a collision was going to happen, left his feet, braced and turned his shoulder into the head of a completely open opponent. Sole intent, no, went to hurt, yes. I'll say it again, knew a collision would happen. No duty of care taken.

Forward 50 pressure that the talls don't bring, plus the delivery which is missing. Not too many options available. With Brayshaw out, then Tracc will have more mid time. I can see your humour, and had a giggle myself. For me, Spargy is not the worst, as a role player.

I think it will move when the first litigation for the CTE (Chronic traumatic encephalopathy) cost the insurance companies money, and the premiums sky rocket across all levels, then change will occur. The progress of reducing the head hits as very little to do ethics and morality, though a fair bit with the games look, but primarily the dollars. I can see him getting off. Big club, big name, big money for KC, then off to appeals for a technical interpretation. It is why I made the tongue in cheek remark about suing the number 4 and those who say it is a consequence of football act.

I think Hibbo has a tendon problem, Achilles, like Clarry and his hip tendon, they flare after hard use. Rest them, and will be right to go in 4 to 5 days. To get completely right they need 8 to 12 weeks.

Easy to misunderstand, I said something leading to this, as a bit tongue in cheek.

I think you're right. He would have a career in the media to fall onto.