Kev

Is any of the other AFL fans that are not MFC, upset about this outcome? The sake of the game is in the balance, as duty of care has been relegated to, there are times when hits to the head are not sanctioned.

I interpret it as, solely attacking the ball (give no consciousness to anything else). Do that and collateral all over the place, and no consequences to self.

If you are playing the ball, a duty of care to those around you is now unnecessary. The defense of in the motion of a "football act" has a precedence. As Number 4 said, he did not take a collision with Gus into account. Will give Viney, Sparrow and other inside bulls a licence to not worry about the pain they inflict. Sad day for CTE outcomes.

I reckon it's more straight line the ball and the player is collateral damage. Duty of care is out the door in a football act. No More tackles, to risky for a chance of suspension. Those rucks are going to be dangerous places to tread. Where the ball is, missiles are coming through.

Dream of 12, and it's Yippee, Yahoo. 2023 and number 14.

There are plenty of teams to play for in the adapted game, of 9 on 9. I understand your sentiment, I found the area to have a very diverse cultural mix. Get stuck in one group and it is like the others don't exist. That area has it all, up to you to look.

There are plenty of teams to play for in the adapted game, of 9 on 9.

That is not true, they have an AFL hub up at Cavanbah (a couple of k's out of town). Perhaps you feel that way because of the Gold Coast link and area,

Extremely skewed, nothing about the optics, or the spirit of the game.

In the guise of a football act.

The Emperor has no clothes on, but the Tribunal will buy the duck that isn't a dinner, leading to us having the motivation to get to the GF.

"Gleeson: The duty of care is informed by what is reasonable, not the expectation of the remarkable. Maynard won't be found careless if we find he simply failed to do the remarkable." Wow, if he acted reasonable before he could do the remarkable, then he wouldn't be a concussion causing projectile. Duty of care before he launched.

"Ihle (Pies) says Maynard's hands go to the right, but his centre of mass does not move to the right. He says at this point a collision is "not inevitable" and "not even likely". It is Brayshaw's movement inward that changes this, he says." That's going a bit far. No collision, WOW. From the enforcer, LOL. If he followed the ball, and Gus falling a bit right, he wouldn't have done his job (to hurt).

"Ihle (Collingwood): He's jumped off two legs. That's allowed him to jump higher and it slowed his forward momentum without completely removing it." Why does he want to jump higher, he needed to go right, if he was playing the ball. Higher, just has him coming down on Gus with more force.

Of course, Gus is the defenseless one, and ball carrier. Number 4 was the instigator of the collision. I've always heard the umpires saying they protect the person with the ball, time for the Tribunal do do that.

No, not jump at Gus, jump at the ball. If he had done that, then he would have gone across the path and lower of Gus. There was an intention to collide as he braced, and the biomech expect, said his brace must be premeditated.

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.