Kev

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.

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.