Monbon

2 minutes ago, Satan said:

starting to read by collingwood fans  brayshaw was concussed  in a previous incident in a goal area

Must have been: that's OBVIOUSLY why he ran into and assaulted Maynard.

3 minutes ago, Jara said:

Wankery (I was at Melbourne Uni law school for long enough to know that the faculty was full of em, and they were full of themselves.

And nothing is changed.

17 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Shakespeare: 

"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers".

If my legal analysis proves wrong, mate, you will receive my apology on here.

The Jesuits were about the ends justifying the means, I think. This is a far cry from Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.    

With all respect - and I mean this genuinely - your defence of 'Aussie Law' is not the full picture. I know of certain 'lawyers'  who specialize in, shall we say, selling criminals get out of jail cards. 

And, by the way, I would have thought a player knocking an opponent unconscious with his shoulder after he has kicked a football over his head has SFA to do with 'Aussie lawyers who spend years being trained to look at events chronologically, reasonably and rationonately.'

I note you are a lawyer who can't even spell rationally correctly. 

46 minutes ago, rollinson 65 said:

Thanks, mate. In fairness to our fellow posters, very few can appreciate the legal thought process, which you and I have to acknowledge is pretty strange and goes against human nature. 

Two lawyers arguing. Who would have thought?  :)

If my legal analysis proves wrong, I will be apologising to the 99.99%. If I am proved right, I do not ask for any of the 99.99%  to acknowledge the fact. Let's all move on. There will be a Tribunal hearing (and perhaps an Appeal) and nothing we can do or say can influence the outcome.

Much deeper issue than Player Maynard is how the AFL deals with contact sport verses concussion reality. I am at a loss to come up with any Rule changes that could make a difference. We have seen players concussed by tripping over their own feet.

If we agree we can't stop it, the AFL could perhaps come up with a financial compensation system that assists past and future players who have suffered or who will (inevitably) suffer in the future. 

My eldest grandson runs out every season for his local club. Am I worried he may suffer concussion? Yes.

Am I going to try to stop him playing the sport he loves? No.   

 

Did you specialize in Jesuistry?

31 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Not sure if this has been posted earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/sep/11/concussion-an-issue-afl-cant-afford-to-smother

Interesting article though at the end, he sits on the fence and mentions all the sentimental [censored] about the possibility of Maynard missing playing in a GF.

1 hour ago, rollinson 65 said:

We are all passionate Dees supporters here so we all feel really sorry about the consequences for Gus.

Because I recognise and share that passion, I take no umbrage at the cheap shots levelled at me after I announced I was leaving this thread.

Anyone with a modicum of legal training will see how this is will play out.

If the Tribunal makes a Rules-based decision based on the real time (not slow-motion) footage, player Maynard will be exonerated.

If the Tribunal makes a political decision (entirely possible), Player Maynard will be exonerated on Appeal. 

Every time you post, my contempt for 'Lawyers' grows.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

May before he had played a game for us, was suspended in a Practice match, where he stopped and a player ran into him front on, without any shoulder bracing impact to the head.

Didn't hear any complaints from the media peanut gallery then.

If May did the same smother act on Daicos, there would be calls for a year ban, from the same media peanut gallery.

I can see it now " May, a tough player, took out a great ball player and should be suspended for as long as possible".

Exactly: I'm glad you brought this up. The only difference was May stood still, whereas Maynard thrust his shoulders directly at Brayshwaw's head.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Lol he's not going to pursue legal action Macca.

Every game is a risk for any player to be knocked out by an opposition player. Players get knocked all the time

I know we are all over emotional about the circumstances but it really is over the top that you'd think Gus who's got a history of concussion and knew the risk that he was one hit away from career ending would personally sought legal action against that one particular player.

Name me the last player to pursue legal action against an opposition player for this particular case in the last 20 years?

None, because they simply don't have the ground to stand on. You put yourself at risk playing a contact sport.

Maynard will be dealt with appropriately. 

You seem to forget that there are so-called Laws of the game which are designed to deter thugs from inflicting life-long damage. Every form of sport called 'football' by any name, e.g. rugby, soccer, inherently puts a player 'at risk'.  However, it is, in the end, a sport not a battlefield or a colosseum, and there is the concept called 'Laws of the Game', laws made to protect partakers from life-threatening forms of assault, which, in the end, is what Maynard perpetrated on his so-called mate and drinking buddy. Your statement that 'you put yourself at risk playing a contact sport' is true only as far as what can be fairly described as accidents, but it should not put you at risk of sustaining  'Common Assault.'

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Leave it out, you’ve now said your piece 4 times to him. He’s got his opinion and he’s entitled to it.

How many times did he roll up on this topic to defend Maynard?????Then to start the 'lawyer talk' was a wee bit more than I could bear. His defence of thuggery and reference to the good old days was bad enough. Keep on Roosting...

4 hours ago, Superunknown said:

This would be laughable if not so seriously stupid. Are they seriously suggesting players can attack others and it is up to the victim to ensure they protect themselves at all times. Isn’t Dangerfield on the players union?

I hope Laura Kane is on the phone to him and all media bosses demanding a cease and desist on the incredibly unhelpful commentary. If nothing else it harms their litigation - here you have the media basically victim blaming ?!

Jesus wept the collingwood protection racket is worse the imagined

a decent silk prosecuting Maynard would be loving this. The systemic bias against the victim is incredible especially in the context of a Collingwood protection racket - which is what it is

This is a big test for kane

Yes, I call to mind a certain aPellation...

4 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

I see I have no support on this thread so I shall desist. I hope that the Tribunal sees the footage from all angles. As a retired lawyer, I think that must absolve Maynard from any penalty. But, as has been pointed out by deep thinkers on this thread, the Tribunal's decision may be political - not fair to player Maynard but politically correct. 

Regards to all and Go Dees,

Rollo

 

Go figure, a retired 'lawyer'. Is anyone surprised by the semantics and sophistry and jesuistry you display? Not to mention your affirmation of football field violence, just like in your 'good ol days'....

4 hours ago, Ouch! said:

No, Pickett's attempt at a smother was a pure football action. Almost identical, but amazingly didnt attempt to knock  Hoskin-Elliott into next week.
Maynard shuffled before he jumped, and changed his angle at the last minute to line up Brayshaw. He had intent to make contact with the player.  

How many of these 'pure football actions' have you seen in the last 5-10 years where people attempt to smother the ball, and knock out the player kicking it? 

Pardon - who HAS kicked it over his numbskull head...

5 hours ago, Billy said:

Rollo l know it’s your opinion but you need to quit while you’re ahead.

 

I'd get a head first, Rollo...

5 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Agree 4-6 weeks.

The AFL will make a political statement.

I am sorry but I feel sad for Maynard. What if he had been playing for us?

The next poster who says I do not feel sad for Gus will get a visit from me and a severe beating with my walking stick. :)

Wtf does it matter if he was playing for 'us'. If you are one of 'us', count me out...

6 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Fractions of seconds, people.

Fractions of seconds.

It is a contact game.

I am not playing the "I played and you did not" card but please consider.

Angus had the ball and was about to deliver a potentially dangerous kick. He is a dangerous kick, one of our best. Maynard saw the opportunity to smother and committed his body. His body.

Sometimes on the field, the mind takes a rest and the body takes over.

I am ashamed of some of the things I did on the field, but this was a football action, pure and simple. Maynard's past history is simply irrelevant. Ask any lawyer.

You should stop embarrassing yourself. So you were a shameless thug. Good on you. Live with it. Don't excuse equally shameless thugs who are still out there to injure and maim opposition players. 

6 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Can't believe this thread.

It was an honest footy action, fractions of seconds of time to make decisions.

I saw lots worse in my playing days (long ago). 

What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

What 'contest'? Brayshaw had kicked the bloody ball, Maynard jumped, missed touching the ball by a mile than turned his shoulder into Brayshaw's natural momentum. Where is this a 'contest"?????????????

8 hours ago, Jibroni said:

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

Bullsh..t.

6 hours ago, rollinson 65 said:

Can't believe this thread.

It was an honest footy action, fractions of seconds of time to make decisions.

I saw lots worse in my playing days (long ago). 

What would Maynard's coach and fellow players have said if he had shrunk from the contest?

It is a contact sport FCS !!

I am ashamed to be a demonlander when reading some of the posts on this thread. 

 

What contest? Brayshaw had kicked the ball over Maynard's head, Maynard jumped and then directed his shoulder at Brayshaw's after-kick momentum. We used to call it a shirt front. Your - and my playing days - coincided when thugs and men who committed jail -worthy assaults on football fields were considered heroes and just part of the game. 

15 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Minus Brayshaw, JVR and Gawn’s foot

What's the problem with Gawn's foot?

11 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I wonder if there is truth to the whispers that Gus may not play again, if Laura intervened for fear of additional litigation against the AFL.
Brayshaw and Frawley are powerful footy names and given Anita is currently in active litigation with the AFL, this can’t be good for their case.

If Maynard is allowed to play because his is deemed a reasonable action, and Gus has to retire as a result of repeated head injuries, it only further weakens the position of the AFL in their ongoing legal battles. 

Gus did not put himself in a situation where brutal force could have been expected such as throw himself into a pack or run backwards for a mark. He was running with the ball in open space trying to kick it away. He has every right to expect to walk away from that without a severe head injury. 

Whether you think what Maynard did was intentional or just a footy action gone wrong, there is no doubt the consequences of his action could well be catastrophic. The AFL cannot just simply turn a blind eye or succumb to the pressure of the feral Magpie Army. There are far bigger chess pieces in play here. 

Good points: however, he wasn't 'trying to kick it away' - he had kicked it over Maynard's head and Maynard decided to basically shirt-front his so-called 'mate' via a shoulder to his head.

12 hours ago, layzie said:

Appreciate it Dazzle. 

It seems as like the people here that want to condemn Maynard feel like they are a united front. Well in the last few hours I've realised that they are actually in sub-categories. There's people who think the main fault is Maynard's choice to jump and leave the ground and whatever happened was his fault anyway, there's people who feel it is his decision to turn inwards instead of outwards and then there's people who are saying it has nothing to do with either of those but actually him leading with the shoulder and causing a 'bumping' act. None of these are bad opinions but they are not on the same page.

Oh sorry then there's the ludicrous Space lord stuff like suggesting that a if he's sprinting a hundred miles an hour at the ball carrier he should suddenly be able to jump straight up vertically in the air when he attempts the smother. Another one suggested Maynard took his eyes off the ball, it wasnt a marking contest, how the hell can you tell that when the guy he took out had the ball in his hands right up until the moment he left the ground??

I've been more than happy to hear sensible arguments for why he should go and thankfully there's been a few good ones here who were able to separate emotion and explain their stance rationally and respectfully. I'm not on some warpath to be correct, I'm here to say what I think, hear some well informed good views then move on. Whether people agree with me or not, no-one can argue that this place has been a frenzy of emotional and sometimes irrational jabbering this last 24 hrs.

Having said all of this I'm not some Maynard homer and if they are handing out a 4 game suspension I'm happy to see him rubbed out regardless. Thug life!

You haven't even considered the most obvious deduction yet: That it was Brayshaw's fault because he ran into poor, stationary and innocent Maynard who only had eyes for the ball. Angus should get 6 weeks for damaging Maynard's reputation as a thug: Maynard is INNOCENT - HE WAS PROTECTING HIMSELF FROM A VISCOUS BRAYSHAW ATTACK.

19 minutes ago, chookrat said:

El Diablo, it might not be graded as careless if not deemed rough contact. People on here seem to forget about the Van Rooyen spoil which if judged by the same standard on here would have been a 2 - 3 week suspension.

Nonsense: Van R's eyes were on the ball: you maybe need to book a check up with your optician. 

25 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

The more I watch the replay of this act the more it shows how guilty he is and dishonest. 

He ran at full tilt at Gus without ever deviating and then launched.

How did he think he would stop or avoid a collision?

The moment he ran and jumped sealed poor Gus' s fate.

Maynard knew he would crash into Gus and is100% guilty.

I maintain four weeks.

Some of these commentators acting tough that there's nothing in it sound like they've copped too many hits themselves.

Bloody disgraceful to defend it.

Maynard should come clean and accept a punishment if he's really remorseful.  It's a disingenuous attempt to avoid suspension.

 

As though he should have been allowed to 'clear his name' just after the game, claiming Brayshaw was his mate....

21 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What Absolute Rubbish 

Maynard could have just as easily swung his body to the left to avoid a problem. He didn’t 

Also, for f sake, he had no forward momentum: he had jumped to smother, then, after the ball had passed him, he thrust his shoulder forward straight into Brayshaw's head. All the thug had to do was land, it's not as though Brayshaw was going to take him out - Brayshaw was playing football, Maynard was playing the man.

29 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

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

 

It is not even similar: Maynard went AT an oncoming player, his eyes only at the player, and the ball had already cleared his outstretch hands by quite a margin.

Duncan had his back to the North player for a start, one  arm outstreched, and he seemed to lose his balance: yep, it was 'accidental;.