Teufelmann

Perhaps it is too legalistic, but I’m surprised how readily it seems to be countenanced that player on a long-term contract can manage to shed his obligations on the basis of grievances which would never amount to a breach of contract by the club he is contracted to. Imagine if the situation were reversed and the MFC pressured a player on a long-term contract to leave the club on the basis that the club would prefer to contract player X from another club(perhaps on the basis that player X had a better profile and would attract more sponsors to the club). The football world would be justifiably outraged by such fickle behaviour. Contracts are obviously a two-way commitment. The player gets long-term job security and the club knows it has secured the services of a valuable player. I tend to agree with Garry Lyon that Christian should be told he will be held to his commitment for say another three years after which the position will be reviewed. In any event I hope that is what occurs.

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.