sue

Unique! Yes, it was. But how is it that it doesn't happen regularly (with or without concussion)? Because the rest of the time in smothers the players don't intentionally or recklessly do what Maynard did. Legalism when it suits them and crack-downs when that suits. The AFL will destroy Aussie footy in time.

Given the tribunal's 'reasoning' it will be interesting how they can even make a rule to do what they want short of 'regardless how it happened, knock someone out and you are in trouble'. Either that or they will effectively be saying last night's decision was wrong but next time we'll actually mount a case instead of waving a wet lettuce.

It might work for me thank you very much. If it doesn't work for you, just follow my advice in the earlier post. Stop reading this thread.

I don't see why we supporters have to move on. The players do, but our venting has no effect on anything (especially the bloody AFL). If anyone wants to move on by not reading this thread, they know how it's done.

There have been a couple of contrarian posters who 'guarantee' that if Gus had done this to Maynard we'd all have a different view. I suggest they look at the posts before and following Pickett's ban early in the season. Most posts were along the lines of 'how could he be so stupid', not 'our golden boy can do no wrong.'

Leaving aside the arguments about what he did, what Gus did etc etc, the one thing that really stands out for me is Gleeson making some remark about the importance of the matches coming up for Maynard. Remarks like that are toally inappropriate before the matter is decided by the jury. They may be barely acceptable in pleas about the sentence, but not before the jury deliberates. What a ****ty organization has taken over Aussie rules.

If we can't be in it, I'm hoping for a Brisbane GWS grand final ( if that works out in the draw - too [censored] off to look it up).

Very considerate of you to get us ready for disappointment. Perhaps you haven't noticed that most people here think is he guilty but will get off one way or another. We are well and truly prepared for disappointment without your condescension.

Hang on half a sec. 400 millisecs is nearly 1/2 a sec. Any decent footballer can do things in that time.

That's a very good point if the AFL lawyer has the sense to make it. Since we can all see he did turn his shoulder, but the biomechnist said he wouldn't have time to change anything, then he must have premeditated it. But I fear the AFL will say clear of premeditiation.

Presumably they are saying it's physically impossible to turn the way Maynard did. But he did.

What's with the mini ball "Update: The mini rubber football is now in Brayden Maynard's right hand."? A security blanket? or maybe the coached answers are written on it.

At least that a step up from threatening violence.

Here he goes again. No possibility that a witness who demonstrates that he has been heavily coached will have reduced credibility? You're no Horace Rumpole.

So those down-voters are doing a thumbs-down to AFL policy on duty of care. Great thinking. Argue he took as much care as he could etc, but saying that just shows you are a partisan [censored].

In his mind he did smother the ball which bounced up and knocked Gus out.

Yes. What footballer would use those words without coaching and following the company line.

Quite diffferent. They were contesting the ball. May still be worth a penalty but nothing like the present case.

"A professor giving written evidence is not available until 5pm to answer questions via a video call. Jeff Gleeson notes the evidence includes reference to Galileo and Isaac Newton." Forget those old physicists. The real clinching evidence will come from references to Albert Einstein. It's all relativity. The decision of the Tribunal will reflect the relative importance of C'wood to the AFL.

Don't expect anything from the AFLPA.

To deny that Brayshaw's loss was an element in why we lost is foolish. Arguably it was a major element given the closeness of the result. With him in the team maybe our bad kicking wouldn't have mattered. If one important player doesn't matter, how many missing players would be needed before you felt that was a factor in a loss? Monty Python's black knight comes to mind.

Rollyx wants change the discussion to what rule changes need to be made to stop this happening in future. (Even though apparently there was no problem with the incident - an odd position to take really). I suggested to him that if he wants to discuss that (like many of us do), he starts a new thread on the topic. Instead he keeps posting here. I suggest he's hoping to divert attention from his earlier embarrasing expert legal analysis of the event.

Maynard is no Daicos, so why are the stakes for C'wood so huge? I suggest because having run this absolutely absurd PR campaign they will look foolish and lose respect if they don't win in the end.

The C'wood supporting morons in the media and supporters will cite that as evidence that he was faking it the whole time.

That should cheer me up, but sadly it doesn't.