Ouch!

Sounds remarkably like the current AFL media. Kane Cornes basically inferring that unless you've played the game you have no idea what you are talking about when you comment about this. Which made it nice to hear Gerard Whately's comments this morning where he pointed out Dermie's take on the matter.

He's not, but it makes it seem like Barrett HAS friends.

Just make sure we jump before impact... thats important, cos it means you aren't responsible for where you land....

One of the first stories to show up on news.com.au ‘Career ending’: Horror update on AFL star https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/dees-stars-insight-into-concussed-teammate-as-bump-debate-rages/news-story/e6165e830b0c3f5650e560feaad04963 I wonder if this shifts any in the media on the incident. The narrative about protecting the head up until now, has all been about CTE and concussion for people who have left the game, having an actual incident be directly responsible FOR someone retiring, and in their prime. That is another thing entirely I would think. Someone here mentioned James Brayshaw had changed his tune from the Thursday night to when he was on one of his other shows, no doubt he's received an update, but also would have read the room on the family take on things too.

I wouldn’t suggest anyone listen to Adam Ramanauskas view on the matter… he made comment on ABC sport this afternoon. seriously… https://ab.co/3ldkTLQ Adam reckons, Maynard was actually trying to protect Brayshaw with his action. And the tribunal should only be for when malice is involved…. Luckily Fly reckons there was only a “little” bit of Malice hey Adam?

Thought this was interesting

Similar to what Binman said a few pages ago in this thread filter out the white noise surrounding this and consider this. If you chose to <Insert ANY Football Act> and it results in head high contact (or forceful head contact with the ground) to the opposition player, ....... Tackle - You'll be suspended Bump - You'll be suspended Spoiling the ball - You'll very likely be suspended In fact the only scenario I can think of where it's not would be jumping for a mark. But that is a disputed ball contest where two or more players are going for the ball. This ball was not in dispute, therefore fairly sure the AFL would say 'Smothering the ball' and it resulting in head high contact would be very much in line with Bumps and Tackles.

This is where I am at. I've seen a lot of people run at the ball carrier and jump, the large majority don't hit the player on the way down. The last smother attempt gone wrong I can recall is a couple of years back with Mitch Duncan collecting Aaron Hall, https://www.afl.com.au/video/598079/hall-knocked-out-after-duncans-smother-attempt?videoId=598079&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1618731665001 Duncan escaped both a free AND suspension, but listen to the commentary... Given where we are at now with concussion, CTE etc, There was less 'footy act' talk then than Thursday night. Obviously the main difference is Duncan was spinning and had 'less' of an idea where he was going to end up. Maynard on the other hand knew exactly what was happening.

grrrrr

Joeboy, I hope you aren't riling me up by the Dangerfield duty of care [censored]. :) You CAN"T have a duty of care to yourself. Dangerfield at the time said that Maynard had a duty of care to protect himself and that's why he braced, now he is saying Brayshaw had a duty of care to protect himself FROM Maynard? Patrick Dangerfield is clueless, and a horrible actor in those AAMI ads to boot! Even @rollinson 65 as a retired lawyer will back this part up ;) https://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Personal-rights-and-safety/Injury-loss-and-compensation/Negligence-duty-of-care-and-loss The law says we all have a duty of care to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable harm to other people or their property.

100% correct. Tackles are a football act, but if the head hits the ground, or you don't exercise the duty of care TO THE OTHER player. You get a suspension. This is what infuriated me about Maynards comment, McRae's comment, and everyone in the media.... trying to play it down as if it's ok to do this. Also... if Maynard gets rubbed out, it's not going to stop people smothering the ball, it's not going to stop people jumping for marks, it WILL stop them from jumping up and collecting people in the head in the 'guise' of another action.

Correct it was a late hit, oh wait.... a 'late' pure football action gone wrong. Ooops my bad.

I wonder if he called Tom Morris prior to going to Brayshaws house to see if they could bring a camera down.

If you want to flip it around, Replace Brayshaw with one of the Daicos boys, and Maynard with Tom Sparrow. Collingwood and the whole AFL media would be baying for a public execution. To say otherwise is just bull and you know it.

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?

You can use SEN to sync audio somehow to your TV ... haven't used it, but it keeps popping up as an option.

Agree its gonna be his season, or he gets off, there is no 1 or 2 week action here. Collingwood will not be trying to get this downgraded, it won't help him. My take on the footage is that he moves into his path directly, he shuffle steps and changes angle before he launches. If he had stayed the path. The other part is, a pure accident can still result in a suspension. It's what bemuses me with the whole 'It was a footy act' Yep it was right until you drive your shoulder into his head. Followed by the people saying what else could he do when he was already off the ground.

Garry Lyon had an interesting take …. Said that an action such as this could set a precedent where anyone can essentially jump into any player and hit them high,citing a footy action, and they have no control over their actions. hadnt though that far,but it’s potentially true.

His mum might not let Gus come out and play with us anymore! 😢

Just me or does this feel like there is no intensity? Players have space to move… nothing like last night.

Chook, watch it again. Maynard at the last moment moves to the right after a small shuffle step. Bradshaw doesn’t deviate his direction, he leans left as the shoulder comes right at him. Not sure how you see it as the opposite? The angle brings him right into Brayshaws path.

I would not be surprised if Laura Kaine does this for all decisions for finals…. Makes sense that all tribunal decisions get announced through her, but also allows her to make a commonsense ruling to override where Christian can’t make a call.

hope that you are right!

TBH Lazyie. I want this referred to the tribunal. I don't have a preconceived idea of what the suspension should be or shouldn't be, but I don't think Christian has the tools to assess it correctly with the framework that the AFL has put down. Ultimately it's High, and Severe contact. The intent is the only debateable aspect here.

Agreed, but Van Rooyen is going to get a week or two unfortunately. He looked at McStay, went past the ball and lifted the elbow, It wasn't a heavy hit. Not sure that we can deny that either. But agree with your assessment on Swannie :D