Macca

That's great haha And I especially like that you've kept up the J.E.T.S typed out tradition (Gonzo will be well pleased) Speaking of which, I'll be taking a keen interest in how Rodgers is faring this season So in the NFL, are fans allowed to have a 2nd team to support located in another conference? I remember not minding at all when Favre played for the J.E.T.S (texting scandal and all) but when he went to the Vikings, I still wanted him to do well (kinda/sorta) but not for Minnesota! Would have been like Gawn switching to a team like Essendon or Collingwood I've got a mate who supports the Steelers so I've always had a soft spot for Pittsburgh

None of them are addressing the precedent that would be set if Maynard gets off Apart from anything else, the whiplash effect from such a vicious shirtfront could cause more damage than a concussion or broken jaw A head snapped back in such a way must put huge pressure on the neck area So you're not missing anything, BDA, the commentary is coming from neanderthals (or those who should know better/ completely out of touch) The seriousness of this hit seems to be lost in the name of the lame 'footy act' narrative

Can't seem to shake off the hamstring concerns (Clayton Oliver - like) And we're up to 400 pages ... who'd have thought? Dappa would be mighty proud of that milestone

Well, from memory, early contributors to this thread (45HG, WJ & QueenC) are all 49ers fans too haha

I'll have an egg & bacon variety Just watched the Lions/KC highlights ... the Chiefs dropped any number of catches and Goff played very well Still, a very good win to the Lions especially at KC Big day tomorrow and it all starts at 3.00am for your blokes

So here's a refresher on all the teams that we support @Gorgoroth Rams @BDA Cowboys @Dee Zephyr Bears @Go the Biff 49ers @JV7 Atlanta @Dappa Dan Eagles @DeeSpencer Bears @DemonDave 49ers @Clintosaurus Jags @Dr. Gonzo J.E.T.S @titan_uranus 49ers @layzie 49ers @Macca Packers @cowboy_from_hell Vikings We could do with some more AFC supported teams and I'm working on a couple of Demon mates who follow the Bills & Pats respectively

Jags, Bengals, 49ers

@Dee Zephyr @DeeSpencer @Dappa Dan Don't forget your tips, fellas!

No point pointing the blame at one, inexperienced individual that has only played a handful of games We lost the game for any number of other, more profound reasons. Having said that I would have had Grundy as the sub but I'm not sure that selection would have changed the result of the match anyway But that's not a knock on Laurie. I had Grundy in for team balance as I didn't want JVR or T-Mac in the ruck ... and when we beat the Pies in the KB clash, both Grundy & Gawn played well and were influential Laurie is contracted for next season so has another season to develop. Whether he makes it or not is up to the individual And by the way, what a terrible show is the Ch9 footy show. It's like a non humourous boys club that doesn't talk about the actual games (with any great detail) ... 2 hours of rubbish

Attempting to defend Maynard involves antiquated thinking. The game has moved on from the thuggery of the past So even if by some outside chance that Maynard's action is deemed accidental, he must still cop a heavy penalty according to the new grading system. At this point, a 3+ match penalty Anything other than the above evaluation is old time thinking. And these days, irrelevant We've had at least 20 players (this season alone) rubbed out for instances that previously were viewed as incidental or as accidents. Often with the player on the receiving end suffering zero ill-effects The sentences are still being handed out, regardless. So Maynard can't escape the current gradings and rulings

Yep, we have to sacrifice not having Gawn predominantly rucking because we need marking strength up forward. Or at least a decent target up forward As you said, it's not as if Grundy isn't of great value in the ruck and around the ground If we had a half-decent functioning forward line which included Petty, Melksham & JVR (or even a fit & healthy Ben Brown) then Grundy would have to remain on the sidelines So for team balance, Grundy should be included in the team And of course, Gawn could still have some good game time in the ruck even with Grundy included in the team What the breakdown of forward, middle and back for both ruckmen is up to the MC to work out. They need a solid, flexible plan

Might be worth trying Langdon & Hunter on the opposite wings just for a change up. Both tend to hug the boundary with their kicks but switching can have the effect of the kicks going inboard (or enabling both players to move inboard before disposing of the ball) As it stands, we're not getting enough effective kicks from either player (or dynamic possessions) And right now, the opposition know exactly where both players kicks are going (down the line) ... easily defended

Highlights of the Lions/Chiefs game https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J4DoMjut2aQ

If Ben Brown could somehow pass a fitness test he could be risked. But considering we're devoid of choices, his inclusion might be preferred to a left-field solution (albeit in a cut-throat SF) Getting the gang back together again from '21? ... BBB, T-Mac, Fritsch, Kozzie, Gawn/(Grundy instead of Jackson) With Petracca/ANB/Chandler or Spargo used in stints up forward But it's a reach Any other combo up forward (with available personnel) doesn't fill with confidence Brayshaw out means we may not have the luxury of using Petracca forward in the way we'd like to use him forward

Gawn is better as a key forward than anyone right now and that includes T-Mac. The cupboard is bare and I doubt they'll go with Schache now after passing on him when we could have played him That doesn't mean a forward line including T-Mac, Gawn, Smith, Fritsch, Chandler, Kozzie etc will work but that's what we're left with as there is no one else Neither Tomlinson or Turner are forwards and neither is Smith if we're being honest. And Chandler & T-Mac aren't impacting to any degree So Grundy rucks and Gawn goes forward because without Gawn forward, we might end up with a non functioning forward line And the only way that Gawn can play forward is if Grundy plays As it stands, without JVR we don't have a 2nd ruck unless we use our only (out of form) KPF (T-Mac) So if it is T-Mac in the ruck whilst Gawn rests, who are our KPF's? Who's in your front 6?

Correct Grundy is too good a footballer (from an overall perspective) to not be included in the team now Nothing against the kid, but I'm convinced that Grundy would have been much better value than Laurie on Thursday night. One is a seasoned veteran whilst the other is just a kid finding his way The MC just needs to find a way of making 2 ruckmen in the same team work. Other teams play 2 rucks and it works for them And back in 2021 there was no thought of not playing Jackson & Gawn in the same team A mini think-tank and some creative ideas is required from the MC. And Stafford & Yze need to figure out how to get a connection from the mids & forwards

You might be right old dee (again) but I'm reckoning 5 or 6 weeks The CTE issues in general, ongoing litigation, class actions, optics, Gus' ongoing concussion issues and Maynard's absolute guilt points towards a hefty penalty But you have a habit of getting things right so I've got my fingers crossed

Most over the age of 40 here would remember a time when the player with ball in hand was often vulnerable to a late hit after disposal But until it was outlawed, for decades players would continuously wear a bump after disposing of the ball ... and every now and again the elbow or shoulder to the head would be 'added' (and often, that would lead to a suspension) After a time, free kicks started being paid downfield which ended up curtailing the bump on the player disposing of the ball (or the forceful bump) So the Maynard hit was a real throwback. Not a football act as doing what he did has been outlawed As for the smothering excuse, it's a load of rot. He knew exactly what he was doing

You should have mentioned that criteria in your original post

And apart from everything else that has been pointed out, there are the optics An unprotected player king hit and laid out unconscious for a full 5 minutes and then carried off on a stretched and somehow the perpetrator walks free? Not going to happen, no chance The rules of engagement have changed since Cripps walked free, for good reason The league needed to close the loopholes otherwise all those types of incidents could have meant that the perpetrators would continuously walk free It could have become a free-for-all

There have been at least 15 instances of players being suspended this season where the perpetrator has not so much targeted the head or been negligent but more so just been really unlucky The Hunter suspension a standout and numerous sling tackles where the player being tackled not being hurt at all. Other bumps have connected to the head with very little impact but still carried with it, suspensions Fast forward to the Maynard hit and there was nothing innocuous about it. The hit was a clean hit and was negligent as well as being vicious, nasty, pointed and violent So that Maynard hit can't be compared to the numerous 1 & 2 match penalties handed out for what I would describe as perhaps a slight step up from incidental contact

Might have already been said but Carlton went out in straight sets in 1975 & 1976 And since the late 1960's I believe teams going out in straight sets has happened over 30 times

And duly wins the Feehan The horse is now in the sort of form that it showed as a 3yo

And we've grown accustomed to the new way of thinking re the penalties for offences pertaining to the head area Seemingly innocuous instances where the offender has done very little wrong along with no effect on the player being tackled or bumped are now readily accepted as carrying a suspension But in this instance it was far from innocuous ... the offender had obvious intent and the victim was knocked out cold It's at the higher end of the scale, not the lower end And again, the coaches are teaching players how to tackle with a duty of care and in many cases, instruction players to not bump (to avoid suspension) And here we are with Maynard slamming in to an unprotected player and it's somehow not deemed to be reportable? Someone might want to inform these dinosaurs that the times have already changed

Regardless of intent, the act of connecting with the head in many instances of the game is a reportable offence these days and carries with it a penalty Maynard could have avoided contact but even if it can be argued that he couldn't avoid slamming into Gus' head, he's still transgressed So a charge/shirt-front best describes the head high contact. Whether accidental or intentional makes no difference these days in many instances On top of all that, the outcome is severe In many areas of the game now, a player cannot accidently hit another player in the head and not expect to get suspended That's the modern game So ignore the dinosaurs and the footy code shared by many of the ex-players. They're completely out of touch The other important factor worth noting is that the AFL are in the midst of class actions involving head trauma. If they let Maynard walk, the repercussions creates even more legal ramifications Right now, in my view, those current class actions could easily cost the AFL a pretty penny. Do they want even more? I doubt it This time around, they will find a way to make sure Maynard gets a decent sentence (not the other way around as what has happened previously)