Macca

Not sure it's most D13 but nonetheless, a good percentage are thinking that way (that he could or might walk free) But the thought has crossed my mind as it probably has for most Why? Because we don't trust all those involved in the process. The MRO & the Tribunal has been nothing but inconsistent for any number of years now. As for the AFL, they are a law unto themselves and have a history of pandering So he could walk free or maybe just get 1 game off. If that happened I'd be bitterly disappointed but not surprised In advance, I've prepared for disatisfaction but am holding out hope that he cops a 4 or 5 game penalty To be honest, I'm far more concerned about Gus' welfare As for Maynard, he'll get his right whack one day soon anyway. You do the wrong thing enough times, bad luck ends up befalling you

I'm baffled that so many have convinced themselves that Maynard's actions was a footy act so therefore he should get off Have they not noted the 60+ plus players who have been suspended this season for bumping & tackling. These are also footy acts And the consequences of all those suspensions from all those footy acts were not as drastic as the Gus concussion But that's if it was a footy act. All the tackles and bumps looked like footy acts but Maynard's was a fake smother. Token and designed to confuse. A con

The bloke is as mad as a snake Threatened violence 3 times now so he won't last long

Yeah I'd like to see Atlanta back in the playoffs ... a good solid win to start things off

Yeah watching the Dallas game on the NFL Network right now ... impressive opener. McCarthy calling the plays again Packers won well but the Bears were banged up according to DS. Still, a win at Soldier Field is always to be savoured The NFC North might be a tight race Jordan Love had a good game too. His numbers were Rodgers-like haha

5 winners in the comp - well played! Bengals put most of the rest of us out Leaderboard 2 - DemonDave, Go the Biff, Dr. Gonzo, layzie, Clintosaurus 0 - Everyone else 🤔

@BDA "How 'bout them Cowboys!"

Over 30 players have been suspended this season because of wayward tackles ... a couple for 3 matches (?) And the hit on Brayshaw all things considered with all the criteria involved is far worse than any of the wayward tackles And in most cases, the player being tackled got straight up with no ill-effects Of course, Gus on the other hand is waylaid at home suffering the ill effects of a king hit and as well as that, contemplating his future in the sport And the comments from those wanting Maynard to get off in most cases fail to mention the plight of Gus. Or as an afterthought in a token sort of way As previously stated, there is a strong element of bloodlust running through this whole incident The "What are they turning the sport into" rednecks

There is still a quite pronounced bloodlust amongst football fans, the media & the ex players Explains the lack of sympathy & empathy for Gus. His health should be the talking point but it's a secondary issue. A long way second Kornes bangs on about needing to have played the sport but all that shows up is his own arrogance But it's interesting to note how the oldies view the incident (dinosaurs are another category, more a way of thinking) Most of the oldies remember the violent days and how players would constantly disguise their violent actions (and then plead their innocence)

There's no fool like an old fool These dinosaurs in the media and ex players have obviously learnt nothing from the violent days of the 70's, 80's & 90's Perhaps they want those days back

In the Daicos incident the Hawthorn player never had eyes for the ball and had his back to the play ... it was a charge but I believe that he wasn't cited because there was no connection to the head Nevertheless, there was damage caused and I believe the ribs were targeted. Should have been cited for unduly rough play and out for 2 or 3 weeks I was really surprised that more wasn't made of it. Right now, of course there's not going to be any sympathy here and elsewhere because of the Maynard incident but if that Hawthorn player had have been cited, there may not be any furore about Maynard being cited

Yeah, that's the annoying bit and we can only hope their opinions don't carry any weight But you know what? If they were compelled to tell the truth, they'd probably reach the same conclusion as many others in that he knew exactly what he was doing So they all cover up, all at the same time with the same narrative all in the name of their code. No one ever seems to want to break ranks Although apparently Brereton & Matthews have both got Maynard as guilty. Both dished it out (and copped it) in their heyday

Yep and we'll never know the truth as to his intent. Although, I'm betting a number of his teammates know what the truth is (and probably his coach) Footy is full of lies But if we were ever to know the truth I'd put my money on malicious intent. Just a gut feeling combined with life experiences from playing days and observations Players push the envelope in our sport. They'll get away with what they can get away with. Coaches think the same way Since the 19th century, players and coached alike have taken advantage of the rules Dirty hits have always been a part of the sport and to me, Maynard found a creative way of taking an opponent out That was my immediate thought, on the spot. A mate text me '6 weeks' immediately as he's just as cynical and has played a lot of football

It kinda did happen to them when the Hawthorn player cleaned up Daicos with a front on hit So is there a connection? Probably not but I don't necessarily believe in councidences However, it will be interesting to see if that front on hit (which caused damage to Daicos' knee) is referenced during or prior to the tribunal case And the Hawthorn player who came from front on wasn't smothering as Daicos and his opponent were attempting to mark At the time, I thought the Hawthorn should have been cited for unduly rough play. No hit to the head but it looked to me like the ribs were targeted. Anyway, that's how the knee injury occured

That's the point, Clint The alternative to Gawn forward is what? T-Mac & Schache? T-Mac & Turner? Smith can take a grab but he is more like a 3rd tall (and he's not impacting) And T-Mac is not in form. Ordinarily he may not be in the team but he has to play as the cupboard is bare If Grundy plays Gawn has to go forward but not 100% forward Here's my breakdown (not that this breakdown is necessarily going to work ... it's just spitballing) Grundy 65% Ruck, 15% Bench, 20% Forward Gawn 35% Ruck, 50% Forward, 15% Bench

Wow! The J.E.T.S!! Agree on most of the rest but how do you see your Bears faring? And the Niners? Falcons winning their division would be a real turnaround

The rules will not have to be rewritten at all, more so the rules need to be adhered to When smothering (or even when fake-smothering with regards to Maynard's actions) it's incumbent on the player to avoid contact with the players head ... especially when the player is open and unprotected And the player smothering can't at the same time be making a beeline missile-like at a players head Barrett is clueless and part of the boys club narrative. And their ancient code

Peter Jess probably doesn't have to say anything as the king hit speaks for itself (in terms of an example of what the brain can be subjected to in our sport) But the hit was a colossal hit so he's got every right to speak up and highlight the repercusions of such a hit It would be a bit odd if he didn't say anything (and he would have been asked for his opinion) As for what he actually knows with regards to Gus' future, referencing the 5 previous clinical concussions was pointed (in terms of one more and .....)

My adage in life has always been ... [censored] things happen to [censored] people So he'll get his right whack one day (no pun intended)

Yeah, reality sets in after we've spent 3 days wanting justice Maynard will get his cumeuppence sooner or later What really matters is Gus' health From a football point of view, we'll all get by

I'm not an alarmist and I try to be positive but it's only a game. I do not want Gus to have any short term or long term issues related to CTE

Gus was possibly only one more head hit away from having to retire prematurely and even though his last head hit might have been some time ago, that next hit and the ramifications of that next hit was always a factor no matter when it happened again And this was no ordinary head hit. It was a king hit. Gus is complaining about neck pain and in all reality, it's like he's been involved in high speed car accident. On top of that we're being told he's in a bad way My gut feeling after hearing the reports is that we won't see him back this season and he'll be seriously considering his future over the summer. Is it all going to be worth it? You only live once

If the player involved wasn't Angus Brayshaw, the AFL mightn't be as concerned about the ramifications of a head high hit But Gus has been knocked around previously so the AFL has to have a duty of care themselves to make sure he is not forced out of the game They've got rules in place but Maynard has transgressed and crossed the line. They can't and won't let him walk otherwise they are drawing a rod for their own back Did you read my post? I talked about him being possibly able to take action against the AFL As numerous players are currently doing in 2 separate class actions Specifically related to CTE & head trauma

Zero chance of that happening layz. The visit to see Brayshaw I see as a cynical act He doesn't want to miss out on a GF and that was his motivation in my view. To gain favour before he has to answer to the trubunal I can't help but compare this incident to when Matthews cleaned up an unsuspected Neville Bruns Of course Matthews was de-registered by the league back then (6 weeks) but can't remember if there was any legal ramifications It's a tough enough game to play but to be king hit when unprotected cannot be part of the sport

He was assaulted outside the laws of the game that's why he could pursue legal action Yeah, he signed up to play football, but not to be king hit The easier avenue would be to sue the AFL and if he is forced to retire as the result of an illegal hit, he'd be confident of getting a decent payout Ongoing pain and suffering etc etc. An inability or restricted ability to earn money It's why I believe the AFL will give Maynard a lengthy sentence... and we've seen the AFL instruct the tribunal before during the Essendon drug taking saga And the AFL can appeal against a weak sentence much like they did with Toby Greene