chookrat

WCW no need to apologise, go back a few pages and I was saying Maynard should have no case to answer which on reflection is off the mark. I think the toughest part of all of this is the emotion of one of our own being injured and then all of the commentary around the incident and the PR machine going into overdrive. Re taking this seriously, I don't think the AFL media take anything seriously as they are primarily interested in click and views. Today I read an article from a journo quoting another journo about their knowledge on a footy matter, rather than quoting an actual source. Damien Barrett was once a respected journalist who would ask good questions, now he offers his own opinions on everything and refers to Maynard as Bruz. I have no doubt the AFL will take the Maynard case very seriously and will want a suspension if the rules and tribunal guidelines allow for it. Even if Maynard is not suspended the AFL will change the Laws of the Game and/or Tribunal Guidelines at season end to prevent similar actions next year.

Jaded there is no rule, either in the laws of the game or tribunal guidelines, about leaving the ground. The Tribunal Guidelines specifically refer to high bumps being automatically graded as rough conduct but does not distinguish between whether player has left the ground. Similarly there is no reference to whether a player must have eyes for the ball.

WCW, Michael Christensen graded the incident as careless, severe impact and high impact and under the Tribunal Guidelines all reportable severe impact incidents are automatically referred to the Tribunal. Here is the link to the actual match review as reported by the AFL. https://www.afl.com.au/news/1026111/match-review-collingwood-magpies-defender-brayden-maynard-learns-fate-over-angus-brayshaw-collision The above directly contradicts the false narrative that Michael Christensen did not deem the incident as reportable. If I were to speculate the reason for the joint report is that Laura is backing in and supporting the MRO in what is a very high profile incident, while the media is looking for the best headline.

I think Laura Kanes involvement is over stated. While as the Executive responsible for Football Operations she can ask for an incident to be referred to the Tribunal she does not sit on the Tribunal or have any authority to override the Tribunals decision. Additionally the appeals process should the Tribunal hand down a suspension allows for an independent panel, which Kane has no authority over, reviews how the Tribunal arrived at its decision and makes a final decision on the matter. This incident would have always been referred directly to the tribunal. I think Laura Kanes appointment is fantastic both in terms of her experience and transitioning from the old boys club to competent administrators, but to claim it will make a difference to the outcomes of this incident are unrealistic for the reasons above. The real impact Laura will have will start to flow through in the off season when changes are made to how incidents are reviewed and sanctions are graded and applied, in which test cases such as this one and the Van Rooyen one earlier this year, will provide valuable input.

To look after oneself in the contest it must be a contest, they are essentially saying not to open yourself up while kicking the ball on case an opposition player cannons into you.

Deanox this is probably the most reasoned post that sums up the situation perfectly.

Tmac could shave the sides of his head Taxi Driver style and take out Moore and the Daicos brothers. *I'm not serious about this.

Jibroni, regardless of the AFL's change in stance re concussion if the Tribunal hands down a suspension that is outside the Laws of the Game and Tribunal Guidelines then Collingwood will win on appeal which is exactly what happened in the Van Rooyen spoil case earlier this season. There is a significant difference to the Van Rooyen case in that in Maynards case the ball was not in dispute and Maynard collected Brayshaw high. I suspect the AFL will make the case that Maynard's action to leave the ground resulted in a near certainty that Brayshaw would be injured and therefore is not reasonable and amounts to rough conduct. Unless the Tribunal can apply the existing rules any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

It will be interesting if Maynard escapes sanction on appeal and we make the grand final and play Collingwood whether we will employ the spoil bump to inflict maximum damage on their best players.

Agree I thought T-Mac worked his way into the game and expect to see him firing. Re forwards what if we did something different and add all of Grundy, BBB, Turner, Schache, Thommo and Verral to our 23. Quantity over quantity.

I wouldn't be too concerned re lack of energy today given were not playing until Friday. As WCW mentioned the main session is on Tuesday and keeping level at this stage in the week will put us in good stead in the build up to Friday night.

Billy we don't have any other options. Maybe swap Schache for Turner.

We need to sort out our front half for Friday night without sacrificing our clearance and territory game. To do this: Petracca has to play 50% forward which means we need midfield cover for him. JJ is the natural choice here but we could alternatively bring in Spargo as HF and have Sparrow play more minutes in the middle. I prefer JJ as he provides flexibility to play both in the middle and behind the ball. With JVR out, we need to bring in a key position forward / relief ruck. I'd give TMac the job as our key forward with responsibility to nullify Weitering and bring in Schache as our second forward. I think Schache will work better with Tmac, Smith, and Fritsch than Grundy. I also think that Gawn is more valuable in the middle of the ball or a kick behind play than up forward, and bringing in Grundy takes away from Gawns strength. It will be interesting to see if Gawn backs himself to play predominantly forward and Grundy is brought in. As for the sub, I'd imagine we'd give Laurie another go. While statistically he didn't set the world on fire he is part if a side that had 30 more inside 50's last week, plays the right way, and should get another go. Scratch Laurie, Turner would offer flexibility if we lose a back or key forward or even if we need to roll the dice and swing May forward late or run Riv through the middle.

BDA I think the decision that is likely to get Maynard into trouble is jumping at Brayshaw when he is about to kick the ball. I'm not sure the rules will support a suspension in this case and what argument the AFL will make, e.g. will they say it is a bump and sanction under rough conduct or use another provision. One thing the JVR case earlier this year demonstrated is that if the AFL sanction a player outside of the rules then it will fail on appeal.

I think this is a sensible approach and pretty straightforward to adjudicate when one player has the ball. It is obviously more complex when the ball is in dispute. I've been in the camp where Maynard doesn't deserve to be suspension but would be comfortable if the AFL ruled that any high contact to the ball carrier where the defender has left the ground is deemed rough conduct, e.g treated the same as a bump. Gary Lyon's summed it up pretty well. “When you jump off the ground you take away any control. “You can run and jump to spoil, and take someone out and knock ‘em out.” Whether the Tribunal and Independent Judge (On Appeal) can uphold a charge would really depend on whether the panel can be satisfied that Maynard acted unreasonably. In any case I suspect the rules to change for next year so that actions such as Maynard's would be deemed rough conduct and treated the same as a high bump.

I think this is where it's important for the Tribunal to establish whether Maynard was jumping directly into the path of Brayshaw or not. If directly into Brayshaw's path then it has to be deemed rough conduct and with high contact and severe impact its 3 - 4 weeks. I'm of the view that concussions can and do occur through pure accidents, e.g. Bedford's sheppard a couple of weeks ago, and the Tribunal needs to consider this in determining whether Maynard gets at least three weeks or is free to play.

Agree re the Tribunal looking at the careless grading. My view is that if the Tribunal is satisfied that Maynard jumped across rather than directly into Brayshaw's path to spoil then they may deem his action reasonable but if they determine that he jumped directly into Brayshaw's path making front on contact inevitable then it will be a 3 - 4 week suspension. I think the path he jumped will be most relevant to the tribunal as it will establish whether the collision is rough conduct or not. On an aside I hope Gus recovers fully and also is able to keep playing footy. He's one of my favourite players and the heart and soul of our team.

El Diablo, it might not be graded as careless if not deemed rough contact. People on here seem to forget about the Van Rooyen spoil which if judged by the same standard on here would have been a 2 - 3 week suspension.

I might be alone here but I don't think Maynard should be suspended. If you watch the footage from the behind the goals angle, Maynard jumps forward and towards the left to smother the kick while Brayshaw is stepping directly forward and while Maynard is in mid air Brayshaw completes his kick and changes direction into the path of Maynard who at this point braces for impact. We were up in arms re the Van Rooyen spoil earlier this year and I think the Maynard case is similar in that he wasn't trying to make forceful contact it is simply a collision between two players who were focussing on the ball. While the ball carrier needs to be protected I think Maynard did this by jumping at an angle during the attempted smother.

Interestingly I reckon the Maynard incident has similarities to Van Rooyen's spoil earlier this season in the sense that the attempted spoil and attempted smother were both footy acts. The difference for mine is that Brayshaw had the ball and was running directly forward and while Maynard jumped and put his arms up to smother he cannoned his body into Brayshaw. I think Maynard must be suspended not for trying to smother but making the decision to jump directly into Brayshaw when executing the attempted smother.

We could use him like Mumford at GWS where he doesn't beed to play much VFL and might play up to half a dozen games in the AFL side.

I'm in favour of bringing in a ready made first or early second round draft pick each year. Such players usually crack into our best 22, don't cost much in terms of salary cap space for the first 2 years, and play regular AFL footy for 5+ years. They also allow us to trade out a mature player who on 300-400k a year who can perform a role but probably wont improve much.

We would have taken Patrick Cripps in 2013 instead of Christian Salem and BT would famously say "Nic Nac Paddy Whack" during a centre clearance goal.

Gawndy, while we might gain some new supporters the year after we win the flag I think it's more about people wanting to sign up for a team who is viewed as a contender each year and consistently challenges. We are a very attractive club for new supporters having won a flag in 2021, finished top 4 for 3 years running, but most importantly we have consistently been in the discussion re premiership contenders during this time, and with our list profile we are capable of challenging for the next 5 years.

Work smarter, not harder 🤔