No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Viddiot]

Nice and quiet at work next week.

This year is different I was assured.

No it ain't

Just quietly humm Country roads all week at work!

 

[SA HAWK]

Just quietly humm Country roads all week at work!

Sing at the top of my lungs more like it.

 

[Roby]

View attachment 1797793
View attachment 1797794
View attachment 1797795

The Hodge one is not there. You're not a true Hawks supporter

 

[B&GBlood]

I thought the whole point of having the 6pm game was to maximise interest in the final round, but FTA aren’t even showing it so why bother?

 

[Roby]

Whenever I see Ollie Lord I think what the hell is Will Day doing playing for Port.

On SM-S906E using BigFooty.com mobile app

He's a player I wanted to draft

 

[Roby]

Haven't noticed Dunkley much tonight. Surprised to see he had 16 touches ATM.

He does nothing with the ball.

Never bounces it. Ranked last at Brisbane for meters gained per disposal. He's just a grunt inside player.

 

[Roby]

I like everyone on these boards for the most part too much to want to talk about a Collingwood guy going to the tribunal too much. But I'd be filthy if that had been one of our guys cleaned up in the opening minutes of a big final.

You'd be even more filthy if Sicily missed out a whole finals series for an attempted smother. Not that unlikely either the way Sicily plays.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

You'd be even more filthy if Sicily missed out a whole finals series for an attempted smother. Not that unlikely either the way Sicily plays.

Would you be happy that every time Day kicked the ball someone jumped up and knocked him out 'attempting' to smother?

 

[toomanysquibs]

You'd be even more filthy if Sicily missed out a whole finals series for an attempted smother. Not that unlikely either the way Sicily plays.

He's not going to go for the attempted smother, you're allowed to attempt to smother - players do it a dozen times a game.

Your post is toys out of the cot stuff, you're better than that.

I understand the disappointment. It's not the same game we grew up playing.

But the rules are the rules, plus there won't be a game if guys get their heads caved in with any kind of regularity the way they could if it was still played the same way.

 

[Roby]

Would you be happy that every time Day kicked the ball someone jumped up and knocked him out 'attempting' to smother?

Day is too agile and smart to get smothered like that. He would've feigned a kick and wernt around Maynard and made him look like a fool.

Brayshaw is special and likes to take high contact. A garbage footballer, and if the AFL is serious about concussions would ban him from stepping on to a field.

 

[Roby]

He's not going to go for the attempted smother, you're allowed to attempt to smother - players do it a dozen times a game.

Your post is toys out of the cot stuff, you're better than that.

I understand the disappointment. It's not the same game we grew up playing.

But the rules are the rules, plus there won't be a game if guys get their heads caved in with any kind of regularity the way they could if it was still played the same way.

You got this wrong.

My disappointment? I came from soccer to AFL. I always thought AFL was too rough to be considered a serious sport.

 

[toomanysquibs]

You got this wrong.

My disappointment? I came from soccer to AFL. I always thought AFL was too rough to be considered a serious sport.

Only on planet Roby is anyone getting reported for an attempted smother. I'm sorry, but your statement is about as wrong as anything I've read on Bigfooty

 

[Roby]

Only on planet Roby is anyone getting reported for an attempted smother. I'm sorry, but your statement is about as wrong as anything I've read on Bigfooty

Sorry, but you really didn't address anything, at all, not one thing, I've the posted you responded to.

So in regards to getting things wrong, you couldn't have done a better job. On ignore you go.

 

[cs61]

You'd be even more filthy if Sicily missed out a whole finals series for an attempted smother. Not that unlikely either the way Sicily plays.

But Sicily did get rubbed out for an attempted tackle and we were filthy. I have no issue with John Ralph and Co pushing a campaign that the smother was a 'football action' and an accident. The issue I have was he didn't make that argument with Sicily and the tackle and was one of the ones leading the campaign about the suspension and I didn't hear him use the same argument at the time about accidents and it being a football action. Why did Michael Christian decide that Sicily was careless and Maynard's wasn't and needed AFL intervention to go to the tribunal? The AFL have set a precedent that even that football accidents can be careless... so if we decide Maynard gets off then we really need to have a discussion about where the line is drawn, and why Sicily's wasn't considered a football action when the umpire and commentators on the spot decided it was good football, and in slow mos some decided it was careless because of the concussion. Surely jumping in the air at full pace is careless on the same logic. I don't want it to be, what they have drawn the line that if you decide to be aggressive and hurt someone you pay the price... so where is the line?

 

[Roby]

But Sicily did get rubbed out for an attempted tackle and we were filthy.

So?

 

[cs61]

So?

That's a strange way to reply given the rest of my post you cut out explains its reasoning already.

 

[Roby]

Surely jumping in the air at full pace is careless on the same logic. I don't want it to be, what they have drawn the line that if you decide to be aggressive and hurt someone you pay the price... so where is the line?

That's a strange way to reply given the rest of my post you cut out explains its reasoning already.

It's strange because you started the premise that your were filthy. So, what is the rest of your post going to say, that you shouldn't be filthy?

I'm not going to barrack for Sicily, Maynard or Hawthorn when it comes to serious things like concussions and tribunal. I'm just going to look at it from a merit point of view.

The last part of your post, now that I have had a look at it, just confirms my suspicions, you're not looking at this objectively. Maynard was moving fast, but if wasn't at full pace. He actually slows down to align himself, then slows down again to jump for the smother.

If you're trying to get Maynard rubbed out, and you don't hold any integrity when it comes to making assessments with these incidents, then yes, say he was he was jumping in the air at full pace.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

I really hope someone attempts to smothers Daicos. Is it too much to hope it would be in the first five minutes of the GF?

Port would be completely remiss if they did not attempt to smother Kelly early.

 

[Brishawk]

Only problem is that you can't make an example of someone if this is the first time seeing it.

Not exactly true.

In the jacob van rooyen case he was initially suspended but it was overturned on appeal because the tribunal accepted an argument that the rules relating to marking contests allow for incidental contact and make no mention of unreasonable contact. Im sure the afl will amend the laws of the game to close that loophole.

Young Dee learns fate after suspension appeal

www.afl.com.au

I actually think that is a complete failure by the tribunal for reasons i wont go into that that is a benchmark case in 2023.

There is no mention of the ‘smother’ in the laws of the game. Maynard was not involved in a marking contest so he cant rely on the same argument. Law 18.5 is the only time the words ‘incidental contact’ are used in the laws of the game. So we rely on the laws for free kicks, prohibited contact and rough conduct to assess this case.

The conduct has been graded as carless:

And the afl provides an example:

Its pretty clear that these definitions require players to take actions to protect other players. Being late is not a defence even if the intention is to perform an otherwise reasonable football act. Maynard was way to late to smother. If you replace the word mark with kick, the example is near exactly what transpired.

So then what is rough conduct?

So many on here would argue that maynard was solely contesting the ball and or the forceful contact was due to circumstances outside his control.

Early this year lynch successfully argued he was solely contested the ball as evidenced by his eyes never leaving the ball and he did not brace for impact.


Maynard did brace for impact and did drive through brayshaw. While he didnt deviate from his path, his path never actually took him at the ball. It passes to maynards right and maynard doesnt react to it at all. Maynard does react to brayshaw’s presence and turns his body. So his eyes are certainly on brayshaw. And i think that while his initial intention may have been to smother, it was not his sole intention (based on not meeting the lynch defence criteria), he is late and has eyes on brayshaw not the ball.

Tldr i think the afl will win at the tribunal but the tribunal may decide the contact was due to circumstances outside his control. Im sure that will be the defence mounted but i think he had no reasonable play on the ball there and failure to mitigate impact breaches his duty of care.

 

[Off The Couch]

Got to love the “unless you’ve played the game line” from Cornes.


I also found Nathan Browns comment interesting “the question you need to ask is could he have done anything differently and if there was a team mate would he have still turned and braced” - adlib

 

[MinerBoy]

He

Not exactly true.

In the jacob van rooyen case he was initially suspended but it was overturned on appeal because the tribunal accepted an argument that the rules relating to marking contests allow for incidental contact and make no mention of unreasonable contact. Im sure the afl will amend the laws of the game to close that loophole.

Young Dee learns fate after suspension appeal

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 1799047
I actually think that is a complete failure by the tribunal for reasons i wont go into that that is a benchmark case in 2023.

There is no mention of the ‘smother’ in the laws of the game. Maynard was not involved in a marking contest so he cant rely on the same argument. Law 18.5 is the only time the words ‘incidental contact’ are used in the laws of the game. So we rely on the laws for free kicks, prohibited contact and rough conduct to assess this case.

The conduct has been graded as carless:
View attachment 1799054
And the afl provides an example:
View attachment 1799055
Its pretty clear that these definitions require players to take actions to protect other players. Being late is not a defence even if the intention is to perform an otherwise reasonable football act. Maynard was way to late to smother. If you replace the word mark with kick, the example is near exactly what transpired.

So then what is rough conduct?
View attachment 1799056
So many on here would argue that maynard was solely contesting the ball and or the forceful contact was due to circumstances outside his control.

Early this year lynch successfully argued he was solely contested the ball as evidenced by his eyes never leaving the ball and he did not brace for impact.

View attachment 1799065
Maynard did brace for impact and did drive through brayshaw. While he didnt deviate from his path, his path never actually took him at the ball. It passes to maynards right and maynard doesnt react to it at all. Maynard does react to brayshaw’s presence and turns his body. So his eyes are certainly on brayshaw. And i think that while his initial intention may have been to smother, it was not his sole intention (based on not meeting the lynch defence criteria), he is late and has eyes on brayshaw not the ball.

Tldr i think the afl will win at the tribunal but the tribunal may decide the contact was due to circumstances outside his control. Im sure that will be the defence mounted but i think he had no reasonable play on the ball there and failure to mitigate impact breaches his duty of care.

Absolutely didn't drive through Byayshaw. In fact if anything Brayshaw had the momentum and hit Maynard, who simply braced as he landed. On impact it is Maynard who is sent further from the impact due to Brayshaw's momentum.

 

[Yardie]

The AFL have set a precedent that even that football accidents can be careless... so if we decide Maynard gets off then we really need to have a discussion about where the line is drawn, and why Sicily's wasn't considered a football action when the umpire and commentators on the spot decided it was good football, and in slow mos some decided it was careless because of the concussion. Surely jumping in the air at full pace is careless on the same logic. I don't want it to be, what they have drawn the line that if you decide to be aggressive and hurt someone you pay the price... so where is the line?

This is the problem with the AFL. They are just so reactionary and there is no precedence set for decisions made by the tribunal. If they had come out of the Sicily decision and decisively said that any action that results in a concussion will see said player do at least one week then we would have all been grumpy, gotten over it and moved on. But instead they remain silent and try to "read" the vibe and then move the goal posts to appease "people".

 

[Yardie]

Not exactly true.

In the jacob van rooyen case he was initially suspended but it was overturned on appeal because the tribunal accepted an argument that the rules relating to marking contests allow for incidental contact and make no mention of unreasonable contact. Im sure the afl will amend the laws of the game to close that loophole.

Young Dee learns fate after suspension appeal

www.afl.com.au

View attachment 1799047
I actually think that is a complete failure by the tribunal for reasons i wont go into that that is a benchmark case in 2023.

There is no mention of the ‘smother’ in the laws of the game. Maynard was not involved in a marking contest so he cant rely on the same argument. Law 18.5 is the only time the words ‘incidental contact’ are used in the laws of the game. So we rely on the laws for free kicks, prohibited contact and rough conduct to assess this case.

The conduct has been graded as carless:
View attachment 1799054
And the afl provides an example:
View attachment 1799055
Its pretty clear that these definitions require players to take actions to protect other players. Being late is not a defence even if the intention is to perform an otherwise reasonable football act. Maynard was way to late to smother. If you replace the word mark with kick, the example is near exactly what transpired.

So then what is rough conduct?
View attachment 1799056
So many on here would argue that maynard was solely contesting the ball and or the forceful contact was due to circumstances outside his control.

Early this year lynch successfully argued he was solely contested the ball as evidenced by his eyes never leaving the ball and he did not brace for impact.

View attachment 1799065
Maynard did brace for impact and did drive through brayshaw. While he didnt deviate from his path, his path never actually took him at the ball. It passes to maynards right and maynard doesnt react to it at all. Maynard does react to brayshaw’s presence and turns his body. So his eyes are certainly on brayshaw. And i think that while his initial intention may have been to smother, it was not his sole intention (based on not meeting the lynch defence criteria), he is late and has eyes on brayshaw not the ball.

Tldr i think the afl will win at the tribunal but the tribunal may decide the contact was due to circumstances outside his control. Im sure that will be the defence mounted but i think he had no reasonable play on the ball there and failure to mitigate impact breaches his duty of care.

You know that you've just successfully argued the case for Maynard. They'll also be able to use the Rampe case which was also football related and well off the ball.

 

[Gaston]

Over the remaing 3 games, how many players attempted a smother in a charging motion? and with an opportunity to?
No one, why, players always, when apporaching (running at) the kicker jump striaght up to protect themselves, ensuring they aren't kicked in the head with the ball.
The actions of Maynard were not the norm, you only smother in that manner when coming across a player, not directly at.

Yes,smothering the ball was one intent but I wuld argue, not his sole intent (obviously not a direct desire to knock Brayshaw out).
Maynard put himself in this predictament and unfortunately, there are consequences for these actions.

 

[Brishawk]

He


Absolutely didn't drive through Byayshaw. In fact if anything Brayshaw had the momentum and hit Maynard, who simply braced as he landed. On impact it is Maynard who is sent further from the impact due to Brayshaw's momentum.

Brayshaw goes straight backwards, maynard goes to the left after impact.