MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto thread II

Remove this Banner Ad

No news that I could find on Sonsie from the VFL tribunal - the hearing was due at 5PM today...

 

Log in to remove this ad.

SonofSamsquanch

Enjoy mellow coffee & live a petty bourgeois life.
Mar 31, 2016
18,930
43,952
Victoria
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Alright so deliberately going up to an opponent and punching them in the chin will only be 3 weeks

Good to know
It's hard to see how anything but the most serious of deliberate acts can be penalised more harshly than this in future.

I know that the league doesn't allow for precedent to be argued as a defence or to set penalties but if I was suspended for beyond 3 weeks I'd be firing up an appeal to the Privy Council or the HRC in a flash.
 

This will result in further structural / policy changes from the AFL (and down to the VFL) to the MRP system. This result indicates systemic failure.
 
Apr 1, 2008
56,887
99,762
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, Raiders, GSW, QPR, NYM
This will result in further structural / policy changes from the AFL (and down to the VFL) to the MRP system. This result indicates systemic failure.
There were four week suspensions for far less than an outright premeditated haymaker to the jaw.
 

Merlin007

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2019
5,032
17,333
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This will result in further structural / policy changes from the AFL (and down to the VFL) to the MRP system. This result indicates systemic failure.
The structural change might need to be a police charge for assault.
 

SonofSamsquanch

Enjoy mellow coffee & live a petty bourgeois life.
Mar 31, 2016
18,930
43,952
Victoria
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The structural change might need to be a police charge for assault.
Honestly, it was a non-footy act and it deserves a non-footy investigation which may lead to criminal charges in addition to an appropriate football penalty due to the incident taking place within a league sanctioned match.

As of last weekend I doubt that tZ would even hire Sonsie to clean toilets.
 
Interested in what others think of the Maynard report. I'm a real fence sitter here. Can see why some are calling for at least 3 weeks whilst others see no case to answer. I suppose even if it is an accident if you place yourself in a position where there is a risk then you have to accept responsibility for the outcome. Then again, he just went to spoil. Hmmmmmm.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Interested in what others think of the Maynard report. I'm a real fence sitter here. Can see why some are calling for at least 3 weeks whilst others see no case to answer. I suppose even if it is an accident if you place yourself in a position where there is a risk then you have to accept responsibility for the outcome. Then again, he just went to spoil. Hmmmmmm.


I posted in another thread I think it is somewhere between this:



and this:

Jack doesn't knock Lyons out. It was graded as reckless, low impact, high contact. He copped 2 weeks, under the current system that would have been a fine.

I am not sure if Duncan was even cited.

the difference as I see it is the bracing for contact.

Where Duncan over rotated basically taking Hall out with his back, Maynard braces for contact and hits Brayshaw.

If you take what Jack's was graded and put it in the new system and adjust for impact, careless, high, high he's looking at a couple of weeks. If you up the impact to Severe, he's looking at 3.

If they grade it as an accident then he gets off. the sticking point will be the shoulder brace.

Also on the point about it being a smother. My son raised an interesting point on this, was he actually trying to get to the ball or was he jumping to make sure Brayshaw kicked the ball high making it easier to defend. His in tent has no bearing on the actions but it is an interesting tactical development if defenders are now jumping to force the ball high to make it easier for other defenders. Not something I had considered before.
 
I posted in another thread I think it is somewhere between this:



and this:

Jack doesn't knock Lyons out. It was graded as reckless, low impact, high contact. He copped 2 weeks, under the current system that would have been a fine.

I am not sure if Duncan was even cited.

the difference as I see it is the bracing for contact.

Where Duncan over rotated basically taking Hall out with his back, Maynard braces for contact and hits Brayshaw.

If you take what Jack's was graded and put it in the new system and adjust for impact, careless, high, high he's looking at a couple of weeks. If you up the impact to Severe, he's looking at 3.

If they grade it as an accident then he gets off. the sticking point will be the shoulder brace.

Also on the point about it being a smother. My son raised an interesting point on this, was he actually trying to get to the ball or was he jumping to make sure Brayshaw kicked the ball high making it easier to defend. His in tent has no bearing on the actions but it is an interesting tactical development if defenders are now jumping to force the ball high to make it easier for other defenders. Not something I had considered before.

Good summary - I think the bracing is just a natural reaction when a collision is imminent. Will be a very interesting tribunal. My original prediction was 3 weeks and then dismissed on appeal. Have a feeling might still be right.
 
Old school rules he is fine . We don’t play that way anymore it’s “duty of care now”( not saying I necessarily agree with this )you choose to bump face the consequences if player is knocked out 2 to 3 weeks. Looking forward to his defence saying he got so high in the air he was blinded by the light towers and could see some cylindrical object( Brayshaws helmet)heading towards him so he braced for contact lol. Funny thing is Mr corrupt was going to say nothing Laura Kane made the decision to send it to the tribunal, says a lot really. One could also argue that taking Brayshaw out of the game (and at least next weeks)had a big say in deciding the result too. He had plenty of options and chose to bump .
 
Last edited:

SonofSamsquanch

Enjoy mellow coffee & live a petty bourgeois life.
Mar 31, 2016
18,930
43,952
Victoria
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I posted in another thread I think it is somewhere between this:



and this:

Jack doesn't knock Lyons out. It was graded as reckless, low impact, high contact. He copped 2 weeks, under the current system that would have been a fine.

I am not sure if Duncan was even cited.

the difference as I see it is the bracing for contact.

Where Duncan over rotated basically taking Hall out with his back, Maynard braces for contact and hits Brayshaw.

If you take what Jack's was graded and put it in the new system and adjust for impact, careless, high, high he's looking at a couple of weeks. If you up the impact to Severe, he's looking at 3.

If they grade it as an accident then he gets off. the sticking point will be the shoulder brace.

Also on the point about it being a smother. My son raised an interesting point on this, was he actually trying to get to the ball or was he jumping to make sure Brayshaw kicked the ball high making it easier to defend. His in tent has no bearing on the actions but it is an interesting tactical development if defenders are now jumping to force the ball high to make it easier for other defenders. Not something I had considered before.

I don't see how the Maynard incident can be considered accidental. Even if he intended no harm, his action was deliberate. The outcome may be a result of him being careless, but not accidental. In many previous cases it's been stated that when a player leaps into another when executing a bump and has launched with both feet in the air then the chances of being "let off" are slim to none.

All up, I can easily see that Maynard had in mind to spoil the ball or to interfere with Brayshaw's kick which is what he would be expected to do, however his execution was careless and as a result, he has to be suspended. Players know the consequences of fron on contact and they are well aware of having a personal duty of care towards opponents (and they should expect the same in return).

But... The tribunal were happy with Sonsie getting two weeks for a straight-up punch in the jaw so I expect Maynard to be fined $2000 and he plays in the prelim.

So long as he drops off a bottle of red or two to the tribunal chair of course.
 

Merlin007

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 7, 2019
5,032
17,333
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This is a difficult case that the game has to give some pretty serious thought to. I agree that Maynard attempted a 'footy act' without malice - the problem is that footy acts of that kind are going to end in the game being litigated out of existence. 'Footy acts' of this kind are killing people, not (yet) on the field, but in the long term - the coroner found Danny Frawley took his own life, and the post mortem confirmed his CTE diagnosis, so it's not hard to join the dots. (You might add Shane Tuck to the casualty list, although his case is clouded by his post-footy boxing career, which didn't end well).

I don't have the answer, but some how the 'footy act' that sees a player leave the ground in that manner needs to end, and I think it can be done - players have been able to change tackling techniques to avoid head injury, and we have to find a similar way through this.
 
Last edited:

outwecome2play

Team Captain
Sep 1, 2015
537
1,670
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This is a difficult case that the game has to give some pretty serious thought to. I agree that Maynard attempted a 'footy act' without malice - the problem is that footy acts of that kind are going to end in the game being litigated out of existence. 'Footy acts' of this kind are killing people, not (yet) on the field, but in the long term - the coroner found Danny Frawley took his own life, and the post mortem confirmed his CTS diagnosis, so it's not hard to join the dots. (You might add Shane Tuck to the casualty list, although his case his clouded by his post-footy boxing career, which didn't end well).

I don't have the answer, but some how the 'footy act' that sees a player leave the ground in that manner needs to end, and I think it can be done - players have been able to change tackling techniques to avoid head injury, and we have to find a similar way through this.
Really good post.

The game has evolved into a game that is so quick that collisions are going to happen. Players have to make a split second decision. If Maynard had not tried to smother the footy shows would have been getting into him for not committing.

I believe that this is a footy accident and Maynard will be cleared to play. I feel for Brayshaw but he knows the risks when playing AFL.
 
This is a difficult case that the game has to give some pretty serious thought to. I agree that Maynard attempted a 'footy act' without malice - the problem is that footy acts of that kind are going to end in the game being litigated out of existence. 'Footy acts' of this kind are killing people, not (yet) on the field, but in the long term - the coroner found Danny Frawley took his own life, and the post mortem confirmed his CTS diagnosis, so it's not hard to join the dots. (You might add Shane Tuck to the casualty list, although his case his clouded by his post-footy boxing career, which didn't end well).

I don't have the answer, but some how the 'footy act' that sees a player leave the ground in that manner needs to end, and I think it can be done - players have been able to change tackling techniques to avoid head injury, and we have to find a similar way through this.
I don't quite know how to say this without people coming at me (I understand CTE and needing to protect the head) but I just wonder if it wasn't a player with Bradshaw's history, would people be looking at this slightly differently?
 
This is a difficult case that the game has to give some pretty serious thought to. I agree that Maynard attempted a 'footy act' without malice - the problem is that footy acts of that kind are going to end in the game being litigated out of existence. 'Footy acts' of this kind are killing people, not (yet) on the field, but in the long term - the coroner found Danny Frawley took his own life, and the post mortem confirmed his CTS diagnosis, so it's not hard to join the dots. (You might add Shane Tuck to the casualty list, although his case his clouded by his post-footy boxing career, which didn't end well).

I don't have the answer, but some how the 'footy act' that sees a player leave the ground in that manner needs to end, and I think it can be done - players have been able to change tackling techniques to avoid head injury, and we have to find a similar way through this.
There's a reasonable argument to be had that a mark requires leaving the ground, as does a ruck contest but maybe, just maybe launching yourself towards a player for a marginal chance of a smother that leaves you unable to avoid serious contact isn't an act that needs to remain protected for the benefit of the game long term.

Noticeably nobody gave a s**t when Aaron Hall was cleaned up...
 

rippersnipper

What up son, whatever
Jun 22, 2014
11,049
9,500
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If turning into a guy shoulder first isn't engaging in the act of bumping then I have no *en idea and will pack it up. I see this as no different to a soccer player going in "to win the ball" and getting there late and just taking the bloke out. It can be a footy act and completely out of control and endangering and that's what it was. He had to go. If *en Logue gets a week for actually protecting himself then that's at least two.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back