NO TROLLS Angus Brayshaw retires

[Do the Dew]

He did it with the hopes of taking him out of the game. And he got more than he bargained for.

Don't think it was that extreme. But Maynard absolutely wanted to put some hard body contact onto Brayshaw who is one of Melbourne's most important players. Maydog even came out earlier in the week before the match talking about himself playing on the edge etc.

The fact that he wasn't suspended was a complete farce, particularly due to the suspensions of other players for similar incidents throughout the year.

 

[wingersclub]

Hahaha

I am glad Brayshaw has made this decision and despite selfishly wanting Murphy to play on hope he makes a similar call. I have never understood the attack by Dees fans on Maynard. It is 100% clear his intention was to smother the ball and if people are thinking he had time to think about laying out Brayshaw which I don't think he did, Brayshaw surely had more chance of avoiding the contact. Who is to say Brayshaw's intent wasn't to tunnel Maynard. Same stupid argument. Sadly it is just an unfortunate incident at super high intensity at the start of the game with both players putting their bodies on the line.

i agree with nearly everything you have said but ‘what if Brayshaws intent was to tunnel Maynard’ is not the same stupid argument.

 

[Cyclops]

Did he now? I’m not sure how you know his attempt was genuine.

Thats an epistemological debate, how do we know anything?

Going from past experience, Maynard is a player who likes to biff others, but doesn't have track record for hitting from behind or off the play. He'll wrestle and remonstrate but tackles and bumps are his go. Cant seem to find his tribunal history online hough, be worth a look.

I'm sure others feel differently. Its an emotional issue.

There's an issue around the use of the term "dog", and I feel a lot of young people bandy the term around.

There's a related term "on the Dog Act" (which historically were a series of acts concerning control of dogs). Dogs could be listed as dangerous animals and, if necessary, destroyed. In old novels you'll see people saying "oh so-and-so is on the Dog Act, he didn't pay for his round last night" as in they are persona non grata, outcaste, beyond the Pale or otherwise disgraced.

By the 1980's the term seems to have mutated into describing an action, so "that was a dog act" (suggesting the act of a dog) rather than the older sense, but still conveying a person has acted outside normal bound and is perhaps fit for summary justice.

In my neighborhood of Preston, if you encounter junkies arguing (as I sometimes do) calling someone a dog isn't simply an insult "you're a scoundrel" it carries more a suggestion of being an outcaste, having transgressed norms and should not expect the customary respect or protection normal usage allows. They also use that term for the Police.

Not sure how many posters here are junkies who use the term knowingly, or perhaps less knowledgeable people trying out new language in an anonymous forum to see how it flies.

Maynard himself seems aware of the nuances around his act, around striking someone in the act of the play vs off the ball and insisted from the moment he hit Brayshaw that it was a footy act, and not a "snipe".

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Thats an epistemological debate, how do we know anything?

Going from past experience, Maynard is a player who likes to biff others, but doesn't have track record for hitting from behind or off the play. He'll wrestle and remonstrate but tackles and bumps are his go. Cant seem to find his tribunal history online hough, be worth a look.

I'm sure others feel differently. Its an emotional issue.

There's an issue around the use of the term "dog", and I feel a lot of young people bandy the term around.

There's a related term "on the Dog Act" (which historically were a series of acts concerning control of dogs). Dogs could be listed as dangerous animals and, if necessary, destroyed. In old novels you'll see people saying "oh so-and-so is on the Dog Act, he didn't pay for his round last night" as in they are persona non grata, outcaste, beyond the Pale or otherwise disgraced.

By the 1980's the term seems to have mutated into describing an action, so "that was a dog act" (suggesting the act of a dog) rather than the older sense, but still conveying a person has acted outside normal bound and is perhaps fit for summary justice.

In my neighborhood of Preston, if you encounter junkies arguing (as I sometimes do) calling someone a dog isn't simply an insult "you're a scoundrel" it carries more a suggestion of being an outcaste, having transgressed norms and should not expect the customary respect or protection normal usage allows. They also use that term for the Police.

Not sure how many posters here are junkies who use the term knowingly, or perhaps less knowledgeable people trying out new language in an anonymous forum to see how it flies.

Maynard himself seems aware of the nuances around his act, around striking someone in the act of the play vs off the ball and insisted from the moment he hit Brayshaw that it was a footy act, and not a "snipe".

in some circles, dogs are also lags/informants… it also used to be used as lacking courage or ducking responsibility, “he dogged it”.

And of course Maynard insisted from the outset it was not a snipe. He would.

 

[Cyclops]

in some circles, dogs are also lags/informants… it also used to be used as lacking courage or ducking responsibility, “he dogged it”.

And of course Maynard insisted from the outset it was not a snipe. He would.

Yes informants who cooperate with police are "outside the Pale" as in the US version "snitches get stitches", and a failure to meet obligations through cowardice is once again stepping outside acceptable bounds. A dog is less than a person, they aren't to be given the rights of a human, fit to be destroyed in the sense of the Act.

Regarding the sniping, its a question of belief there. Has Maynard sniped (struck a player outside the act of play, especially an unsuspecting victim) before? Genuine question, I see him more as a thug/rough up type than a sniper.

We had real thugs in the past, cruel bullies like Kelly and Banks who mercilessly punched Kieran Sporn after the first quarter siren blew, in order to start a fight in the 1990 Grand Final. Kelly was a thug and a sniper. Banks sniped once or twice eg in Rhys-Jones: special pleading would be saying it was a square up from a similar hit moments before but its a pretty thin defence.

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

putting aside that it was Maynard or Collingwood. Let's say it was Maverick Lovejoy from the new Tasmanian team in R2.

AFL has put itself out there with the song and dance of the tribunal and appeal and said what 'Mav' did to Brayshaw was within its rules and therefore acceptable. Now Brayshaw 5 months later has had to retire due to 'medical concussion'. This isn't about a 'good' or 'bad' look or slow mo replay assessment. It's about acknowledging they provide an unsafe workplace under those rules. Mining and construction have accidents and Worksafe rolls in and make changes. AFL has done nothing. Professional sportspeople are protected by the same workplace laws. Look forward to seeing Angus buying a very large house in future years as AFL quietly settles that suit.

Thats a bogus argument. Contact sport by its nature is "unsafe". If the AFL and contact sport was looked at with the same lens as mining or construction, it would cease to exist tomorrow. Taking the field carries some (a lot?) of inherent risk of injury.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Brayshaws comments are very direct in that letter. How the AFL had rules which allowed Maynard to do what he did without consequence and end his career has obviously let him livid.

Doesn't mean he's right though

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Doesn't mean he's right though

yeah but just about everyone who isn't a Collingwood fan knows he is right though.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

putting aside that it was Maynard or Collingwood. Let's say it was Maverick Lovejoy from the new Tasmanian team in R2.

AFL has put itself out there with the song and dance of the tribunal and appeal and said what 'Mav' did to Brayshaw was within its rules and therefore acceptable. Now Brayshaw 5 months later has had to retire due to 'medical concussion'. This isn't about a 'good' or 'bad' look or slow mo replay assessment. It's about acknowledging they provide an unsafe workplace under those rules. Mining and construction have accidents and Worksafe rolls in and make changes. AFL has done nothing. Professional sportspeople are protected by the same workplace laws. Look forward to seeing Angus buying a very large house in future years as AFL quietly settles that suit.

you dont even need to make up fake people or a fake team.

if Maynard did this exact action in round 2, he gets suspended -zero question about it. The fact the Prelim Final was the next game and a Grand Final was at risk is the only reason he was not. That is the start and end of it.

Maynards intent is completely irrelevant - he jumped and hit someone in the head, the result is entirely his risk, Brayshaw should not be expecting contact AFTER he has disposed of the ball.

Intent never mattered earlier in the year for lesser actions like Sicily, Merrett etc in legit football actions. So it's astounding why all of a sudden Maynards intent mattered so much. The decision was a blight on the tribunal and I'm glad the AFL have amended it so the tribunal can never pull that worm s**t again.

Maynard is not a dog player, the personal comments against him are stupid. The tribunal just completely ****ed this up, and the AFL also for not appealing it at the time. If the AFL wants to be serious about concussions ending players careers and opening themselves up to legal action, Round 2 is no different to the Finals

You leave the ground and knock someone out when contacted is not to be expected, you spend time on the bench. Period.

 

[hawkman]

you dont even need to make up fake people or a fake team.

if Maynard did this exact action in round 2, he gets suspended -zero question about it. The fact the Grand Final was the next game is the only reason he was not. That is the start and end of it.

Maynards intent is completely irrelevant - he jumped and hit someone in the head, the result is entirely his risk, Brayshaw should not be expecting contact AFTER he has disposed of the ball.

Intent never mattered for lesser actions like Sicily, Merrett etc in legit football actions. So it's astounding why all of a sudden Maynards intent mattered so much. The decision was a blight on the tribunal and I'm glad the AFL have amended it so the tribunal can never pull that worm s**t again.

PF was the next game

If Maynard does that in the last minute and again concedes the downfield free that costs them the game, all Collingwood supporters would be calling him an idiot whose recklessness cost them the game. Because it happened at the start it is just playing with the right intent

 

[HirdsTheWord]

PF was the next game

If Maynard does that in the last minute and again concedes the downfield free that costs them the game, all Collingwood supporters would be calling him an idiot whose recklessness cost them the game. Because it happened at the start it is just playing with the right intent

Sorry i meant he would have missed the grand final had they beat GWS. Will edit.

 

[GWT6]

I am glad Brayshaw has made this decision and despite selfishly wanting Murphy to play on hope he makes a similar call. I have never understood the attack by Dees fans on Maynard. It is 100% clear his intention was to smother the ball and if people are thinking he had time to think about laying out Brayshaw which I don't think he did, Brayshaw surely had more chance of avoiding the contact. Who is to say Brayshaw's intent wasn't to tunnel Maynard. Same stupid argument. Sadly it is just an unfortunate incident at super high intensity at the start of the game with both players putting their bodies on the line.

What a ridiculous post. Collingwood fans in this thread are absolutely appalling.

 

[Captivating]

you dont even need to make up fake people or a fake team.

if Maynard did this exact action in round 2, he gets suspended -zero question about it. The fact the Prelim Final was the next game and a Grand Final was at risk is the only reason he was not. That is the start and end of it.

Maynards intent is completely irrelevant - he jumped and hit someone in the head, the result is entirely his risk, Brayshaw should not be expecting contact AFTER he has disposed of the ball.

Intent never mattered earlier in the year for lesser actions like Sicily, Merrett etc in legit football actions. So it's astounding why all of a sudden Maynards intent mattered so much. The decision was a blight on the tribunal and I'm glad the AFL have amended it so the tribunal can never pull that worm s**t again.

Maynard is not a dog player, the personal comments against him are stupid. The tribunal just completely ****ed this up, and the AFL also for not appealing it at the time. If the AFL wants to be serious about concussions ending players careers and opening themselves up to legal action, Round 2 is no different to the Finals

You leave the ground and knock someone out when contacted is not to be expected, you spend time on the bench. Period.

If you leave the ground to bump. That’s the difference. You can still leave the ground to mark, ruck and smother. If you make head contact it can be an accident. You wouldn’t rub putt a ruckman for making head contact during a centre bounce ruck contest or rub out a player hitting the head of an opponent during a marking contest.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

If you leave the ground to bump. That’s the difference. You can still leave the ground to mark, ruck and smother. If you make head contact it can be an accident. You wouldn’t rub putt a ruckman for making head contact during a centre bounce ruck contest or rub out a player hitting the head of an opponent during a marking contest.

When you are going for a mark, you expect contact. You do not expect contact AFTER you have disposed of the ball.

That is the difference.

Accidents will always happen and some incidents are unavoidable. This was not one of them. You cannot expect players to expect to be hit after they have got rid of the ball.

You leave your feet and you KO someone, it is your risk. Is and always has been, which is why this specific indicent is so puzzling for many to understand. I'm glad the AFL have tightened it, so it can not happen again.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Where is the AFL at with financial compensation for concussion retierees.

Brayshaw must be leaving a good 3 mil behind in his retirement and he should be due most if not all of that . Only statement AFL have about it anywhere is the provision of

• Football-Ending Injury: Players who exit the game due to an injury that prevents them from playing football at senior level in any other competition again are eligible for a payment based on their age and the base value of the final year of their standard playing contract.

This would mean Brayshaw only getting paid for 1 of the 6 remaining years of his deal? Seems like a load of crap to me. He is due his entire contract and then some

 

[sherb]

If you leave the ground to bump. That’s the difference. You can still leave the ground to mark, ruck and smother. If you make head contact it can be an accident. You wouldn’t rub putt a ruckman for making head contact during a centre bounce ruck contest or rub out a player hitting the head of an opponent during a marking contest.

Started as a smother. Ended as a bump.

 

[caloschwaby]

I think a lot of Melbourne fans feel the line was crossed when our player was being stretched off and the Collingwood fans decided that was the time to start a chant, as opposed to the usual thing where everyone from both sides claps off a player who’s been knocked out.

While not invalidating your ability to feel a line was crossed, I have seen the record of this moment being chopped and changed ever since it happened and consequently people drawing conclusions from events that either never happened, or didn't happen in the order they've been said to happen. Maybe a difference for those watching the game on TV vs at the game.

After the first scuffle between players, tensions died down a little before Maynard goes over to see Brayshaw followed by an understandable Melbourne crowd's booing. This booing is immediately followed by the Collingwood chant in direct response to the behaviour of the opposition crowd targeting their player, literally nothing immediately involving Brayshaw or his injury. For the record I think it's absolutely fair game to boo as it's fair game to support. I think both crowds are doing exactly what they should in this sort of atmosphere (and frankly you rarely see communication between crowds like this even in big crowd matchups).

Viney, minutes later after the tensions have started to settle from the initial incident, decides to take Maynard by the guernsey and start up a second scuffle exactly the moment the Brayshaw is being carted off. Watching the replay just now, all you can hear is applause as Brayshaw is being carted off so I'm struggling to see what/when you're talking about chanting while he's going off.

I think most people have conflated the first instance with the second and its just become a convenient memory to hold regarding the incident (or in many such cases, oppo's feelings about Maynard/Collingwood held long, long before the incident). I was Level 1 Ponsford Stand and there was not a soul "cheering" while Brayshaw went off, no one was happy about it, not a thing. Just two crowds flying the flag for their teams in reasonable circumstances given the highly emotive moment of one of the biggest games of the year.

 

[OniAu]

When you are going for a mark, you expect contact. You do not expect contact AFTER you have disposed of the ball.

That is the difference.

Accidents will always happen and some incidents are unavoidable. This was not one of them. You cannot expect players to expect to be hit after they have got rid of the ball.

You leave your feet and you KO someone, it is your risk. Is and always has been, which is why this specific indicent is so puzzling for many to understand. I'm glad the AFL have tightened it, so it can not happen again.

Its almost simultaneous when the ball is kicked and Maynards in the air. No one smothers without jumping. Lets be real about it.

 

[sideswipe]

Where is the AFL at with financial compensation for concussion retierees.

Brayshaw must be leaving a good 3 mil behind in his retirement and he should be due most if not all of that . Only statement AFL have about it anywhere is the provision of

• Football-Ending Injury: Players who exit the game due to an injury that prevents them from playing football at senior level in any other competition again are eligible for a payment based on their age and the base value of the final year of their standard playing contract.

This would mean Brayshaw only getting paid for 1 of the 6 remaining years of his deal? Seems like a load of crap to me. He is due his entire contract and then some

That provision relates to players in the final year of their contract - effectively gives them an extra protection when they cop a career-ender at an unlucky time in their cycle of contracts.

Brayshaw is entitled to and will get his full whack, subject to a bit of a reduction for mitigation of loss.

The real question is how much cap relief for the contract years after this current one that Melbourne might seek.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Its almost simultaneous when the ball is kicked and Maynards in the air. No one smothers without jumping. Lets be real about it.

thats terribly wrong.

plenty of people smother without jumping, just like plenty of people bump without jumping.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

That provision relates to players in the final year of their contract - effectively gives them an extra protection when they cop a career-ender at an unlucky time in their cycle of contracts.

Brayshaw is entitled to and will get his full whack, subject to a bit of a reduction for mitigation of loss.

The real question is how much cap relief for the contract years after this current one that Melbourne might seek.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Should just be wiped off the salary cap and in my eyes should be paid out by the AFL itself and now has nothing to do with the Demons.

AFL own the contract now and need to execute it

 

[OniAu]

thats terribly wrong.

plenty of people smother without jumping, just like plenty of people bump without jumping.

You do realise he made contact with the ball ?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

You do realise he made contact with the ball ?

I would suggest he made far more contact with brayshaws head than he did the ball.

he got a fingernail on the ball, and his entire shoulder on brayshaws head.

 

[OniAu]

I would suggest he made far more contact with brayshaws head than he did the ball.

he got a fingernail on the ball, and his entire shoulder on brayshaws head.

Thats not how football is played , in the way you are wanting it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

"Your feet leave the ground it's your responsibility and you take the risk"....................."unless your team is in the Grand final next week"

Or you are trying to spoil, trying to mark, trying to ruck. Footballers leave the ground for huge parts of the game.