NO TROLLS Angus Brayshaw retires

[HirdsTheWord]

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

wrong again.

its exactly why the AFL changed the smother rule.

 

[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.

Go watch Nathan Murphy GF incident and tell me if that was within the rules and why McCarthy felt the need to turn his body in the minimalist of time and connect with Murphys head

 

[HirdsTheWord]

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

Ruck contest, you expect contact.

marking contest , you expect contact.

You do not expect contact to your head after you have disposed of a ball.

it was a terrible tribunal decision, and why the AFL amended the rule immediately after it occurred for 2024. Removing the grey area the tribunal used to get to their decision.

 

[OniAu]

wrong again.

its exactly why the AFL changed the smother rule.

Hard to take someone serious with Hird in their name , all kinds of delusion

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Hopefully this helps it sink in to all the troglodytes that complain about the game becoming soft and that we change the rules too much and 'leave the game alone'.

It's an area we clearly have to get better in. Change can take time, it can be difficult, but it has to happen; especially with regard to these injuries.

Yet the AFL changed the rule to now blame the player with the ball for head high contact and hence now head high contact is rife is the game but no longer penalised.
If the AFL had of been serious they would of said all above shoulder contact with the exception of a player ducking their head will be penalised and we will force the coaches to instruct their players to tackle lower.
Tackling lower makes it harder to pin the arms and hence the ball moves quicker.

But no the AFL said lets blame the player with the ball for head high contact and then keep complaining we need to address concussions. You can't make this stuff up, what a dumb organization.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Hard to take someone serious with Hird in their name , all kinds of delusion

lol ok guy.

 

[Woody15]

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.

There has been plenty of incidents in the past 5-6 years where players have left the ground, knocked players out and got off. It hasnt always been like that.

I'm also glad that the AFL have tightened it. Its progressive. When the next incident occurs within a 'grey area' of the game as a result of random and accidental contacts, they will do it again.

 

[sherb]

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

But everyone smothers without doing what Maynard did.

 

[sideswipe]

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

The Dees should still have to wear the contract cost as they wrote it.

Should also have to wear his salary in the cap this season - already 5/12 done anyway - just like a player doing an ACL. But I reckon putting concussion-related retirement future contract year payouts outside the cap(or just partially), whilst going against usual AFL practice, would be fair.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

There has been plenty of incidents in the past 5-6 years where players have left the ground, knocked players out and got off. It hasnt always been like that.

I'm also glad that the AFL have tightened it. Its progressive. When the next incident occurs within a 'grey area' of the game as a result of random and accidental contacts, they will do it again.

show me a single incident where a player is in a position where they are not expecting contact, and another player leaves the ground and KO's him.

I do not recall one, and i bet even if you find one, that decision was likely shat on by the general public.

The tribunal has and always will make mistakes where grey areas exist. Maynard is just one of them. it is literally why the AFL removed the gray area before the following season.

 

[Ctracks]

This thread is messed up.
Mods have have been weak as usual.

 

[sideswipe]

But everyone smothers without doing what Maynard did.

Did you miss the bit where he was cleared by the Tribunal?

 

[Woody15]

show me a single incident where a player is in a position where they are not expecting contact, where another player leaves the ground and KO's him.

I do not recall one, and i bet even if you find one, that decision was likely shat on by the general public.

The tribunal as and always will make mistakes where grey areas exist. Maynard is just one of them.

Sure thing.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

This thread is messed up.
Mods have have been weak as usual.

Just mention vaccines so they can delete the thread or something

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Ruck contest, you expect contact.

marking contest , you expect contact.

You do not expect contact to your head after you have disposed of a ball.

it was a terrible tribunal decision, and why the AFL amended the rule immediately after it occurred for 2024. Removing the grey area the tribunal used to get to their decision.

You do not want contact to your head but as a footballer you should be expecting any type of contact at all times in a game of football. Yes even illegal contact you should be aware of that possibility it could happen to you.
One of the problems today is that the players think physical contact is only something you should be able to see and brace for, and hence they struggle as any person would being caught when not prepared for it.

They have changed the rule on the Maynard one, no problem with that, the AFL change rules weekly but still not sure Maynard did a lot wrong. He tried to smother a kick. Sometimes accidents happen.
Trying to rule out accidents will lead to the game becoming non contact, it is already 65% a non contested sport now.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

The Dees should still have to wear the contract cost as they wrote it.

Should also have to wear his salary in the cap this season - already 5/12 done anyway - just like a player doing an ACL. But I reckon putting concussion-related retirement future contract year payouts outside the cap(or just partially), whilst going against usual AFL practice, would be fair.

Disagree with all of that.

The AFL made the decision to medically retire him, not the Demons doctors. Demons were not involved in the decision making processes so how can they own the faults of the decision made?

 

[sideswipe]

show me a single incident where a player is in a position where they are not expecting contact, and another player leaves the ground and KO's him.

I do not recall one, and i bet even if you find one, that decision was likely shat on by the general public.

The tribunal has and always will make mistakes where grey areas exist. Maynard is just one of them. it is literally why the AFL removed the gray area before the following season.

Can you point to the part in the rules of football or tribunal guidelines which addresses the expectations of a player receiving contact?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Sure thing.

1) he did not have possesion of the ball.
2) they met the ball at the same time.

that is a completely different situation to what Maynard did.

Maynard cause contact AFTER the ball had been disposed of.

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

The Dees should still have to wear the contract cost as they wrote it.

Should also have to wear his salary in the cap this season - already 5/12 done anyway - just like a player doing an ACL. But I reckon putting concussion-related retirement future contract year payouts outside the cap(or just partially), whilst going against usual AFL practice, would be fair.

no way on gods green earth melbourne will be paying brayshaw a single red cent.

Afl will cover it, nothing surer.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Can you point to the part in the rules of football or tribunal guidelines which addresses the expectations of a player receiving contact?

you should probably go read some triubal rulings over the past 5-6 years. It is constantly raised as a reasoning.

 

[sideswipe]

Disagree with all of that.

The AFL made the decision to medically retire him, not the Demons doctors. Demons were not involved in the decision making processes so how can they own the faults of the decision made?

As far as contracts go, being medically retired because of concussion is the same as being medically retired for a chronic knee/foot condition. The AFL didn't make the decision - his doctors did.

But I think there is an argument for treating concussion related retirements differently in terms of salary cap.

 

[sideswipe]

you should probably go read some triubal rulings over the past 5-6 years. It is constantly raised as a reasoning.

OK, so its not in the rules/guidelines then? Go ahead and whip up some tribunal reasoning if you like.

 

[sideswipe]

no way on gods green earth melbourne will be paying brayshaw a single red cent.

Afl will cover it, nothing surer.

That would be a new approach.

 

[sherb]

Did you miss the bit where he was cleared by the Tribunal?

Do you think the tribunal gets it right every single time? Of course you don't.

As I've pointed out to another Collingwood poster, the only reason you are treating the tribunal as the beacon of truth in this instance is because it is your player who got the benefit of their decision.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

As far as contracts go, being medically retired because of concussion is the same as being medically retired for a chronic knee/foot condition. The AFL didn't make the decision - his doctors did.

But I think there is an argument for treating concussion related retirements differently in terms of salary cap.

Thats not correct. The decision making process isnt the same at all.

Independent doctors and processes are involved that dont exist for knee issues