Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[domus]

Starting every post with LOL is clever. You should keep it up. Also recommend that you persist railing against a 2 week suspension for a strike to the head that resulted in a player being KO'd. This type of penalty is quite simply unbelievable. It might be a first.

And don't forget to advertise your ignorance of the concept of causation. That contention that a head hitting the ground after a strike is "irrelevant" should be maintained.

You are the only thing between the game and imminent death.

So a player should choose not to punch the pill if he feels he may connect incidentally with his opponent's body or head? Why is it okay to concuss a player with your knee while flying for a mark? Surely this inconsistency must be erased? If it's all about protecting our players' health then the speccy has to go.

 

[domus]

The impact of concussion is probably the biggest issue facing the game. The AFL are taking action. In ten years time the game will look very different.

No more jumping into the back or head of your opponent to take a mark will be another rule in your brave new world if the AFL is consistent.

 

[domus]

You can expect the occasional flailing arm in a pack to whack you, but Bruzzy stuffed up. When you're going for a standard mark in space , you shouldn't cop a swinging stiff arm to the head.

Fair enough but if you actually hit the ball with your fist as well as the player's head surely that indicates the intention was the punching of the ball? If it was a wild swing which missed the pill by 20 cm then fair enough. There are degrees of culpability. Jason Cloke missed the pill when he knocked out Tyson Edwards and paid the price. This is not the same.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

The club agrees with Seedsfan.

I'm happy with the club to appeal the decision, and l hope he gets off, but it's a long shot. Personally l can't see the decision been reversed, as the High Impact, High Contact remains, we just have to argue that it was a normal football act (attempted spoil) that occurred whilst the ball was in play, and any contact was accidental. For the cost of $10k, you would expect the club to appeal it, as he is a vital part of our back 6....

 

[sr36]

Fair enough but if you actually hit the ball with your fist as well as the player's head surely that indicates the intention was the punching of the ball? If it was a wild swing which missed the pill by 20 cm then fair enough. There are degrees of culpability. Jason Cloke missed the pill when he knocked out Tyson Edwards and paid the price. This is not the same.

I've got a lot of sympathy for the blokes who get done for bumps - as often that's just bad luck. But I think we can expect blokes to be good enough to avoid whacking their opponent in the head when they are in the situation that Bruzzy was in.

 

[sideswipe]

So a player should choose not to punch the pill if he feels he may connect incidentally with his opponent's body or head? Why is it okay to concuss a player with your knee while flying for a mark? Surely this inconsistency must be erased? If it's all about protecting our players' health then the speccy has to go.

It might be hard for some to grasp, but the world has changed. If you can't differentiate between an attempt to spoil by swinging an arm that connects with a head and a mark that also knocks out a player (can't remember the last time this happens), then I can't help you.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Come on Stephen Russell, do your magic and get Bruzzy off.....

 

[Mkcaptain]

Magpies fail to overturn Maynard’s striking ban at Tribunal despite arguing ‘it was just a spoil’

Magpies fail to overturn star’s striking ban at Tribunal despite arguing ‘it was just a spoil’

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Mkcaptain]

The challenge likely comes earlier in the process than that.

I think the only argument is that the spoil did not constitute a reportable offence. Go with something like it was incidental contact which is permitted if the player's sole objective was to spoil the mark (18.5.3).

Reckon this will be a big stretch!

Can't see there being any arguments around the classification guidelines.

You were spot on. The club is only challenging the careless grading. Not challenging the high contact or high impact gradings.

 

[jmac70]

No more jumping into the back or head of your opponent to take a mark will be another rule in your brave new world if the AFL is consistent.

Why is it my brave new world?

 

[unplugged]

You were spot on. The club is only challenging the careless grading. Not challenging the high contact or high impact gradings.

Should be able to get that overturned on the pure basis that he spoiled the ball IMO

 

[unplugged]

So the AFL are essentially saying that Maynard should've seen the risk of hurting a player and shouldn't have spoiled.

That to me is like saying Jono Brown shouldn't crash a pack because he might hurt someone's back.

Will get off IMO

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Should be able to get that overturned on the pure basis that he spoiled the ball IMO

There may be a case to be made. If they can definitely show that he contacted the ball first, the rest may be classed as incidental contact. We live in hope.

 

[Mkcaptain]

So the AFL are essentially saying that Maynard should've seen the risk of hurting a player and shouldn't have spoiled.

That to me is like saying Jono Brown shouldn't crash a pack because he might hurt someone's back.

Will get off IMO

 

[unplugged]

There may be a case to be made. If they can definitely show that he contacted the ball first, the rest may be classed as incidental contact. We live in hope.

They'll mention where he was looking prior to contact but you could argue (if he was actually defending himself) that he was looking to see if he had to brace for contact to his own torso

 

[jmac70]

So the AFL are essentially saying that Maynard should've seen the risk of hurting a player and shouldn't have spoiled.

That to me is like saying Jono Brown shouldn't crash a pack because he might hurt someone's back.

Will get off IMO

I think the AFL are saying that you can spoil as long as you don’t hit the other player in the head. Unfortunately Maynard did not achieve this.

 

[Mkcaptain]

I think the AFL are saying that you can spoil as long as you don’t hit the other player in the head. Unfortunately Maynard did not achieve this.

Not just that. They're saying you can't spoil when the only possible outcome a reasonable player could foresee is hitting the opposition player in the head.

 

[Mkcaptain]

Hearing is over, they're reaching a verdict now.

 

[Kappa]

Usually happens with a Pie too.
Previous years that was a fine. Oh well.

I think everyone can agree that we need to reduce the amount of concussions in our game. If some of the “toughness” has to go for that, then so be it.

 

[sideswipe]

Not just that. They're saying you can't spoil when the only possible outcome a reasonable player could foresee is hitting the opposition player is hitting them in the head.

Think this sentence sums up their argument. Sadly I agree with it.

"Maynard owed a duty of care to Lloyd and the manner of which he approached the ball and used his arm, while not intentionally wanting to strike, was in any view careless and breached his duty of care to Lloyd."

 

[Kappa]

Think this sentence sums up their argument. Sadly I agree with it.

"Maynard owed a duty of care to Lloyd and the manner of which he approached the ball and used his arm, while not intentionally wanting to strike, was in any view careless and breached his duty of care to Lloyd."

If Maynard gets off then it’s a free license for defenders to swing their arms at head height, and if they touch the ball they’re free to smack blokes in the face after.

 

[Mkcaptain]

The charge is upheld. The jury agreed it was careless.

Wasn't expecting anything else after the incident, and then an unsurprising verdict based on the evidence presented this evening.

 

[jmac70]

The charge is upheld. The jury agreed it was careless.

Wasn't expecting anything else after the incident, and then an unsurprising verdict based on the evidence presented this evening.

Have to wonder why the club bothered.

 

[nahnah]

Should have challenged the Kreuger one not this one, unless Kreuger is out with concussion anyway

 

[Mkcaptain]