Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[Kappa]

No spoils above head height, no bumps, no packs or pack marks, no running back under the flight of the ball, or ruck contests or tackles, because all these scenarios could potentially cause concussion....

I think we should also introduce pads and helmets too...

Where's the line Kappa?

The line is no forceful contact to your opponents head (unless you cannot avoid it).

And with the amount of ex AFL players we've found dead who have rotted brains due to head knocks, it's a pretty obvious and necessary line too.

 

[domus]

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.

But you miss the point. The AFL is changing our game because of the fear of concussion and head trauma. To say it's still okay to knock players unconscious in the act of flying for a mark is ludicrous if the aim is to avoid concussion. Sling tackles were once demanded by coaches. "Make them earn it!" was the cry at every suburban footy ground. That has been ended forever. How is changing the way we attempt a mark any different? The shirtfront has been outlawed and that too was a huge feature of our game as it promoted the courage of our boys who never took their eye off the pill despite the oncoming traffic and carnage which might ensue. The world has changed but apparently not quite enough for those who worry about the player's brains.

 

[domus]

View attachment 1340906

What utter bullshit. So they are saying Maynard knew he was going to connect with his opponent's head and did so anyway knowing it would cost him games and he would inflict a nasty concussion on his opponent. If that's their genuine belief he should have copped four weeks.

 

[raymond35]

The game was certainly more enjoyable when physical contact was allowed.

 

[domus]

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.

At the moment they have free license to smash their knee cap into the back of their opponents skull or jaw if he is coming the other way. Where's the consistency if it's all about head trauma? I've seen many players knocked unconscious in marking contests. Jonathon Brown had a series of shocking concussions in marking contests. But that's okay cause it's part of our game. So was shirtfronting and sling tackling a few years ago. McKenna and Sam Newman both lost kidneys to knees in marking contests and both nearly bled to death internally.

 

[ZEV]

At the moment they have free license to smash their knee cap into the back of their opponents skull or jaw if he is coming the other way. Where's the consistency if it's all about head trauma? I've seen many players knocked unconscious in marking contests. Jonathon Brown had a series of shocking concussions in marking contests. But that's okay cause it's part of our game. So was shirtfronting and sling tackling a few years ago. McKenna and Sam Newman both lost kidneys to knees in marking contests and both nearly bled to death internally.

I don't think there is really a logical or rational argument against minimising or mitigating the risk of brain injuries.

 

[domus]

I don't think there is really a logical or rational argument against minimising or mitigating the risk of brain injuries.

So no more flying for marks when a player is standing in front of you?

 

[ZEV]

So no more flying for marks when a player is standing in front of you?

No that's fine, but lets eliminate the swinging forearms, maybe try WWE or UFC if you like that type of thing?

 

[Kappa]

At the moment they have free license to smash their knee cap into the back of their opponents skull or jaw if he is coming the other way. Where's the consistency if it's all about head trauma? I've seen many players knocked unconscious in marking contests. Jonathon Brown had a series of shocking concussions in marking contests. But that's okay cause it's part of our game. So was shirtfronting and sling tackling a few years ago. McKenna and Sam Newman both lost kidneys to knees in marking contests and both nearly bled to death internally.

More rules will change over time, "whataboutism" doesn't change the fact that whacking blokes in the head is not okay.

 

[Gone Critical]

What utter bullshit. So they are saying Maynard knew he was going to connect with his opponent's head and did so anyway knowing it would cost him games and he would inflict a nasty concussion on his opponent. If that's their genuine belief he should have copped four weeks.

My view is he knew he was going to give him a whack. I dont want to be too critical but thats in his DNA. What he did was a throwback to other eras. Players especially at the top level mainly know where there actions are going. Maynard wanted to give him a little touch up. He was too crude but it was no accident the head got hit.

 

[domus]

More rules will change over time, "whataboutism" doesn't change the fact that whacking blokes in the head is not okay.

At what point does our beautiful game become unrecognizable? Boxers punch each other in the head for a living. They aim to knock out their opponent. They understand the ramifications of their sport. They choose to box because they love it or hope to make money. Nobody is holding a gun to their head. Surely at some point it has to be a matter of individual choice and risk? Yes it can be dangerous. The players get paid well to do something they love. The game is flourishing. I've never understood the use of "whataboutism" as a rebuke to a good argument which points out the double standard at play.

What about ism is a more than acceptable way of arguing which kids have used since the dawn of time when exposing their teacher or parent's hypocrisy. If a rule is not applied fairly and equally to all concerned surely a person is entitled to say "Hang on, what about Harry? He does the wrong thing but avoids punishment?" How is that a poor argument or something to be derided?

 

[sr36]

I wonder if there was this sort of carry on when they they first started giving kicking in danger frees.

You can't even kick the ball off the ground anymore. Soon they'll ban kicking altogether, because what if you kick someone in your follow through.

 

[lethalburns]

you guys were spot on about the the potential arguments and counter arguments. well done!

 

[sr36]

Just a question (and I was one who knew Bruz would get two weeks)... but in all this, does anybody interview the other player anymore or does it all just go on observation (umpires and video)?

I understand that a concussed player might not be the most reliable witness but in some cases (maybe even in this one) said player might admit that " I was fine until my head hit the ground "
Don't spose the AFL would like those sorts of statements being made though now would they?

Not sure that a player would be able to give you a reliable account of their physical and mental state during the second(s) that occurred between head knocks. If it's a bad concussion, you'd be lucky to get a reliable account of events in the first quarter.

 

[Kappa]

At what point does our beautiful game become unrecognizable? Boxers punch each other in the head for a living. They aim to knock out their opponent. They understand the ramifications of their sport. They choose to box because they love it or hope to make money. Nobody is holding a gun to their head. Surely at some point it has to be a matter of individual choice and risk? Yes it can be dangerous. The players get paid well to do something they love. The game is flourishing. I've never understood the use of "whataboutism" as a rebuke to a good argument which points out the double standard at play.

What about ism is a more than acceptable way of arguing which kids have used since the dawn of time when exposing their teacher or parent's hypocrisy. If a rule is not applied fairly and equally to all concerned surely a person is entitled to say "Hang on, what about Harry? He does the wrong thing but avoids punishment?" How is that a poor argument or something to be derided?

It's to be derided because it's a logical fallacy. You're not actually refuting the argument, you're saying "well if this is bad but it's allowed, then other bad things should be allowed to". It's a mindless and ridiculous argument that can be applied to literally anything for the same ridiculous outcomes.

"How come Heroin isn't legal? people know the risks and alcohol is legal"... that's literally your argument.

 

[sideswipe]

But you miss the point. The AFL is changing our game because of the fear of concussion and head trauma. To say it's still okay to knock players unconscious in the act of flying for a mark is ludicrous if the aim is to avoid concussion. Sling tackles were once demanded by coaches. "Make them earn it!" was the cry at every suburban footy ground. That has been ended forever. How is changing the way we attempt a mark any different? The shirtfront has been outlawed and that too was a huge feature of our game as it promoted the courage of our boys who never took their eye off the pill despite the oncoming traffic and carnage which might ensue. The world has changed but apparently not quite enough for those who worry about the player's brains.

Yes there have been changes to the rules. But what Maynard did has never been allowed by the rules, albeit not as heavily enforced in years gone by.

You are posting alarmist bullshit. ALL contact sports have changed rules over the years as science/safety led them to make certain decisions.

If rule changes driven by player safety concerns are too much for you to handle, walk away. If you are suggesting a sport can make no changes in the face of greater awareness of things like CTE, the game would end up dead at the hands of negligence lawyers. Grow up.

The game is constantly evolving. Other than it was done wearing a Pies jumper, why anyone would want spoils like that retained in the game is beyond me. It wasn’t particularly clever, skilful or tough.

Easy in hindsight but a far better choice would have been to contest the mark, you know, because he got a hand to the ball.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jmac70]

All intra school footy at public Primary school level is AFL 9s.
Essentially a condensed game where all tackling, bumping and contested marking is against the rules.

 

[Mr Cannons]

Absolute stupidity to challenge the 1 week, just another year starting on the back foot when we can least afford it, but this is the norm for this club

 

[Mr Cannons]

Absolute stupidity to challenge the 1 week, just another year starting on the back foot when we can least afford it, but this is the norm for this club

Also lost 10k from our soft cap because of the challenge

 

[sideswipe]

Also lost 10k from our soft cap because of the challenge

Don't think the soft cap should be too much of a deterrent. The club effectively risked spending an extra $7500. No big deal.

 

[domus]

It's to be derided because it's a logical fallacy. You're not actually refuting the argument, you're saying "well if this is bad but it's allowed, then other bad things should be allowed to". It's a mindless and ridiculous argument that can be applied to literally anything for the same ridiculous outcomes.

"How come Heroin isn't legal? people know the risks and alcohol is legal"... that's literally your argument.

How is it illogical to tell someone who is paranoid about concussion and head trauma that the most common way this is caused is in marking contests yet you are doing nothing to lessen the danger of this feature of our game?

Your heroin analogy is flawed. Heroin is not a drug you can partake in every day without the certainty of addiction quickly becoming a huge problem. There is also the danger of poor quality heroin or buying heroin with other drugs mixed in which increases the potential deadliness of the drug. Alcohol can be consumed regularly in moderation without causing harm. They are not comparable drugs.

In the case of head trauma-shirtfronting, sling tackling and punching all lead to concussion as does a knee to the head in a marking contest. So the question: why are some forms of head trauma permissible and others not is a very logical question requiring a logical response. I am yet to hear one.

By the way, it has always been against the rules and a reportable offence to deliberately hit someone in the head. The question was always one of intent.

 

[domus]

Yes there have been changes to the rules. But what Maynard did has never been allowed by the rules, albeit not as heavily enforced in years gone by.

You are posting alarmist bullshit. ALL contact sports have changed rules over the years as science/safety led them to make certain decisions.

If rule changes driven by player safety concerns are too much for you to handle, walk away. If you are suggesting a sport can make no changes in the face of greater awareness of things like CTE, the game would end up dead at the hands of negligence lawyers. Grow up.

The game is constantly evolving. Other than it was done wearing a Pies jumper, why anyone would want spoils like that retained in the game is beyond me. It wasn’t particularly clever, skilful or tough.

Easy in hindsight but a far better choice would have been to contest the mark, you know, because he got a hand to the ball.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

If Maynard had attempted to mark instead of punching the pill and his opponent took the mark, every commentator and coach in the land, not to mention a few hundred thousand Collingwood supporters would have asked why the hell he didn't punch from behind.

The game would not end up dead if players signed a contract saying they understand the potential dangers in playing the game and will not sue the club or AFL should they incur long -term injury/brain trauma. As I said earlier. The actual intention of every boxer is to knock his opponent unconscious. All boxers are fully aware of the inherent dangers in their chosen sport and have seen the evidence of countless brain damaged fighters over the decades but the sport is still thriving and nothing has changed other than quicker stoppages by referees when a boxer is hurt. The fight game will never die because there will always be people who love it and want to fight.

Footy is no different. The game is in no danger of dying. It continues to grow and flourish. Women have not been put off playing the game due to the concussions or physicality so the idea that mums will stop their children from playing Aussie Rules because it is too dangerous seems to be nonsense. Sons and daughters are flocking to local clubs.

 

[stormskye]

the action Maynard did is a well known reportable one, a slinging hook is the best way to describe it. And it very often ends with a report, this isn’t new. I’ve personally been knocked unconscious in a footy game by the very same action copping a broken nose for my troubles. It’s dangerous, and rightly reportable. He’s copped 2 weeks. Some will disagree. No point arguing. What’s done is done. We move on.

 

[domus]

the action Maynard did is a well known reportable one, a slinging hook is the best way to describe it. And it very often ends with a report, this isn’t new. I’ve personally been knocked unconscious in a footy game by the very same action copping a broken nose for my troubles. It’s dangerous, and rightly reportable. He’s copped 2 weeks. Some will disagree. No point arguing. What’s done is done. We move on.

It's not really about the Maynard incident. It's the issue of the preventative measures taken to reduce the risk of concussion and the contradictions in their application of this measure. Maynard's report was a 50/50 one. I can see why he got suspended but if cleared I would understand.

 

[sideswipe]

If Maynard had attempted to mark instead of punching the pill and his opponent took the mark, every commentator and coach in the land, not to mention a few hundred thousand Collingwood supporters would have asked why the hell he didn't punch from behind.

The game would not end up dead if players signed a contract saying they understand the potential dangers in playing the game and will not sue the club or AFL should they incur long -term injury/brain trauma. As I said earlier. The actual intention of every boxer is to knock his opponent unconscious. All boxers are fully aware of the inherent dangers in their chosen sport and have seen the evidence of countless brain damaged fighters over the decades but the sport is still thriving and nothing has changed other than quicker stoppages by referees when a boxer is hurt. The fight game will never die because there will always be people who love it and want to fight.

Footy is no different. The game is in no danger of dying. It continues to grow and flourish. Women have not been put off playing the game due to the concussions or physicality so the idea that mums will stop their children from playing Aussie Rules because it is too dangerous seems to be nonsense. Sons and daughters are flocking to local clubs.

Now you are really speaking from a position of ignorance. "Signing a waiver" is not an automatic block to a claim for compensation. A sporting body, like the AFL, can't simply remove a duty of care by having someone sign a waiver.

You are the one out of step with how all sports are moving. Not sure why you are carrying on about it.

Oh, and your question about why are "some forms of head trauma permissible and others not?" is not logical at all. No head trauma is permissible - it is the conduct that leads to injuries that are permitted or not. It is a contact sport, head traumas are not completely preventable. But the rules of the game are constantly "evolving" to best protect the players.

You sound like someone who will object to any change. Go back and think about "shirtfronts". Whilst I used to love seeing them, really, they aren't particularly tough. It invariably involved one bloke with eyes on the ball and another opportunistic mofo who took his eyes off the ball. Do you really want that to return?