Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[TheGreatGrundy]

I agree - bracing for the contact. But the AFL will argue otherwise and that’s why it’s careless.

So if you take a mark on someone's shoulders and concuss the person under you on the way down, you can go for careless contact! I can't see the difference in the situations - in both instance the players are simply making a legitimate attempt to intercept the ball.

 

[Chameleon75]

What do they expect him to do in that situation? Not turn and land front on and no brace protection. Would love it if they got one of the lawyers to demonstrate the exact technique and landing position they expect him to do in that scenario and split second coming down!

 

[Scud2]

What do they expect him to do in that situation? Not turn and land front on and no brace protection. Would love it if they got one of the lawyers to demonstrate the exact technique and landing position they expect him to do in that scenario and split second coming down!

Well that will come up. Under ‘careless’ criteria they are saying that a reasonable player showing duty of care would not have done that action. Which means they must know what a reasonable player showing duty of care would do.

 

[Kirby]

I agree - bracing for the contact. But the AFL will argue otherwise and that’s why it’s careless.

It’s in reality a stupid argument though.

He either:

- keeps his hands pointed to the sky and crashes into brayshaw with his nuts or the turf with his face.

- points his arms/hands forwards and they smash into brayshaw’s face or he hits the turf and fractured his wrists.

- he tucks like anyone in the real world and tries to avoid injury to himself in an instinctive action.

- he doesn’t contest at all and just becomes a bystander.

So, it can only be the last of the options to find him guilty. Don’t contest at all. That will be great for the game!

This gets chucked out and I reckon the AFL are being pretty frickin weak even putting it before the Tribunal.

 

[Piewithsauce13]

Well that will come up. Under ‘careless’ criteria they are saying that a reasonable player showing duty of care would not have done that action. Which means they must know what a reasonable player showing duty of care would do.

Interested to see how they describe that and given the unique nature how they would already know what a reasonable player should do it that scenario. I understand they can say that stuff for the average run of the mill bump and tackle ones, but this one will be fascinating.

 

[Scud2]

So if you take a mark on someone's shoulders and concuss the person under you on the way down, you can go for careless contact! I can't see the difference in the situations - in both instance the players are simply making a legitimate attempt to intercept the ball.

Well if Maynard does end up getting suspended - which frustratingly he is right now - 3/4s of football actions are at risk. Don’t hit a pack hard, don’t apply a shepherd, don’t try and punch the ball. All actions could result in someone getting concussed.

 

[Scud2]

I

It’s in reality a stupid argument though.

He either:

- keeps his hands pointed to the sky and crashes into brayshaw with his nuts or the turf with his face.

- points his arms/hands forwards and they smash into brayshaw’s face or he hits the turf and fractured his wrists.

- he tucks like anyone in the real world and tries to avoid injury to himself in an instinctive action.

- he doesn’t contest at all and just becomes a bystander.

So, it can only be the last of the options to find him guilty. Don’t contest at all. That will be great for the game!

This gets chucked out and I reckon the AFL are being pretty frickin weak even putting it before the Tribunal.

I understand the least how it is reported that the MRO wanted to throw it out. The one man MRO, that has been run as such for ages. And this incident had the pleasure of a new person getting involved who decided that the act was unreasonable.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

I

I understand the least how it is reported that the MRO wanted to throw it out. The one man MRO, that has been run as such for ages. And this incident had the pleasure of a new person getting involved who decided that the act was unreasonable.

Yeah that part is confusing to me. I thought the MRO had to refer it to the tribunal. In overruling the MRO, if that’s correct, it looks like a decision has basically already been made rather than a charge being put forward to be argued.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

Have you seen the snippet of brayshaws head making contact with Adam’s knee 4 mins into game ( I think he got a free). From Tom Brown tweet:
“Definitely not commenting on whether this impacted the Maynard incident. But Brayshaw’s head collided with Adams 4.30mins prior. It will be interesting to see if this is a relevant discussion point raised by lawyers in the tribunal case this week.”

Interesting if this did have any affect on him and contributed to making the impact to the head even worse than it would of without the knee to the head or if they will use it. I know getting a hit from Bruzz would make sense he was out on its own, but a combination of a T Adam’s knee and a Bruzz shoulder would not be fun!

Careful...................might end up with Tay getting rubbed out too for carelessly having his knee headbutted.

 

[Markfs]

McKay was concussed tonight, presumably by a normal footy incident, so that should mean that a sydney player will be cited, as should all the nearest players in all future concussions, because we now know that if someone is concussed, then an opponent will be cited on all occasions... You would expect the AFL to enforce that new interpretation on all occasions from now on...

 

[Mollythedolly]

I hope he gets off but once you start talking about acts/contribution, then negligence is the concept. Unless you want to talk intentional.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Now we’re getting somewhere. Bradshaw intentionally head butted Maynard…. I like it.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

 

[PieBeast]

Is your definition of 'whack' pre or post appeal?

Pre.

Not across the latest news but I bloody hope we're appealing, the careless grading is the obvious questionable point.

 

[jmac70]

McKay was concussed tonight, presumably by a normal footy incident, so that should mean that a sydney player will be cited, as should all the nearest players in all future concussions, because we now know that if someone is concussed, then an opponent will be cited on all occasions... You would expect the AFL to enforce that new interpretation on all occasions from now on...

Careless of McCartin to back into a pack. 3 weeks

 

[jmac70]

So if you take a mark on someone's shoulders and concuss the person under you on the way down, you can go for careless contact! I can't see the difference in the situations - in both instance the players are simply making a legitimate attempt to intercept the ball.

Surely marking is now going the way of the bump. Leaving the ground and kneeing a guy in the back of the head has to be careless.

 

[sr36]

Surely marking is now going the way of the bump. Leaving the ground and kneeing a guy in the back of the head has to be careless.

He'll get off. PR move to stop Chrisso getting accused of bias.

Gives us something to celebrate in these too long fortnights between wins.

 

[NMBB]

We're getting ready - spotted outside Pies' HQ

 

[60 Yards Out]

Surely marking is now going the way of the bump. Leaving the ground and kneeing a guy in the back of the head has to be careless.

Nah, deliberate. Many, many weeks.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Pies lawyers explaining what the MRO expects Maynard to have done to avoid contact after the attempted spoil;

That is one magic Bruzzy

 

[The Phantom]

Optics is very important here.

If this went without afl intervention there would be uproar.
It has to go to tribunal if only to be thrown out.

A key part of Maynard’s defense needs be framing the incident in language that the afl can take to the public, media and insurers that makes this palatable.

If we give them that, he gets off.

Calling it a football action is the start. We need add a plausible description of how this is so and why Maynard’s actions are controlled and reasonable.

Either that or hire Bull.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

It’s in reality a stupid argument though.

He either:

- keeps his hands pointed to the sky and crashes into brayshaw with his nuts or the turf with his face.

- points his arms/hands forwards and they smash into brayshaw’s face or he hits the turf and fractured his wrists.

- he tucks like anyone in the real world and tries to avoid injury to himself in an instinctive action.

- he doesn’t contest at all and just becomes a bystander.

So, it can only be the last of the options to find him guilty. Don’t contest at all. That will be great for the game!

This gets chucked out and I reckon the AFL are being pretty frickin weak even putting it before the Tribunal.

Strong post

You could be anything on this board if you applied yourself

 

[HyPIEcrite]

Someone on twitter/x posted this. Surely the ‘duty of care’ is on Brayshaw! He has more notice to avoid a player in the air trying to smother the ball. FFS footy action move on. And doesn’t he get a little hand on it too? The ball deviates off his hand. This is insane. I was outraged at the Bedford suspension but this is an even bigger disgrace if he gets suspended.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Finnishpie]

Totally true. Though I reckon Cripps should have been rubbed out.

 

[Horaceg]

Surely marking is now going the way of the bump. Leaving the ground and kneeing a guy in the back of the head has to be careless.

If in this instance, Once you leave the ground and have little control over where you end up or who is in or gets in your trajectory you’re in trouble. Marking contests should absolutely be highlighted, even more chance to impact the head. Our game as we know it will change if this gets upheld.

please let sanity prevail, it was a football act, no malice and I also think they will look at whether or not Bradshaw moved into the path to a degree.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

Someone on twitter/x posted this. Surely the ‘duty of care’ is on Brayshaw! He has more notice to avoid a player in the air trying to smother the ball. FFS footy action move on. And doesn’t he get a little hand on it too? The ball deviates off his hand. This is insane. I was outraged at the Bedford suspension but this is an even bigger disgrace if he gets suspended.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Great pic to illustrate distance - this is a genuine footy act and an accident