Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[sr36]

If it isn’t for the whiplash when he hits the deck there is no case to answer

Even if going with your theory, I don't know why you assume that the stiff arm to the head didn't contribute to the concussion. The bloke fell limply, like a bloke who'd copped a dangerous whack to the head in a situation where it just shouldn't happen.

 

[foreigner]

You take an informed risk when you go out to play, if you are unwilling to risk your health go find a desk job. Part of the reason there pay is so high is to compensate them for the risks they take

If any sporting code took this attitude their sport will be dead in 10 years with no young kid willing to take it up. Your argument may have worked in medieval times a la gladiators but not in this day and age.

 

[Kappa]

You take an informed risk when you go out to play, if you are unwilling to risk your health go find a desk job. Part of the reason there pay is so high is to compensate them for the risks they take

What a dumb hill to die on, you’re wrong, move on.

 

[ZEV]

I can understand the implications of head knocks etc but surely we have to challenge this?

 

[Scodog10]

I can understand the implications of head knocks etc but surely we have to challenge this?

We are.

Off to the Tribunal: Pies to challenge Maynard ban

I’m not sure on what grounds and it’s a fools errand, IMO, but who knows.

 

[Gabbo64]

Oh really? Wow, I am amazed with your logic. So if Maynard didn't strike he would have still hit his head and self concussed himself? The objective of the AFL is to prevent head injuries and Maynard's action led to one. He has to learn to be more careful in future.

Sorry foreigner, but that is a bit silly. I mean if it was a perfectly legitimate tackle, bump or spoil, and the player lost balance and hit his head on the ground, are you saying the perpetrator would be suspended? I think not.

 

[Doc1763]

We are actually appealing this.

 

[Pistol Night]

No chance. The AFL are all about making an example this time of year. Come the finals every campaigner will get off things like this

 

[sideswipe]

Sorry foreigner, but that is a bit silly. I mean if it was a perfectly legitimate tackle, bump or spoil, and the player lost balance and hit his head on the ground, are you saying the perpetrator would be suspended? I think not.

Silly, eh?

Reporting players is a step by step process. The first question to satisfy is whether the conduct is a Reportable Offence under Rule 22.2.2 (say that like Edward Woodward in Breaker Morant) of the Laws of the Game. If the conduct does not satisfy that question - say, because it is "a perfectly legitimate tackle, bump or spoil", then the matter goes no further. No matter what happened to another player. This is where your example would stop.

However if the action is a Reportable Offence (and a "Classifiable" one rather than a direct tribunal offence), then we move to the grading questions around intentional/careless conduct, impact, contact.

And on the question of impact, this is what is set out in the Tribunal Guidelines - which is pretty much the same type of approach taken in criminal and tort law around causation.

"...consideration will be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as a result of such impact."

Think of a kid getting a punch on a Saturday night who falls back and whacks his head on concrete. The puncher is responsible for the damage caused by the skull's impact with the concrete. Maybe a dramatic example but there are some on here who seem to really struggle with this very simple concept.

 

[unplugged]

Time to see how well (or how poorly) Browne's rule book was written!

 

[sr36]

We are.

Off to the Tribunal: Pies to challenge Maynard ban

I’m not sure on what grounds and it’s a fools errand, IMO, but who knows.

The three things to challenge are high contact, careless or impact.

They can't challenge high contact.

So they're either arguing it wasn't careless - I don't like their chances

or they're arguing that the impact was less than high - the ground did it defence - I don't like their chances, as his head clearly jolts when Maynard stiff arms him, most likely contributing to the concussion - even if you take Seedsfan's view that his head hitting the ground isn't Maynard's responsibility

 

[sideswipe]

The three things to challenge are high contact, careless or impact.

They can't challenge high contact.

So they're either arguing it wasn't careless - I don't like their chances

or they're arguing that the impact was less than high - the ground did it defence - I don't like their chances, as his head clearly jolts when Maynard stiff arms him, most likely contributing to the concussion - even if you take Seedsfan's view that his head hitting the ground isn't Maynard's responsibility

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.

 

[Rorzza]

Good to see the club challenge it, clearly his intension was to spoil the ball....which he did!

 

[sr36]

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.

I don't think I understand the opening process. I assumed whether or not it was reportable was whether or not it could be deemed careless? With incidental not deemed careless?

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Good to see the club challenge it, clearly his intension was to spoil the ball....which he did!

He spoilt my Sunday, that's for sure.

 

[sideswipe]

I don't think I understand the opening process. I assumed whether or not it was reportable was whether or not it could be deemed careless? With incidental not deemed careless?

The first step is for the action to be determined to be a reportable offence under the rules of the game. Then once it is seen as a reportable offence (this is actually the big question), we go to the guidelines to consider what sort of reportable offence it is - classifiable, direct to tribunal or fixed financial.

Think of the classification guidelines as a sentencing tool. We don't get to that until we have determined the act is a reportable offence.

Edit - sorry, to clarify, the reportable offence are, generally, "intentionally or carelessly... striking, kicking, etc". So yes the whether it meets the careless "threshold" is a question at the start of things. It's pretty grey, but I don't think there is some sort of threshold where incidental then turns into careless. They are different concepts. To me, careless is more about the conduct of the reported player whereas incidental goes more to the question of intention, eg. Maynard's sole objective was to spoil which is evidenced by him making contact with the ball first and it was only incidental to that intended act that he also made contact with Lloyd's head."

Then the AFL Counsel says, "given the contact was hard enough to stun the player, and contact with the head was an almost certain outcome from the act of a swinging roundarm spoil/punch at the ball, it was far more than mere incidental contact. It meets the definition of striking."

And then they can go at it for a while.

 

[foreigner]

Sorry foreigner, but that is a bit silly. I mean if it was a perfectly legitimate tackle, bump or spoil, and the player lost balance and hit his head on the ground, are you saying the perpetrator would be suspended? I think not.

How is it silly? Some of those which were perfectly legitimate tackles, bumps etc are not legitimate anymore. Of course it can happen - but they are trying to minimise it. Maynard's action 20 years ago would not have even raised an eyebrow. But now, it has been deemed careless, high contact etc.

 

[sr36]

The first step is for the action to be determined to be a reportable offence under the rules of the game. Then once it is seen as a reportable offence (this is actually the big question), we go to the guidelines to consider what sort of reportable offence it is - classifiable, direct to tribunal or fixed financial.

Think of the classification guidelines as a sentencing tool. We don't get to that until we have determined the act is a reportable offence.

Is it possible to get an incident that meets the criteria, yet is deemed non-reportable?

Eg. isn't the incidental contact that cause injuries yet non-reportable simply the case of it not being deemed careless? Or alternatively things being not reportable as they are deemed not enough impact to meet the lowest threshold of that scale?

Is there different criteria for not reportable that aren't a part of the punishment table?

 

[sideswipe]

Is it possible to get an incident that meets the criteria, yet is deemed non-reportable?

Eg. isn't the incidental contact that cause injuries yet non-reportable simply the case of it not being deemed careless - or is there a different criteria for the two?

aha - see edit above. Reckon the best way for a tribunal to look at it would be, "If you run laterally towards a marking contest, on a line that has you running behind the marking player and you swing your left arm to spoil the ball in front of the marking player, unless your left arm is above the player's head, it is almost certain that you will make contact with the marking player's head." That is lying more at the mark between careless and intentional rather than careless and something less than that.

 

[sr36]

aha - see edit above. Reckon the best way for a tribunal to look at it would be, "If you run laterally towards a marking contest, on a line that has you running behind the marking player and you swing your left arm to spoil the ball in front of the marking player, unless your left arm is above the player's head, it is almost certain that you will make contact with the marking player's head." That is lying more at the mark between careless and intentional rather than careless and something less than that.

I'd take out the angles because they confuse me and go with: When you are in a position where you should know where someone's head is - and then you swing a stiff arm forcefully in the direction of that persons head, you're stuffed if you smack them in the head - even if the ball was in the area.

I can't comprehend why we're challenging it - I don't think it's too much to expect a player to avoid whacking his opponent in the head in the situation Bruzzy was in. i don't see how he can whack him in the head there unless he is careless.

I think we must be trying to get it reduced to one week due to impact, with the ground did it defence - with what you've posted regarding the rules, that seems futile.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

No chance. The AFL are all about making an example this time of year. Come the finals every campaigner will get off things like this

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

 

[sideswipe]

I'd take out the angles because they confuse me and go with: When you are in a position where you should know where someone's head is - and then you swing a stiff arm forcefully in the direction of that persons head, you're stuffed if you smack them in the head - even if the ball was in the area.

I can't comprehend why we're challenging it - I don't think it's too much to expect a player to avoid whacking his opponent in the head in the situation Bruzzy was in. i don't see how he can whack him in the head there unless he is careless.

I think we must be trying to get it reduced to one week due to impact, with the ground did it defence - with what you've posted regarding the rules, that seems futile.

I think they can only be trying it on that the ball was the sole objective. Gotta give it a go.

 

[sr36]

I think they can only be trying it on that the ball was the sole objective. Gotta give it a go.

Fair enough and with such a long break there's no harm in terms of it distracting. I hope he gets exceedingly lucky. Anyway of getting Seedsfan on the hearing.

 

[What is a cakewalk]

Will Jeff Browne represent him? Believe he was the afl's rep for a fair while?

 

[domus]

The club agrees with Seedsfan.