Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[Dead Eye Didak]

As expected wasn't overturned, but worth a shot, l guess. Should never have found himself in this position, but anyway move on, and focus on round 1.
We still have some good in's returning to the side v the Saints....

 

[sr36]

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.

That's pretty much it. If the strike was the result of a deflection, he'd probably be fine, but the ball would have had to be a brick wall to stop Maynards action being a whack to the bloke's head.

 

[AndrewShawble]

Not surprised because it’s the AFL and they have no backbone. Just because of the outcome doesn’t mean the act was worthy of suspension - his hand touched the ball before anything touched the other players head.

Brad Scott off to a howler, imagine if this happened to a player for the Roos when he was coaching them.

 

[VinnieB]

Unfortunately it seems about right.

 

[jmac70]

Not surprised because it’s the AFL and they have no backbone. Just because of the outcome doesn’t mean the act was worthy of suspension - his hand touched the ball before anything touched the other players head.

Brad Scott off to a howler, imagine if this happened to a player for the Roos when he was coaching them.

I’m surprised by how many people think it matters he made contact with the ball.

His arm made contact with his opponent’s head which resulted in a concussion. Clear suspension.

 

[sideswipe]

Not surprised because it’s the AFL and they have no backbone. Just because of the outcome doesn’t mean the act was worthy of suspension - his hand touched the ball before anything touched the other players head.

Brad Scott off to a howler, imagine if this happened to a player for the Roos when he was coaching them.

Nah, that's just your (and many others') bias talking. The outcome is a huge factor on whether an act was worthy of suspension. Commit a reckless act outside the rules and you are responsible for the outcome.

 

[AndrewShawble]

Nah, that's just your (and many others') bias talking. The outcome is a huge factor on whether an act was worthy of suspension. Commit a reckless act outside the rules and you are responsible for the outcome.

no doubt there is some bias but he was going for the ball and got some ball

The way the AFL is headed, in a few years if you kick a ball and end up giving a bloke a falcon you’ll be getting weeks. Probably about 5 years off this at current pace.

 

[frizzle]

Is it true it costs the club $10,000 to challenge?
I could have taken that 10 grand instead of pissing it away.

 

[jmac70]

Is it true it costs the club $10,000 to challenge?
I could have taken that 10 grand instead of pissing it away.

Seems the club doesn’t understand player responsibility on field. What hope does Maynard have of getting it…

 

[gouki88]

It was doomed once Cornes backed Bruzzy

 

[Kappa]

10k of members money pissed away on a pointless challenge. see you round 3 Maynard, you owe the team now.

 

[Pies_10]

Captain material hahahaha

 

[Kappa]

Not surprised because it’s the AFL and they have no backbone. Just because of the outcome doesn’t mean the act was worthy of suspension - his hand touched the ball before anything touched the other players head.

Brad Scott off to a howler, imagine if this happened to a player for the Roos when he was coaching them.

Again, just because you touch the ball first does not give u permission to smash a guy in the face in the follow through…

 

[Robroy22]

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?

 

[Sea fog]

Guess we might as well piss 10k away because it seems we subsidise the others anyway.'

 

[Robroy22]

Guess we might as well piss 10k away because it seems we subsidise the others anyway.'

Yep, you read the age today

 

[jmac70]

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?

There is no need to interview the victim. He was concussed because of the actions of Maynard. That’s it.

Elyse Gamble in the AFLW got a two week suspension when one of our girls ran into her midriff. It was unintentional but she still got penalised.

If player A makes contact with Player B and Player B is concussed, Player A is liable and gets penalised.

Maynard should have allowed the GWS guy to mark the ball. It was a glorified training run.

 

[Seedsfan]

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

“Punched him in the head” shows how clueless you are champ

 

[Seedsfan]

There is no need to interview the victim. He was concussed because of the actions of Maynard. That’s it.

Elyse Gamble in the AFLW got a two week suspension when one of our girls ran into her midriff. It was unintentional but she still got penalised.

If player A makes contact with Player B and Player B is concussed, Player A is liable and gets penalised.

Maynard should have allowed the GWS guy to mark the ball. It was a glorified training run.

No he shouldn’t of, giving up and conceding the contest is the weak option. Under your explanation Howe better not attempt another hanger would hate to see him get two weeks if his knee hits the back of someone’s head. It’s better that he just concedes the contest

 

[Robroy22]

There is no need to interview the victim. He was concussed because of the actions of Maynard. That’s it.

Elyse Gamble in the AFLW got a two week suspension when one of our girls ran into her midriff. It was unintentional but she still got penalised.

If player A makes contact with Player B and Player B is concussed, Player A is liable and gets penalised.

Maynard should have allowed the GWS guy to mark the ball. It was a glorified training run.

Mac you know I thought Bruz would get two weeks straight away BUT...if the sentence highlighted above is the letter of the new law then the game as we know it is going to be "umpired" by lawyers.
(eg: can I be penalised for accidentally concussing my own player? Let alone flying for marks....its a can of worms)

 

[sideswipe]

No he shouldn’t of, giving up and conceding the contest is the weak option. Under your explanation Howe better not attempt another hanger would hate to see him get two weeks if his knee hits the back of someone’s head. It’s better that he just concedes the contest

If he could get a fist to the ball there were other ways to make a contest than swinging an arm. Easy in hindsight but actually attempting to outmark Lloyd- or at least look like that but it’s really a bump to spoil him was one other option.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Seedsfan]

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.

See cricket did not ban the bouncer when Phill Hughes died, they accepted that getting hit is a risk that you take and kept the game how it is. Hardly medieval time. Also gladiators were accident Rome banned in 325 before the dawn of the medieval age

 

[JB1975]

No he shouldn’t of, giving up and conceding the contest is the weak option. Under your explanation Howe better not attempt another hanger would hate to see him get two weeks if his knee hits the back of someone’s head. It’s better that he just concedes the contest

But Seedy, going for a mark is recognised as a different circumstance, one where you don't get pinged for head-high contact unless it isn't part of a genuine marking attempt.

Or unless you're Tobias Greene looking to plant your boot in someone's face.

 

[jmac70]

No he shouldn’t of, giving up and conceding the contest is the weak option. Under your explanation Howe better not attempt another hanger would hate to see him get two weeks if his knee hits the back of someone’s head. It’s better that he just concedes the contest

Rubbish.
Maynard chose to use a round arm action to spoil the ball. It was careless and unnecessary.
His choice has reduced the club’s chances of winning premiership points.

The penalty is appropriate and the club’s decision to challenge pointless.

 

[Seedsfan]

But Seedy, going for a mark is recognised as a different circumstance, one where you don't get pinged for head-high contact unless it isn't part of a genuine marking attempt.

Or unless you're Tobias Greene looking to plant your boot in someone's face.

But that is where the game is headed