Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[domus]

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?

I'm no legal expert. What's the point in having a waiver if they are useless?

The toughness was shown by players placing themselves in a position where they were vulnerable to being cleaned up and that courage was admirable and a real feature of our game. I applauded Krueger for his attack on the pill and Ward on Sunday and I know his teammates would all have huge respect for the way he went about it regardless of the outcome.

Getting rid of sly king hits which were so common in the 70's and 80's was fantastic and I applauded it. Pulling apart the physical clashes which were an inherent part of our unique game is a different matter. I've been shirtfronted a few times and it is a hideous feeling. The first time I thought I was dying. All the wind was knocked out of me and I writhed about clawing the grass unable to breathe not understanding what had happened as I never saw him coming. But I never thought the bloke who nailed me had done anything untoward. It was just a good clean bump down the middle.

I do understand the need to protect the head but I believe the sling tackle rule is already out of control to the point of being embarrassing.

If we outlawed high marking it would lead to a further reeducation in head trauma. So why not?

 

[stormskye]

I'm no legal expert. What's the point in having a waiver if they are useless?

The toughness was shown by players placing themselves in a position where they were vulnerable to being cleaned up and that courage was admirable and a real feature of our game. I applauded Krueger for his attack on the pill and Ward on Sunday and I know his teammates would all have huge respect for the way he went about it regardless of the outcome.

Getting rid of sly king hits which were so common in the 70's and 80's was fantastic and I applauded it. Pulling apart the physical clashes which were an inherent part of our unique game is a different matter. I've been shirtfronted a few times and it is a hideous feeling. The first time I thought I was dying. All the wind was knocked out of me and I writhed about clawing the grass unable to breathe not understanding what had happened as I never saw him coming. But I never thought the bloke who nailed me had done anything untoward. It was just a good clean bump down the middle.

I do understand the need to protect the head but I believe the sling tackle rule is already out of control to the point of being embarrassing.

If we outlawed high marking it would lead to a further reeducation in head trauma. So why not?

The simplest view on this from my perspective is this, a normal spoil, the players fist, hand, arm whatever is moving away from the oppositions head/face towards the ball. This action is unlikely to cause injury, unless the player strikes the back of the head and misses the ball completely. This would likely result in a free kick, depending on how bad it was. Maynard’s action, is a slinging arm, who’s only trajectory is and was towards the players face and head, he’s swinging his fist inwards, not out. In my view it’s a reportable action, and he knows it’s reckless.

 

[sideswipe]

I'm no legal expert. What's the point in having a waiver if they are useless?

The toughness was shown by players placing themselves in a position where they were vulnerable to being cleaned up and that courage was admirable and a real feature of our game. I applauded Krueger for his attack on the pill and Ward on Sunday and I know his teammates would all have huge respect for the way he went about it regardless of the outcome.

Getting rid of sly king hits which were so common in the 70's and 80's was fantastic and I applauded it. Pulling apart the physical clashes which were an inherent part of our unique game is a different matter. I've been shirtfronted a few times and it is a hideous feeling. The first time I thought I was dying. All the wind was knocked out of me and I writhed about clawing the grass unable to breathe not understanding what had happened as I never saw him coming. But I never thought the bloke who nailed me had done anything untoward. It was just a good clean bump down the middle.

I do understand the need to protect the head but I believe the sling tackle rule is already out of control to the point of being embarrassing.

If we outlawed high marking it would lead to a further reeducation in head trauma. So why not?

Waivers might give protection from some courses of action - depends on many factors, but a general principle is that one cannot "contract out" of a duty of care. Especially when there is a power imbalance, say between a sporting body and a participant.

Your question on marking is simply that you can't rule against everything and there needs to be some level of compromise. It is a contact sport. Accidental head hits are inevitable in some form. The logical extension of your question is to eradicate all forms of contact.

 

[sr36]

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.

I think I've only seen one knee to the head in a marking contest knock someone out in 35 years of watching footy. And there is no move to outlaw speckies.
You're catastrophising ridiculously. As you've pointed out, this isn't even a rule change. You've never been allowed to stiff arm someone in the head in a marking contest. They're simply now policing the law more thoroughly - a law that has always existed. The whole he got the ball is a furphy. If you watch it frame by frame, he only got the ball because the bloke was in the midst of dropping the mark - it'd slipped through his fingers. The ground alone did it is also a furphy or at best a complete and utter guess. The bloke's head rotates sharply from a blow to the jaw - a classic concussion causing incident - he then falls limply like a bag of spuds. Maybe he would have bounced straight back up, but I doubt it.

 

[peter9789]

Given it was a match of no consequence whatsoever, and we were being well beaten to that point, I'm very comfortable that Maynard gets 2 weeks for complete stupidity.

The head is sacrosanct - what was he thinking?

Lets move on - not sure why we are wasting our energy on this or challenging the charge.

 

[Vicky Park]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of it - and I support the AFL in its attempts to minimise head injuries, even as they stumble along in their attempts to do so - we now have two players suspended for the start of the season. And both would have been selected.

This is so frustrating and disappointing. A new coach, a new game style, a fresh start for our club. And we have this to contend with.

 

[sr36]

I'm no legal expert. What's the point in having a waiver if they are useless?

The toughness was shown by players placing themselves in a position where they were vulnerable to being cleaned up and that courage was admirable and a real feature of our game. I applauded Krueger for his attack on the pill and Ward on Sunday and I know his teammates would all have huge respect for the way he went about it regardless of the outcome.

Getting rid of sly king hits which were so common in the 70's and 80's was fantastic and I applauded it. Pulling apart the physical clashes which were an inherent part of our unique game is a different matter. I've been shirtfronted a few times and it is a hideous feeling. The first time I thought I was dying. All the wind was knocked out of me and I writhed about clawing the grass unable to breathe not understanding what had happened as I never saw him coming. But I never thought the bloke who nailed me had done anything untoward. It was just a good clean bump down the middle.

Agree that the Kreuger attack was fantastic. If you are going to complain about one of our suspensions - that's the one.

But in terms of courage - I think we see a heap more of it today. More blokes backing into packs, more blokes running with the flight of the ball. You now barely ever see blokes hearing footsteps and pulling out of a contest, blokes taking short steps, blokes being unwilling to get in front of the leading forward, etc... Taking the thuggery out of the game has enabled courage to prosper.

And by the sounds of it, that shirtfront on you was still legal and respected - unless he got you in the head.

 

[sr36]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of it - and I support the AFL in its attempts to minimise head injuries, even as they stumble along in their attempts to do so - we now have two players suspended for the start of the season. And both would have been selected.

This is so frustrating and disappointing. A new coach, a new game style, a fresh start for our club. And we have this to contend with.

No biggie Vicky. Generally, good teams push the line of aggression and get suspensions. Looks like we're upping the aggression - hopefully it helps us to develop into a good team. We'd become a bit gentle. Time to regain our culture and rebalance the ledger towards the fight tooth and nail Collingwood that we all grew up with.

 

[Vicky Park]

No biggie Vicky. Generally, good teams push the line of aggression and get suspensions. Looks like we're upping the aggression - hopefully it helps us to develop into a good team. We'd become a bit gentle. Time to regain our culture and rebalance the ledger towards the fight tooth and nail Collingwood that we all grew up with.

It’s a biggie for me, with these two out. And Krueger has surprised with how likely he looks.

But fair point about aggression, and as always it’s getting the balance right. Maynard plays on the edge and we love him for it. But I don’t love head injuries. At all, to anyone.

 

[sr36]

It’s a biggie for me, with these two out. And Krueger has surprised with how likely he looks.

But fair point about aggression, and as always it’s getting the balance right. Maynard plays on the edge and we love him for it. But I don’t love head injuries. At all, to anyone.

Agree. Maynard stuffed up and deserves his two weeks. I don't think it was premeditated though. I think he was originally just crashing the bloke to waste sone time so the defence could set and then at the last second took a whack at the ball from a position where he was always going to also whack the bloke in the head.

 

[Seedsfan]

Apparently playing the next two VFL games in the middle

 

[sideswipe]

Apparently playing the next two VFL games in the middle

Only eligible to play in Friday's practice match.

 

[domus]

I think I've only seen one knee to the head in a marking contest knock someone out in 35 years of watching footy. And there is no move to outlaw speckies.
You're catastrophising ridiculously. As you've pointed out, this isn't even a rule change. You've never been allowed to stiff arm someone in the head in a marking contest. They're simply now policing the law more thoroughly - a law that has always existed. The whole he got the ball is a furphy. If you watch it frame by frame, he only got the ball because the bloke was in the midst of dropping the mark - it'd slipped through his fingers. The ground alone did it is also a furphy or at best a complete and utter guess. The bloke's head rotates sharply from a blow to the jaw - a classic concussion causing incident - he then falls limply like a bag of spuds. Maybe he would have bounced straight back up, but I doubt it.

Wow. I reckon I could pull up ten examples of players being knocked unconscious in marking contests. Who said it had to be a knee? It could be a player's chest or shoulder crashing into his opponent's head in a marking contest or the players head smashing into the turf after he has taken the mark.. Maybe I watch more footy I think Jonathon Brown has been knocked out in at a least four marking contests. I have seen Ben Reid and Alan Toovey knocked out in marking contests. That's off the top of my head. If the entire premise is to avoid head trauma then catastrophizing is a poor description of my view. Ten years ago people would have scoffed at the notion of the shirtfront or bump being punishable if the head is contacted. We become used to the most drastic changes in time. Remember pyjama cricket?

 

[Horaceg]

Wow. I reckon I could pull up ten examples of players being knocked unconscious in marking contests. Who said it had to be a knee? It could be a player's chest or shoulder crashing into his opponent's head in a marking contest. Maybe I watch more footy I think Jonathon Brown has been knocked out in at a least four marking contests. I have seen Ben Reid and Alan Toovey knocked out in marking contests. That's off the top of my head. If the entire premise is to avoid head trauma then catastrophizing is a poor description of my view. Ten years ago people would have scoffed at the notion of the shirtfront or bump being punishable if the head is contacted. We become used to the most drastic changes in time. Remember pyjama cricket?

There was Girl charged in our AFLW team who did exactly what we were tought, turn your body and protect your own head, too many players put their head in dangerous positions.

I loved the good old shirt front back in the day but glad it’s a part of the past knowing what we know now.

 

[JB1975]

Wow. I reckon I could pull up ten examples of players being knocked unconscious in marking contests. Who said it had to be a knee? It could be a player's chest or shoulder crashing into his opponent's head in a marking contest. Maybe I watch more footy I think Jonathon Brown has been knocked out in at a least four marking contests. I have seen Ben Reid and Alan Toovey knocked out in marking contests. That's off the top of my head. If the entire premise is to avoid head trauma then catastrophizing is a poor description of my view. Ten years ago people would have scoffed at the notion of the shirtfront or bump being punishable if the head is contacted. We become used to the most drastic changes in time. Remember pyjama cricket?

Jono Brown and plenty of other marking head injuries result from the willingness of the marking player to put themselves in danger, not the actions of another player who has failed to exercise a duty of care. There is no way to outlaw the actions of players such as Brown and Riewoldt, and it isn't really what this discussion is about.

In any case, you are suggesting that the AFL has an absolutist agenda to completely stamp out any contact which might result in head injuries, including high marks. You need to relax, mate. The AFL would undoubtedly love to avoid concussions and other trauma, but it isn't about to --and has signalled no interest in-- removing the speccy.

 

[sr36]

Wow. I reckon I could pull up ten examples of players being knocked unconscious in marking contests. Who said it had to be a knee? It could be a player's chest or shoulder crashing into his opponent's head in a marking contest or the players head smashing into the turf after he has taken the mark.. Maybe I watch more footy I think Jonathon Brown has been knocked out in at a least four marking contests. I have seen Ben Reid and Alan Toovey knocked out in marking contests. That's off the top of my head. If the entire premise is to avoid head trauma then catastrophizing is a poor description of my view. Ten years ago people would have scoffed at the notion of the shirtfront or bump being punishable if the head is contacted. We become used to the most drastic changes in time. Remember pyjama cricket?

Maynard wasn't suspended for a spoil that accidentally connected with a blokes head. He was suspended because his spoil was dangerous and was always going to smack the bloke in the head - unless there was intervention from pixies. That isn't the case in many marking concussions. I think catastrophising is the right word, because there is nothing to suggest that there won't continue to be concussions that don't result in suspensions. The entire premise isn't to remove all concussions - that's impossible, it's to minimise them by removing actions that are both careless and dangerous, which Maynard's was.

 

[jonbe54]

No biggie Vicky. Generally, good teams push the line of aggression and get suspensions. Looks like we're upping the aggression - hopefully it helps us to develop into a good team. We'd become a bit gentle. Time to regain our culture and rebalance the ledger towards the fight tooth and nail Collingwood that we all grew up with.

Yes agree with this, not thuggery but tackling and contesting with physical INTENT.

This makes opposition players aware they will pay a physical price for contesting the ball so they aren't 100% focused on winning the contest.

The trick is to straddle the line instead of diving over it.

 

[sr36]

Yes agree with this, not thuggery but tackling and contesting with physical INTENT.

This makes opposition players aware they will pay a physical price for contesting the ball so they aren't 100% focused on winning the contest.

The trick is to straddle the line instead of diving over it.

And accept you're going to get the odd Kreuger style suspension. The Maynard one should be avoided.

 

[jonbe54]

And accept you're going to get the odd Kreuger style suspension. The Maynard one should be avoided.

Yes both good examples - we were in the same place during Buckley's reign as we were through the 70's in regard to contests - unwilling to push the boundaries just far enough.

Understandable because that was Buckley's attitude to the game - when the shit hit the fan in the last half of the final quarter of the '18GF the weagles just went for it, no holds barred and that along with some . . . fortunate . . . . umpiring calls got them across the line.

The same held true all through the '70's when we had highly talented teams - come September when opposition players would run right through you Collingwood were prepared to run around.

2010 is the second finest example of a Collingwood team that really shouldn't have made the GF by the stats of their list but who simply wouldn't give the opposition a second of peace over the entire ground.

The finest example is - of course - the '58 team who totally stymied Norm Smiths seemingly invincible team of champions and refused to lose.

 

[Seedsfan]

Only eligible to play in Friday's practice match.

I thought McRae said the next two weeks. Hope you are right though it’s been a joke in the past how many weeks of VFL practice matches their have been

 

[Seedsfan]

Maynard wasn't suspended for a spoil that accidentally connected with a blokes head. He was suspended because his spoil was dangerous and was always going to smack the bloke in the head - unless there was intervention from pixies. That isn't the case in many marking concussions. I think catastrophising is the right word, because there is nothing to suggest that there won't continue to be concussions that don't result in suspensions. The entire premise isn't to remove all concussions - that's impossible, it's to minimise them by removing actions that are both careless and dangerous, which Maynard's was.

He had every right to make a play at the ball. It’s easy in slow motion but that is not the speed the game is played. The club did the right thing standing up for Maynard as we should never accept that shit

 

[sideswipe]

I thought McRae said the next two weeks. Hope you are right though it’s been a joke in the past how many weeks of VFL practice matches their have been

AFL Regulations 17.3. Or maybe not even read the rules. Just use your brains. As if a player suspended in the AFL could play a VFL H&A game during his supension.

As for the VFL practice matches, we have played 2 over 3 weeks. Hardly a massive stretch.

 

[Seedsfan]

AFL Regulations 17.3. Or maybe not even read the rules. Just use your brains. As if a player suspended in the AFL could play a VFL H&A game during his supension.

As for the VFL practice matches, we have played 2 over 3 weeks. Hardly a massive stretch.

Lol typically there are a lot more than two practice games in the VFL as the season is considerably shorter. The coach said the next two weeks and I just accepted that.

 

[sr36]

He had every right to make a play at the ball. It’s easy in slow motion but that is not the speed the game is played. The club did the right thing standing up for Maynard as we should never accept that sh*t

I know that's your opinion - but it's clearly not the opinion of the MRO or the tribunal that he had every right to make a play at the ball in the manner that he made a play at the ball.

This is the key quote from the tribunal finding, which means they graded it as careless rather than viewing it as incidental:

“We find that, in approaching and affecting the contest in the manner in which player Maynard did, it could be reasonably foreseen to result in a strike to player Lloyd’s head.”

To me, that's a pretty fair principal to suspend someone for and isn't a calamity that is going to irreparably change the game. Whether or not you agree that Bruzzy could reasonably foresee that it was going to smash him in the head might be debatable - personally, I don't think it is.

 

[Seedsfan]

I know that's your opinion - but it's clearly not the opinion of the MRO or the tribunal that he had every right to make a play at the ball in the manner that he made a play at the ball.

This is the key quote from the tribunal finding, which means they graded it as careless rather than viewing it as incidental:

“We find that, in approaching and affecting the contest in the manner in which player Maynard did, it could be reasonably foreseen to result in a strike to player Lloyd’s head.”

To me, that's a pretty fair principal to suspend someone for and isn't a calamity that is going to irreparably change the game. Whether or not you agree that Bruzzy could reasonably foresee that it was going to smash him in the head might be debatable - personally, I don't think it is.

They will spin what ever shit they need to. They are just trying to justify it. The made a poor call. The fact he hits his head on the ground is irrelevant. What’s next? He chops someone’s arms and the bloke hits his head and it’s another two weeks?