Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[sr36]

They will spin what ever sh*t 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?

No - that wouldn't be deemed careless, so it wouldn't make the grading nor would it be deemed high contact.

For all the supposed softness of the current game, the softest thing is the hysterical calamity mode that some supporters jump to when a decision doesn't go their way.

 

[Seedsfan]

No - that wouldn't be deemed careless, so it wouldn't make the grading nor would it be deemed high contact.

For all the supposed softness of the current game, the softest thing is the hysterical calamity mode that some supporters jump to when a decision doesn't go their way.

Yet they are both free kick offences are they not?

The fact that someone hits their head later on can’t be relevant sometimes and not others

 

[sr36]

Yet they are both free kick offences are they not?

The fact that someone hits their head later on can’t be relevant sometimes and not others

You just don't seem to get that the overwhelming majority of free kicks aren't deemed careless. If it's not deemed careless, it doesn't get suspended, regardless of the injury. Maynard's was deemed careless.

Whilst you don't have to agree with it, fair enough if you don't, surely you can understand why Maynard's might have been deemed careless and why it doesn't relate to the string of what if scenarios from incidental injuries that keep getting put out there?

 

[sideswipe]

Yet they are both free kick offences are they not?

The fact that someone hits their head later on can’t be relevant sometimes and not others

Reportable offence is the one you need. Do you think this whole posting without thinking approach is working for you?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mollythedolly]

It's already been sorted out! The Tribunal upheld the ban and he misses the first two games of the season.

I’m also glad they challenged. We’ve rolled over far too easily in the past. Even a remote chance of freeing Maynard for R1 and/or R2 and it was worth a shot.

 

[domus]

No - that wouldn't be deemed careless, so it wouldn't make the grading nor would it be deemed high contact.

For all the supposed softness of the current game, the softest thing is the hysterical calamity mode that some supporters jump to when a decision doesn't go their way.

Never had a problem owning my teams mistakes or dumb actions. When Rocca elbowed the big lug from Port Adelaide in the prelim and Carmen punched Tuck in the semi my fury was directed at them. Maynard was touch and go but Krueger's was the one that really annoys me. I want somebody to explain what else he could have done with Ward coming at him at full pace eyes on the ball? If he had attempted to tackle he leaves himself wide open for a shirtfront. Turning his body to bump was a protective measure.

Anyway, we could go on about it all night.

I've no doubt my anger will be directed at a 50m penalty which costs us a game because DeGoey rolled his eyes when a free was awarded against him. We all know it's coming. Talk about frustrating. Player disrespect has not been an issue, but let's keep adding new interpretations.

 

[Markfs]

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.

if concussions dont drop, they will move the reasonably foreseen to other situations.... perhaps any circumstances where a player chooses to make a fist to punch the ball. I would argue that if a player makes a fist and goes to punch the ball, it is reasonably foreseeable that some part of an opposition player will be hit...

and then if concussions dont drop, they might look at player's speed to the contest... too fast and it might be reasonably foreseeable that some damage to the head might result...

 

[sr36]

Never had a problem owning my teams mistakes or dumb actions. When Rocca elbowed the big lug from Port Adelaide in the prelim and Carmen punched Tuck in the semi my fury was directed at them. Maynard was touch and go but Krueger's was the one that really annoys me. I want somebody to explain what else he could have done with Ward coming at him at full pace eyes on the ball? If he had attempted to tackle he leaves himself wide open for a shirtfront. Turning his body to bump was a protective measure.

Anyway, we could go on about it all night.

I've no doubt my anger will be directed at a 50m penalty which costs us a game because DeGoey rolled his eyes when a free was awarded against him. We all know it's coming. Talk about frustrating. Player disrespect has not been an issue, but let's keep adding new interpretations.

Agree with the sentiment, Incidents like Kreugers one are just bad luck. But I don't disagree with the AFL’s policy to stop bumps to the head. Such a fine line there.

 

[sr36]

if concussions dont drop, they will move the reasonably foreseen to other situations.... perhaps any circumstances where a player chooses to make a fist to punch the ball. I would argue that if a player makes a fist and goes to punch the ball, it is reasonably foreseeable that some part of an opposition player will be hit...

and then if concussions dont drop, they might look at player's speed to the contest... too fast and it might be reasonably foreseeable that some damage to the head might result...

Maybe. I'm not going to worry about that until it occurs. The Kreuger one is more an example of what you're suggesting though. Maynard just swung a roundhouse that was never going to miss the bloke's head.

 

[sideswipe]

Never had a problem owning my teams mistakes or dumb actions. When Rocca elbowed the big lug from Port Adelaide in the prelim and Carmen punched Tuck in the semi my fury was directed at them. Maynard was touch and go but Krueger's was the one that really annoys me. I want somebody to explain what else he could have done with Ward coming at him at full pace eyes on the ball? If he had attempted to tackle he leaves himself wide open for a shirtfront. Turning his body to bump was a protective measure.

Anyway, we could go on about it all night.

I've no doubt my anger will be directed at a 50m penalty which costs us a game because DeGoey rolled his eyes when a free was awarded against him. We all know it's coming. Talk about frustrating. Player disrespect has not been an issue, but let's keep adding new interpretations.

Maynard would have copped weeks if he did that years ago. Touch and go actions don’t end up with a tribunal hearing that doesn’t last 30 mins.

Reserve your anger for something else.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Seedsfan]

Agree with the sentiment, Incidents like Kreugers one are just bad luck. But I don't disagree with the AFL’s policy to stop bumps to the head. Such a fine line there.

But unless he is in Brownlow contention, why does it matter if someone in Kruger’s circumstance gets a week during the home and away? As they will be ruled out of the next game either way

 

[sr36]

Maynard would have copped weeks if he did that years ago. Touch and go actions don’t end up with a tribunal hearing that doesn’t last 30 mins.

Reserve your anger for something else.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not to mention that he only got the ball because it was slipping through the blokes hands. With that action, he gets the ball about 2 in 10 in that situation. He hits him in the head 10 in 10.

 

[sr36]

But unless he is in Brownlow contention, why does it matter if someone in Kruger’s circumstance gets a week during the home and away? As they will be ruled out of the next game either way

Aren't you the one saying that it's all about precedents and the action and not the result is what matters?

 

[Seedsfan]

Aren't you the one saying that it's all about precedents and the action and not the result is what matters?

I don’t think Kruger should have got done as he had no other option

But it is largely irrelevant with the 12 day stand down

 

[jmac70]

I don’t think Kruger should have got done as he had no other option

But it is largely irrelevant with the 12 day stand down

What about Maynard? It’s his thread after all.

 

[sr36]

I don’t think Kruger should have got done as he had no other option

But it is largely irrelevant with the 12 day stand down

So the precedent of Kreugers suspension is irrelevant because he got concussed, but the precedent of Maynard’s suspension is going to destroy the fabric of the game and lead to blokes getting suspended if someone falls over near them, because he didn't get concussed and will miss 2 games?

 

[Seedsfan]

So the precedent of Kreugers suspension is irrelevant because he got concussed, but the precedent of Maynard’s suspension is going to destroy the fabric of the game and lead to blokes getting suspended if someone falls over near them, because he didn't get concussed and will miss 2 games?

His suspension is irrelevant because if that situation arises in the home and away season the player suspended will already be ruled out on medical grounds.

 

[sr36]

His suspension is irrelevant because if that situation arises in the home and away season the player suspended will already be ruled out on medical grounds.

So all your talk of precedents and what if situations and the game being destroyed, but none of it would matter if he did his ankle later in the game. it's really just that Bruzzy will miss 2 weeks. Fair enough. I'm pissed off about that too.

 

[sideswipe]

Never had a problem owning my teams mistakes or dumb actions. When Rocca elbowed the big lug from Port Adelaide in the prelim and Carmen punched Tuck in the semi my fury was directed at them. Maynard was touch and go but Krueger's was the one that really annoys me. I want somebody to explain what else he could have done with Ward coming at him at full pace eyes on the ball? If he had attempted to tackle he leaves himself wide open for a shirtfront. Turning his body to bump was a protective measure.

Anyway, we could go on about it all night.

I've no doubt my anger will be directed at a 50m penalty which costs us a game because DeGoey rolled his eyes when a free was awarded against him. We all know it's coming. Talk about frustrating. Player disrespect has not been an issue, but let's keep adding new interpretations.

BTW, players disrespecting umpires is a problem. At all levels of footy. It is seen as a key contributing factor in the shortage of umpires. Do you think the AFL shouldn’t respond to that?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Seedsfan]

So all your talk of precedents and what if situations and the game being destroyed, but none of it would matter if he did his ankle later in the game. it's really just that Bruzzy will miss 2 weeks. Fair enough. I'm pissed off about that too.

No if they are going to consistently give a week to a player that the rules have already bared from playing. Well they are just wasting everyone’s time including their own.

 

[domus]

BTW, players disrespecting umpires is a problem. At all levels of footy. It is seen as a key contributing factor in the shortage of umpires. Do you think the AFL shouldn’t respond to that?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Absolutely. When a player is overtly demonstrative or aggressive toward an umpire he should be penalised but that there were a number of 50m penalties for players when there was no overt display of anger or disrespect. The Petracca incident was a perfect example. If that is the new standard I think it is ridiculous and will stir up emotion rather than calm the situation.

 

[sideswipe]

Absolutely. When a player is overtly demonstrative or aggressive toward an umpire he should be penalised but that there were a number of 50m penalties for players when there was no overt display of anger or disrespect. The Petracca incident was a perfect example. If that is the new standard I think it is ridiculous and will stir up emotion rather than calm the situation.

So far the new interpretation seems to be working great. I don’t miss umpire remonstrations.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[JB1975]

I enjoy watching the players trying not to remonstrate. Their self-control seems unnatural and unhealthy.

 

[Robroy22]

I enjoy watching the players trying not to remonstrate. Their self-control seems unnatural and unhealthy.

I'm hoping the commentators get governed by the same rules now! BT will explode

 

[Seedsfan]

So far the new interpretation seems to be working great. I don’t miss umpire remonstrations.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

They need to make sure they are strong on it at junior level.