Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[The Royal Sampler]

We’ll cite Mitch Duncan as precedent and Laura Kane will show this example of what Maynard should have done.

 

[swoop42]

It doesn’t. And you need to let go of Cripps. The tribunal found him guilty and he only got off because of a legal technicality.

Good thing then we still have the Duncan and McCartin rulings to highlight.

 

[sam_e]

If Maynard isn't cleared to play I'd back the club taking it to court because it's clear he's being held to a different set of rules to that of Cripps, Duncan and McCartin.

Two of those cases occurred this season, while Cripps was cleared and free to win the Brownlow just 12 months back.

Those aren't rulings from a different era.

Personally I don't think the AFL has a leg to stand on if credibility and fairness still matters.

Cripps was found guilty of the charge but let off after appeal on a process-related technicality, so no way relevant.

I do agree though that the club need to take this on all the way.

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

50% chance you are correct

I reckon he’s on the money. Let’s leave the PC out of it.

 

[Bramax]

Dave, for a long damned time women couldn’t vote, couldn’t get a university education, couldn’t access a wide variety of jobs… and then when those doors were finally opened it was often accompanied by the sorts of comments you’re now making, suggesting women are undeserving of or unqualified for their position.

Do better.

Sorry RS, but if Kane overruled the MRO after several other experienced experts deemed the incident undeserving of a suspension, then I would argue this is evidence she is undeserving and unqualified for her position.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Pies lawyers explaining what the MRO expects Maynard to have done, in order to avoid contact after the attempted smother;

 

[DinoSoar]

It was always going to get directly referred to the tribunal, no way in hell was it ever going to be assessed as nothing to see here given the fact that Brayshaw was concussed/knocked out. The AFL has always been focussed on the outcome and never the act itself - if Brayshaw had of bounced up immediately then it wouldn’t have even been looked at and classified as a football act/accidental. The whole system stinks but that’s the AFL for you, more so when the executive overrules its own MRO. Complete clown show.

 

[TradeDraft]

Fine I aplogise for my Comment

 

[sideswipe]

It was always going to get directly referred to the tribunal, no way in hell was it ever going to be assessed as nothing to see here given the fact that Brayshaw was concussed/knocked out. The AFL has always been focussed on the outcome and never the act itself - if Brayshaw had of bounced up immediately then it wouldn’t have even been looked at and classified as a football act/accidental. The whole system stinks but that’s the AFL for you, more so when the executive overrules its own MRO. Complete clown show.

Which part of law isn’t focused on the outcome?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bramax]

It was always going to get directly referred to the tribunal, no way in hell was it ever going to be assessed as nothing to see here given the fact that Brayshaw was concussed/knocked out. The AFL has always been focussed on the outcome and never the act itself - if Brayshaw had of bounced up immediately then it wouldn’t have even been looked at and classified as a football act/accidental. The whole system stinks but that’s the AFL for you, more so when the executive overrules its own MRO. Complete clown show.

100%

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Live look in on Michael Christian at the MRO offices…

 

[jimmy35]

Makes Christians position a bit untenable doesn’t it?

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

Live look in on Michael Christian at the MRO offices…

Love your work!!

 

[BillyElliott]

Maybe the push is because the tribunal should clear him.
Collingwood people tend to feel they need to overcompensate, to appear impartial or unbiased.

Yes, but Christian is an ex Pie and wanted Maynard to be cleared..Kane is a Pie supporter and insisted he was charged.

 

[jimmy35]

Ban the smother, it’s way to dangerous.

And the high mark. Imagine when someone takes a hanger but knees someone in the back of the head on the way up and causes a concussion. Needs more duty of care.

 

[jmac70]

Sorry RS, but if Kane overruled the MRO after several other experienced experts deemed the incident undeserving of a suspension, then I would argue this is evidence she is undeserving and unqualified for her position.

That’s got nothing to do with her sex.

 

[BillyElliott]

Ban the smother, it’s way to dangerous.

The smother is okay. It's the landing which is the problem. Wings are now required.

 

[BillyElliott]

And the high mark. Imagine when someone takes a hanger but knees someone in the back of the head on the way up and causes a concussion. Needs more duty of care.

Who kneed Jakob Ryan in the back of the head?

 

[jimmy35]

The smother is okay. It's the landing which the problem. Wings are now required.

Or hoverboards. We need more hoverboards in the game.

 

[Bramax]

That’s got nothing to do with her sex.

You are the one talking about that. I never mentioned it.

 

[Prankster]

Fine I aplogise for my Comment

Weak mentality. Stand by what you said and don’t be such a flip flop.

 

[Soups]

Weak mentality. Stand by what you said and don’t be such a flip flop.

What are you 12?

 

[Stripes B and W]

Ban the smother, it’s way to dangerous.

And ban the high mark, our boy Ryan had his brain rattled by a attempted mark v Brisbane a few games back...Wonder if Raynor's ( i think it was him ) duty of care was assesed or if Ryans concussion is reflective of a higher duty of care.

 

[unplugged]

She was a big pies fan growing up

Gil and Dillon would have their finger prints all over this one

We should call Chrisso to provide evidence

I reckon people are looking into this too much. If they just said "he's free to play" it looks like it's just pulled out of a hat and no one cares that someone's knocked out and missing a week.

If they take it to the tribunal, like they are, there can be some back and forth between both side and he eventually gets off. It's a way better look from a PR perspective for the AFL.

 

[DinoSoar]

Which part of law isn’t focused on the outcome?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Okay, Sidey seeing as I’m not particularly enthralled in this Carlton/Swans borefest I’ll bite. In the context of the AFL as we are discussing here and not the law in general (which is where I think you’re trying to go here so I’ll close that avenue down from the outset), you can bump a player and make high contact - a free kick gets paid, the player gets up immediately and plays out the game with no ill effects. However, if said player gets concussed and leaves the ground then you can bet your bottom dollar the very same action will cop a one or two week ban simply due to the high contact. A simple (bit very common) example to illustrate the point but you know where I’m coming from. Another common example is a crude spoil attempt in marking where a whack across the chops happens, often just a free kick (as it should be) but in others, a nice little week holiday - funnily enough, Maynard copped a couple of weeks because the player hit the deck and was concussed. Again the outcome was the factor and not the action itself as head high contact in marking contests happens multiple times a game.