Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[unplugged]

Isn’t she supposed to be a Collingwood supporter?Obviously she’s bending over backwards trying to appear impartial,while stitching us up at the same time.

Trying to look neutral, hopefully does us a solid further down the track!

 

[BillyElliott]

I don't hate women and them getting Good Jobs but there is a Bit of a Push in Society about Women need a Real Go and Companies can see Hiring a Female can be Good Publicity

What good publicity is she getting Dave? Some are choosing to now blame her decision making on her sex. She's been making decisions all year in this role which she was doing on an interim basis until given the position officially last week.

 

[leon123]

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


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Having thc in your blood whilst driving a vehicle, but not impaired i.e road safety concept similar to alcohol

 

[Bramax]

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.

Kane might deem it’s worthy of a retrospective suspension and rub Cam Rayner out.

 

[sideswipe]

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.

The act caused the outcome for which the actor is responsible. This is first principles. You wasted a lot of words.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[windchimes]

Having thc in your blood whilst driving a vehicle, but not impaired i.e road safety concept similar to alcohol

It'd sound like they aren't pursuing the outcome hard enough I'd say leon

 

[Bramax]

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.

This quirk of the system should be obvious to everybody. And the McStay incident is another good example. I believe JVR will cop a week’s ban for high contact with a raised elbow. Had McStay been concussed and not played out the game, you can bet JVR would be looking at a 2 or 3 game ban.

 

[Soaring Magpie]

The Laura Kane overruling the MRO smacks of the AFL trying cover their asses amid all the concussion lawsuits. The fact that the MRO wanted to find it not classifiable does give hope that we can get him off at the tribunal or on appeal.

The case gets thrown out, the MRO can’t classify it as a report and the league steps in to overturn their own laws, it’s a farce and sticks of the AFL trying to protect their arse.

 

[sideswipe]

Having thc in your blood whilst driving a vehicle, but not impaired i.e road safety concept similar to alcohol

Not bad. Skilled drink drivers are innocent


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Axl the great]

The act caused the outcome for which the actor is responsible. This is first principles. You wasted a lot of words.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not true entirely, Brayshaw follows through a long way after he kicks, his momentum was taking him forwards as well toward Maynard, therefore the contact was an equal contribution from both players, Brayshaw is then injured from the contact in what was a football act, not a bump or a slide or a sling. Maynard had no way of knowing where Brayshaw would stop and had in no way initiated the contact.
If Bruzz has a good lawyer he will get off 100%, not even worried about that.

My question is why is Christian so bitter and bias against his former club? Those with long memories may also have an idea.

 

[jmac70]

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.

Or they could just give him the three weeks.

 

[jmac70]

Not true entirely, Brayshaw follows through a long way after he kicks, his momentum was taking him forwards as well toward Maynard, therefore the contact was an equal contribution from both players, Brayshaw is then injured from the contact in what was a football act, not a bump or a slide or a sling. Maynard had no way of knowing where Brayshaw would stop and had in no way initiated the contact.
If Bruzz has a good lawyer he will get off 100%, not even worried about that.

My question is why is Christian so bitter and bias against his former club? Those with long memories may also have an idea.

You’re alluding to the Lethal Matthews rumour. Irrelevant.

Especially so it appears it wasn’t his decision anyway.

 

[Axl the great]

You’re alluding to the Lethal Matthews rumour. Irrelevant.

Especially so it appears it wasn’t his decision anyway.

No rumour mate, if he can’t or won’t make a call on it why the hell is he there?

 

[jmac70]

No rumour mate, if he can’t or won’t make a call on it why the hell is he there?

I don’t think he’ll be there much longer.

 

[sideswipe]

Not true entirely, Brayshaw follows through a long way after he kicks, his momentum was taking him forwards as well toward Maynard, therefore the contact was an equal contribution from both players, Brayshaw is then injured from the contact in what was a football act, not a bump or a slide or a sling. Maynard had no way of knowing where Brayshaw would stop and had in no way initiated the contact.
If Bruzz has a good lawyer he will get off 100%, not even worried about that.

My question is why is Christian so bitter and bias against his former club? Those with long memories may also have an idea.

Contributory negligence requires negligence. Like your thinking but we need to keep brainstorming


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[NMBB]

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

Did Kane insist or was she instructed?

 

[BillyElliott]

Did Kane insist or was she instructed?

Who knows? But she's over ruled it, it's within her role to do so & she's put her name to it. I'm guessing it was discussed with others in the AFL beforehand.

 

[NMBB]

Not true entirely, Brayshaw follows through a long way after he kicks, his momentum was taking him forwards as well toward Maynard, therefore the contact was an equal contribution from both players, Brayshaw is then injured from the contact in what was a football act, not a bump or a slide or a sling. Maynard had no way of knowing where Brayshaw would stop and had in no way initiated the contact.
If Bruzz has a good lawyer he will get off 100%, not even worried about that.

My question is why is Christian so bitter and bias against his former club? Those with long memories may also have an idea.

Nice post - just a comment on the case -- it's unreasonable to expect any player to play differently because the player they are about to contact has a history of concussion - is the duty of care with Melbourne/AFL not to let Brayshaw play because of the risk? (which may be higher for him than other players)

 

[BillyElliott]

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.

And I'm hoping by taking it to the Tribunal it also gives the opportunity to argue & clarify these types of incidents. There's so much grey area and it's all new ground as far as what to do about accidental contact.

That's what I'm hoping anyway and most importantly Bruzzy is cleared to play.

 

[leon123]

Did Kane insist or was she instructed?

Its guessing, but i would suspect, gently guided/suggested

 

[Axl the great]

Contributory negligence requires negligence. Like your thinking but we need to keep brainstorming


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Who mentioned negligence? That act happens thousands of times a year and this is the first time I’ve ever seen an injury from a smother follow through, it’s unique, something you could not foresee the act was legal and and the contract unavoidable due to the momentum of BOTH players.

He gets off for mine.

 

[Axl the great]

Nice post - just a comment on the case -- it's unreasonable to expect any player to play differently because the player they are about to contact has a history of concussion - is the duty of care with Melbourne/AFL not to let Brayshaw play because of the risk? (which may be higher for him than other players)

Exactly mate! What next? Players with shoulder injury history are exempt from being bumped?

 

[NMBB]

Its guessing, but i would suspect, gently guided/suggested

At the AFL it's always a team effort

 

[Bramax]

Who mentioned negligence? That act happens thousands of times a year and this is the first time I’ve ever seen an injury from a smother follow through, it’s unique, something you could not foresee the act was legal and and the contract unavoidable due to the momentum of BOTH players.

He gets off for mine.

He’ll be free to play.

 

[sideswipe]

Who mentioned negligence? That act happens thousands of times a year and this is the first time I’ve ever seen an injury from a smother follow through, it’s unique, something you could not foresee the act was legal and and the contract unavoidable due to the momentum of BOTH players.

He gets off for mine.

I hope he gets off but once you start talking about acts/contribution, then negligence is the concept. Unless you want to talk intentional.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app