Upgrade

Site Maintenance will be happening later on Saturday. Expect an outage of around 30 minutes at some stage.

Otherwise, use the site as normal.

Contact support@bigfooty.com if there are any big problems.

Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

What should happen with Maynard?

  • 1-2 match suspension for careless, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 247 27.9%
  • 3-4 match suspension for intentional, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 203 23.0%
  • 5+ match suspension, intentional or careless with severe impact, straight to tribunal

    Votes: 68 7.7%
  • Charges downgraded to a fine

    Votes: 52 5.9%
  • No charge/no penalty

    Votes: 314 35.5%

  • Total voters
    884
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Corn Cobbers

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 9, 2015
5,247
9,495
AFL Club
Collingwood
THE AFL has opted against appealing the Tribunal's decision in the Brayden Maynard case, meaning the Collingwood defender is in the clear to play in the Magpies' preliminary final.


The AFL, having brought the charge against Maynard, said on Wednesday that it would not challenge the Tribunal's ruling, but would comment further later in the day.

"The AFL has confirmed that after careful consideration and review of the Tribunal's decision and reasons following last night's hearing into the incident involving Collingwood's Brayden Maynard and Melbourne's Angus Brayshaw, the AFL has decided not to appeal the Tribunal's decision," a statement read.

"Per the Tribunal Guidelines the AFL had to make this decision by 12:00pm AEST today.

"The AFL will release a further statement later today."
Finally some sanity 👍
 

Roby

Cancelled
Jul 27, 2008
13,241
11,501
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Great story

Amazed that you've bought into the "only reasonable outcome once he commenced the smother action was to hit Brayshaw in the head" outcome, but great story.

I've looked at about 100 equivalent "jumping smothers" that were successful on video and astounded how quickly those players were able to react and twist in midair to adjust for pursuing the ball, something that Maynard did not seem able to do.
And yet not one equivalent exanple to not having any control over your body or movement was ever shown by Maynard's defence. And not one video countering Maynard's argument was ever provided by the AFLs side. Or by the media even. Not once. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

But hey, the AFL signed off on it, so it must be the right decision.

You keep saying that there is all this video evidence.

Please at least provide one video.
 

Roby

Cancelled
Jul 27, 2008
13,241
11,501
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What, of people jumping and smothering?

Have you never watched a game of football?

You just need to provide the evidence, you've said you've seen heaps of it. You just need to provide one.

Instead of wasting time responding in this manner, just post it here in the thread.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Vindicater

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 16, 2013
12,832
16,260
AFL Club
Essendon
Kozzy & Viney with two much nastier actions last night than Maynard, just lucked out that Cripps and Fogarty bounced up quickly (although Cripps' nose seemed to be giving him trouble). I know that the grading matrix is important, and that the damage done is a crucial aspect of this, but those intentional high bumps after having chosen to go past the ball are so much worse for the game than trying to smother!

Nah. Pickett left his feet and had no control of his body after that.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
So apparently we were going to get a whole heap of players take advantage of the Maynard loophole this week; didn't happen.
Next year I think they will modity the guidelines so it results in a suspension though along the lines of leave your feet and make forceful contact with the head and you've got trouble, but the rules as they were now was probably the right call
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
No. I think your missing the point.

A sling tackle doesn't have to knock a player out to be reportable.

It doesn't even have to have the players head make forceful impact, or any impact at all.

And the reason is simple, you cannot state that sling tackles are OK, unless you happen to cause brain damage. Sling away all you want, but put a player on a stretcher, then oh boy, watch out.

This message is incoherent, and will result in open season on sling tackles and head injuries.

You can ban sling tackles, or not ban them. It is not possible to just stop the sling tackles that impact the head. This is why any sling is a free, and a sling making head contact is reportable.

But this is also why a normal tackle that results in a concussion is treated as an unfortunate outcome, not a report. Because a normal tackle is deemed an acceptable act. It remains acceptable even if their is an unfortunate outcome. Don't like good tackles knocking players out, ban tackles, don't report players that do good tackles with bad outcomes.

People keep focusing on the outcome here, but Maynard committed an act, he didn't commit an outcome.

The act is jumping to smother the ball, and in the process jumping towards the player with the ball.

This act happens all the time.

This AFLW game was the first game I had seen since the Collingwood game. And it happened twice.

In an AFL where Maynard's act is illegal, and the outcome makes it reportable, then the first instance in the AFLW should be a free, and the second a report.

Instead, not only was there no free, people would have been outraged if there had been.

I mean, if someone kicks the ball while there is someone in front of them and it hits them in the head and causes concussion, is that reportable? Same outcome, and you could argue hitting someone in the head if you kick it in their direction from close range is foreseeable, which makes the act reckless. So why wouldn't it be reportable. Because it's an acceptable act in the rules.

Jumping towards the player kicking the ball in an attempt to smother is an acceptable act. It always has been.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is if a player commits an acceptable act. Concussion, broken leg, spontaneous combustion. Maynard jumped to smother, the AFL says this is ok. There was an unacceptable outcome, unfortunate. If people want this to never happen again, ban smothering the ball. But you still cannot ban Maynard retrospectively.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes it was a smother - but it was a very dangerous smother. Kicking off the ground is a football act, it's not "illegal". Would you want a suspension for a full follow through kicking in danger of a disputed ball, which knocked someone out with a kick to the head. I would.

Since they removed attempted striking, no act by itself is illegal without the contact that results from it. Maynard's act resulted in a down the field free for illegal late contact as well as illegal high contact. So I'm not really sure what you mean by much of this - and your claims that what Maynard did wasn't illegal. With certain acts due to their increased danger they can push the impact up higher than the actual impact - but they can't actually suspend someone for a sling tackle where the head doesn't hit the ground. There has to be high contact.

Under the current guidelines there's no way that he could have been suspended for careless. But they will change the guidelines. I htink they'll have a category under careless, which looks to penalise accidents caused by someone doing something dangerous - and Maynard launching that close to Brayshaw's path was undoubtedly dangerous - it wasn't a standard smother - there are very few whose committment is that nuts that they try to smother like that. They'll point out that contesting in a marking contest is inherently dangerous and have it so that it only refers to when only one player does something inherently dangerous. It won't impact accidents in marking contests - just when there is an accident caused by someone doing something dangerous when the other player doesn't realise they're about to get smashed.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Yes it was a smother - but it was a very dangerous smother. Kicking off the ground is a football act, it's not "illegal". Would you want a suspension for a full follow through kicking in danger of a disputed ball, which knocked someone out with a kick to the head. I would.

Since they removed attempted striking, no act by itself is illegal without the contact that results from it. Maynard's act resulted in a down the field free for illegal late contact as well as illegal high contact. So I'm not really sure what you mean by much of this - and your claims that what Maynard did wasn't illegal. With certain acts due to their increased danger they can push the impact up higher than the actual impact - but they can't actually suspend someone for a sling tackle where the head doesn't hit the ground. There has to be high contact.

Under the current guidelines there's no way that he could have been suspended for careless. But they will change the guidelines. I htink they'll have a category under careless, which looks to penalise accidents caused by someone doing something dangerous - and Maynard launching that close to Brayshaw's path was undoubtedly dangerous - it wasn't a standard smother - there are very few whose committment is that nuts that they try to smother like that. They'll point out that contesting in a marking contest is inherently dangerous and have it so that it only refers to when only one player does something inherently dangerous. It won't impact accidents in marking contests - just when there is an accident caused by someone doing something dangerous when the other player doesn't realise they're about to get smashed.
I feel like a whole category below careless just opens a while new can of worms again though - assuming in the AFL's matrix it has a lower suspension rate than careless. It just beings in more layers of complexity another aruing point for the tribunal to have to make a call on. Particularly where you get to the point of lawyers looking for areas of grey

The vid I posted earlier in the thread of the NRL guys looking at the incident there would be 3-4 weeks I realize the differences between the two games but I think it gives a good outside view of how another code views the incident in todays environment. I think careless can easily enough with the AFL's room full of lawyers be modified to leave the ground make forceful contact with the head within certain parameters fits careless. Launching yourself towards an opponent when really for all intends an purposes they ran a straight line the small bit of deviation was purely a kicking action thing,

Intentional has all but come redundant these days.

Think its just far clearer to modify the careless guidelines to better cover incidents of head contact esp where you leave your feet.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I feel like a whole category below careless just opens a while new can of worms again though - assuming in the AFL's matrix it has a lower suspension rate than careless. It just beings in more layers of complexity another aruing point for the tribunal to have to make a call on. Particularly where you get to the point of lawyers looking for areas of grey

The vid I posted earlier in the thread of the NRL guys looking at the incident there would be 3-4 weeks I realize the differences between the two games but I think it gives a good outside view of how another code views the incident in todays environment. I think careless can easily enough with the AFL's room full of lawyers be modified to leave the ground make forceful contact with the head within certain parameters fits careless. Launching yourself towards an opponent when really for all intends an purposes they ran a straight line the small bit of deviation was purely a kicking action thing,

Intentional has all but come redundant these days.

Think its just far clearer to modify the careless guidelines to better cover incidents of head contact esp where you leave your feet.

I think a lower grading is fairer. You get done for careless if you intentionally throw someone to the ground or intentionally smash into someone, but don't do it carefully enough to avoid the head. It's different to accidentally colliding with someone. It's not a Pickett launch at Cripps to hip and shoulder him, which gets him in the head. (I wonder what the Dees supporters in this thread think of Pickett - considering the character defamation of Maynard that has gone on in this thread - particularly with prior form for the same action) it deserves a lower conduct grading.
 
Last edited:

Maddo11

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 17, 2010
7,058
9,707
AFL Club
Sydney
Just add a specific rough conduct charge of "charging the ball carrier" where intent is automatically careless. Smothering, successful or not, should not be a free pass to body someone who can't protect themselves.

Don't need to overhaul the whole system, just close this gap
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
I think a lower grading is fairer. You get done for careless if you intentionally throw someone to the ground or intentionally smash into someone, but don't do it carefully enough to avoid the head. It's different to accidentally colliding with someone. It's not a Pickett launch at Cripps to hip and shoulder him, which gets him in the head.
I just think it’s opening far too much a can of worms especially when lawyers get involved micro analysing the smallest of things I think the whole lanes thing used was a load of bs really it’s a lawyer looking at legal definition with zero real context to the real world side of I. I.e the movement was well within a normal kick on the run souls not really be an excuse, it would also blend too many lines with tackles I don’t think really any tackle I’ve seen this year was inherently dangerous- plenty that I don’t think we’re pure sling tackles even on that the AFLs own interpretations changed mid year - a least after the preseason onwards - the DeGoey tackle, I just think a tighter set of guidelines within careless is needed
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I just think it’s opening far too much a can of worms especially when lawyers get involved micro analysing the smallest of things I think the whole lanes thing used was a load of bs really it’s a lawyer looking at legal definition with zero real context to the real world side of I. I.e the movement was well within a normal kick on the run souls not really be an excuse, it would also blend too many lines with tackles I don’t think really any tackle I’ve seen this year was inherently dangerous- plenty that I don’t think we’re pure sling tackles even on that the AFLs own interpretations changed mid year - a least after the preseason onwards - the DeGoey tackle, I just think a tighter set of guidelines within careless is needed
I think sticking with one classification makes it harder to catch everything you want without also catching a lot that you don't want. And also has the added issue of considering an accidental collision to the head as being graded as equal conduct and consequence to a fully lined up shirtfornt to the head.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Just add a specific rough conduct charge of "charging the ball carrier" where intent is automatically careless. Smothering, successful or not, should not be a free pass to body someone who can't protect themselves.

Don't need to overhaul the whole system, just close this gap
It'd work for this case. Would you be OK if he got off if it was someone running beside the ball carrier looking for a handball that he knocked out with a dangerous smother or some other accidental collision caused by one player's dangerous action without the ball carrier involved?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Just add a specific rough conduct charge of "charging the ball carrier" where intent is automatically careless. Smothering, successful or not, should not be a free pass to body someone who can't protect themselves.

Don't need to overhaul the whole system, just close this gap
Yep, think those kinds of incidents are fairly rare and I think are easily addressed within careless with the right guidelines
I think sticking with one classification makes it harder to catch everything you want without also catching a lot that you don't want. And also has the added issue of considering an accidental collision to the head as being graded as equal conduct and consequence to a fully lined up shirtfornt to the head.
Maybe so but I don't know the Maynard one is one that would fit in a lower category. Within current guidelines I think they made the right call - though I still argue it wasn't absolutely black and white where there was no way they could suspend him there were not really any simular incidents bought up. Most of the bracing for contact incidents for example that were cleared through the year were in situations where I think you could generlly expect contact. 2 players running into a contest brace for contact one player not really expecting it but I think better awareness they could have where Brayshaw was a sitting duck. It was obviously never intentional but jump towards a ball carrier in their kicking routine where they have no opportunity to protect themselves and made no moves to avoid contact/a tackle the movement was purely a kicking action thing. But a shoulder through someone who could not have resemble been expecting contact esp that high and late wouldn't go close to what I think a lower cat would be. You jump you lose all ability to really take any avoiding measures .


Just he AFL's current guidelines are too poor.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
It'd work for this case. Would you be OK if he got off if it was someone running beside the ball carrier looking for a handball that he knocked out with a dangerous smother or some other accidental collision caused by one player's dangerous action?
I guess to counter that too though a lower the catgory below careless. The Merrett tackle pre anzac day. I think it deserved a week, knew it the moment I saw the tackles. But an incident were the call carrier is all wrapped up has a hand free, umpire makes no call, player being tackled is fighting tackles so from there Merett trys taking him to ground..there was an arm over the shoulder that as he was doing that was called. But it was not your classic sling tackles, it was probably a bit of a poor technique by Merett I don't think it deserved to get a week off even though I didn't think there was much real intent of danger in the tackle. Its just making things a whole lot more complex in situations where I don't think it intended at least without a major rewright from the ground up.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I guess to counter that too though a lower the catgory below careless. The Merrett tackle pre anzac day. I think it deserved a week, knew it the moment I saw the tackles. But an incident were the call carrier is all wrapped up has a hand free, umpire makes no call, player being tackled is fighting tackles so from there Merett trys taking him to ground..there was an arm over the shoulder that as he was doing that was called. But it was not your classic sling tackles, it was probably a bit of a poor technique by Merett I don't think it deserved to get a week off even though I didn't think there was much real intent of danger in the tackle. Its just making things a whole lot more complex in situations where I don't think it intended at least without a major rewright from the ground up.
I think you're exaggerating the complication. You've just got to go through incidents and work out which ones you don't want included or lowered below careless. Basically getting tackled, competing for a ground ball or competing in a mark is dangerous - accidents that happen there couldn't get suspended - unless they already do under the current careless conduct rules. You've just added a rule where if you do something dangerous and actually knock someone out with no reason to think there in a dangerous situation. Its similar to what Maddo11 is suggesting, but it also captures incidents that we haven't thought of yet, just as we hadn't thought about a crazy smother knocking someone out. The other difference is that it's graded lower, which I think is fair, as no one can convince me that Maynard's choice to smother which led to that accident is as bad conduct as Pickett's launching hip and shoulders.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
I think you're exaggerating the complication. You've just got to go through incidents and work out which ones you don't want included or lowered below careless. Basically getting tackled, competing for a ground ball or competing in a mark is dangerous - accidents that happen there couldn't get suspended - unless they already do under the current careless conduct rules. You've just added a rule where if you do something dangerous and actually knock someone out with no reason to think there in a dangerous situation. Its similar to what Maddo11 is suggesting, but it also captures incidents that we haven't thought of yet, just as we hadn't thought about a crazy smother knocking someone out. The other difference is that it's graded lower, which I think is fair, as no one can convince me that Maynard's choice to smother which led to that accident is as bad conduct as Pickett's launching hip and shoulders.
I think a better thought out version of Maddo11's just suits more.

Intentional has all but gone out the window even when I think incidents probably were intentional because the tribunal has all but made it reduntants in all but a few situations. The MRO has adjusted and pretty much called everything careless.


Its not just the Merett one think if i was to get through many incidents this year that have been similar.

If the DeGoey tackle from the pre season happened durig the year it was a pretty cold 1 week, was a fine pre season though came from a slight change in interpertations by the AFL somehwhere along the line. It was adressed without any real re write of the rules.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
If the DeGoey tackle from the pre season happened durig the year it was a pretty cold 1 week, was a fine pre season though came from a slight change in interpertations by the AFL somehwhere along the line. It was adressed without any real re write of the rules.
It was addressed because you could address it within the guidelines. It's written in the guidelines that you can up the impact classifcation above actual impact due to the action's potential to cause injury. Because they wanted to crackdown on sling tackles they started grading impact higher for sling tackles than they previously had.

They can't just change what is interpreted by the Tribunal as careless without re-writing the guidelines around careless. You'd have to change the "reasonably foresee" part of the careless charge for Maddos suggestion to work in the Bruzzy incident, which brings in a whole lot of other accidents that I doubt many want to see suspended and even less would want to be graded the same as a shirt front the head.
 
Last edited:

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
It was addressed because you could address it within the guidelines. It's written in the guidelines that you can up the impact classifcation above actual impact due to the action's potential to cause injury. Because they wanted to crackdown on sling tackles they started grading impact higher for sling tackles than they previously had. They can't just change what is interpreted by the Tribunal as careless without re-writing the guidelines around careless.
I still maintain what I said though its just opening a whole other can of worms listing another category lawyers can argue the talking legal constructs rather than real world situations Maynards lawyer- and I have no issue with it he was doing his job - the lanes stuff - the vid I posted the few pages back with the panel laughed at it really it was footballers that have played the game knowing normal thing that happen in a kicking action compared to a lawyer who is trying to deconstruct it without any real understanding of it. If Brayshaw tried to avoid a tackle or bump and walked into it outside think a player could expect maybe they have a point but it was discussed on the panel as being normal. Was also referred to by the NRL 360 crew of being 3-4 weeks for being very very late you charge at a kicker like that and get it wrong you pay the price.
 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
I still maintain what I said though its just opening a whole other can of worms listing another category lawyers can argue the talking legal constructs rather than real world situations Maynards lawyer- and I have no issue with it he was doing his job - the lanes stuff - the vid I posted the few pages back with the panel laughed at it really it was footballers that have played the game knowing normal thing that happen in a kicking action compared to a lawyer who is trying to deconstruct it without any real understanding of it. If Brayshaw tried to avoid a tackle or bump and walked into it outside think a player could expect maybe they have a point but it was discussed on the panel as being normal. Was also referred to by the NRL 360 crew of being 3-4 weeks for being very very late you charge at a kicker like that and get it wrong you pay the price.
Fair enough, but either way you've got lawyers involved and you do have to change reasonably foresee from the guidelines for Maynard to get suspended, in which case Van Rooyen goes down for that spoil which had everyone up in arms that it was cited.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Fair enough, but either way you've got lawyers involved and you do have to change reasonably foresee from the guidelines for Maynard to get suspended, in which case Van Rooyen goes down for that spoil which had everyone up in arms that it was cited.
You do, I just think another whole catagory just adds way too much confusion that look for grey areas to exploit. Even a quick look at the the NRL guidelines they have 2 levels careless and reckless - intentional is not within their system even then its only used within high tackles

They seen to focus far more on 1st/2nd/3rd offenses

High Tackle - Careless1$1500 ($1000)$2500 ($1800)2 matches ($3000)
22 matches (1)3 matches (2)4 matches (3)
33 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
High Tackle - Reckless 4 (1) #4 matches (3)5 matches (4)6 matches (5)
5 (2) 5 matches (4)6 matches (5)7 matches (6)
6 (3)6 matches (5)7 matches (6)8 matches (7)
Dangerous Contact1$1500 ($1000)$2500 ($1800)2 matches ($3000)
22 matches (1)3 matches (2)4 matches (3)
33 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
Dangerous Throw1$1500 ($1000)2 matches ($2500)3 matches (2)
23 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
35 matches (4)6 matches (5)7 matches (6)
Striking1$2000 ($1500)2 matches ($3000)4 matches (3)
23 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
34 matches (3)5 matches (4)6 matches (5)
Crusher Tackle1$2000 ($1500)2 matches ($3000)4 matches (3)
23 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
34 matches (3)5 matches (4)6 matches (5)
Contrary Conduct1$1500 ($1000)$2500 ($1800)2 matches ($3000)
22 matches (1)3 matches (2)4 matches (3)
33 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
Shoulder Charge1$2000 ($1500)2 matches ($3000)4 matches (3)
23 matches (2)4 matches (3)5 matches (4)
34 matches (3)5 matches (4)6 matches (5)

 

sr36

Hall of Famer
Aug 20, 2009
46,334
70,207
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
You do, I just think another whole catagory just adds way too much confusion that look for grey areas to exploit. Even a quick look at the the NRL guidelines they have 2 levels careless and reckless - intentional is not within their system even then its only used within high tackles

They seen to focus far more on 1st/2nd/3rd offenses
Their reckless is basically intentional. But for each act they then grade the action for the seriousness with 3 different levels- which unlike the AFL is about how bad the conduct was - not just about the damage caused. They've basically got 6 different conduct gradings. The tackle itself can be graded from Careless 1 through to Reckless 6.
 

DonsRule

I can't recall
Sep 9, 2004
15,994
17,496
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
I can't recall
Their reckless is basically intentional. But for each act they then grade the action for the seriousness with 3 different levels- which unlike the AFL is about how bad the conduct was - not just about the damage caused. They've basically got 6 different conduct gradings. The tackle itself can be graded from Careless 1 through to Reckless 6.
The grading are a lot more like the AFL's impact element its there sliding scale in each offense on the seriousness - it also addresses what you were getting at really within the same core system lower impact for less serious offenses.

What I do perhaps like about their system is each category seems more clearly defined why with the AFL medium impact doesn't really cross over between a tackle and a bump.

In most incidences though I tend to agree the AFL focuses way too much on damaged cased and works back from there for form a punishment rather than the action itself - I though there was some improvident this year on that mind you esp low level tackles where there was minimal head contact with the ground in tackles

Impact is the AFL's sliding scale, where with what you're proposing a level below careless I think you're suddendenly trying to create 2 different sliding scales to every offense where the lines can easily be blurred
 

Frederico_WA

West Africa's #1 qooty player
May 9, 2014
5,603
10,682
Donnybrook, WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
OKC (NBA), Geelong (AFLW)
The Maynard rule? Brayshaw hit sparks proposed MRO changes
The Maynard rule? Brayshaw hit sparks proposed MRO change

Seems the AFL now want players to learn how to fly so they can avoid contact all together.

Oh and chase down tackles have to be softer somehow.

Also glad they are finally tackling this blight on the game:
Screenshot_20231214_153029_AFL.jpg


Ffs ....
 

LordLucifer

Cranky Old Fart
Mar 20, 2002
23,991
24,657
Mosman Village
AFL Club
Carlton
The AFL is also concerned about coaches on the bench whistling and interrupting the broadcast audio.

“Club football officials continue to whistle from the interchange bench to get the attention of players, which interrupts the audio of match broadcasts. It is proposed to include a new regulation prohibiting whistling or making any other such noises to communicate from the interchange bench,” the memo read.

I too read that part and thought its official, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.