MRO Thread

[soupman]

Sorry but that?s just silly. Who cares about missing early games next year if you?ve won your team a final with a thuggish act.

Clearly everyone that's played a Grand Final in the last couple of decades? It's the same scenario there, you don't get penalised until after the finals, yet I can't recall any "thuggish acts".

[jazzadogs]

Very sad. All because he moved into the path of a human canon ball.

Welllll....also because he has a history of concussions and had been told one more could end his career. You wonder why the existing brain injury wasn't enough for them to rule to that he should end his career - only if the brain injury gets worse.

It is extremely sad, but he also went for contested marks, he dived at loose balls in centre bounces, he tackled and was tackled - the risk of him suffering another concussion and worsening his brain injury was significant.

Whether you think Maynard's actions were reportable or not, he can't be blamed if Brayshaw's career is ended.

[soupman]

Are all these all up for suspension under your scenario

https://twitter.com/kanecornes/statu...16793283739889

Yes. Why not? (I assume) they got concussed by a guys knee recklessly hitting their head with zero opportunity to protect themselves.

It's easy to take speckies without concussing blokes, how many has Naughton taken and what's his body count?

Yes Cordys knee also gets him done. It's your responsibility to go into a contest and not pose a threat to the on going well being of other players. You can use your knee to "protect yourself" or help with momentum but if some guy gets knocked out from that decision then you wear the consequences.

Pretty simple isn't it, and at least it means the league consistently holds players to account.

As for whether or not it makes the sport non contact, I don't think it does. You can still do everything you have always been able to, but if an action you initiate hurts someone, regardless of intention, then bad luck you get suspended.

[MrMahatma]

I haven't seen the behind the goals vision. Where is it? Couldn't find it via the googles.

I think he should've gotten off. The injury sucks but I think it was a realistic smother attempt, and I'd want our defenders trying to disrupt the kick, even if it meant the kicker had to kick higher, or on an angle they didn't really want to. The result sucks for Brayshaw but the second I saw it I figured Maynard should get off.

[SonofScray]

How would you feel if it was Bontempelli on the end of that?

I'd want a free kick, and I'd go ape shit in the stands for about 10 seconds.

Then I might see a replay, call the opposition a malaka and life would go on.

[mjp]

This is a challenging situation and I know everyone has black (suspend for 3-weeks) and white (no charge to answer) opinions but I think it's a fair bit more complicated than that.

Maynard was careless - I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.
Brayshaw was unlucky.

To those suggesting Brayshaw contributed to the contact because he was 'seduced by the goals' etc - well...that's what he's supposed to do. The person with the ball is in charge and can do whatever they want. It isn't Brayshaw's fault in any way.

To those saying Maynard's was NOT a footy action because he jumped in the air...well, if someone is going to kick the footy, then you have to jump in the air to spoil it. Saying Maynard was attempting to 'smother' as I keep reading is simply not really what he was doing and it confuses the issue.

I am surprised he got off altogether because I think his CARELESS action enabled Collingwood to win the game...he hit him in the head - HARD. His injury history shouldn't come into the decision but he still hit him in the head. Was he unlucky to do so? Yes - but not as unlucky as Brayshaw.

Comparing this to other plays trying to leap over packs to take marks? Umm - their intent is 100% for the ball so it isn't the same thing, it isn't the same ball-park...it's barely the same sport.

The tribunal has made a mistake. Maynard was clearly careless and the contact was high. 1-week. See you Grand Final day if you make it. The AFL should appeal this.

[Grantysghost]

Maybe its just time to make AFL non-contact so no one gets collision injuries anymore.

Don't straw man it!

I really think Maynard was really reckless in this instance. I can't speak for other things unless you point me to one.

Even the defense called him a Frisbee with arms and legs.

I'm not taking into account Brayshaw's previous concussions that's a decision he has made with the Demons and that's their policy.

I still don't get why Brayshaw isn't afforded the same protections that the instigator of a reckless smother attempt is?

Maynard is allowed to "protect" himself or his head however Brayshaw apparently in a kicking action where you're definitely not expecting a flying player to be falling into you is not afforded these protections via policy/sanction for the act.

Strange one.

P. S. Send macaroons.

[Rocket Science]

Not sure what you are exactly trying to say?
Fake toughness?
One part of being tough is that you?re able to take without complaint what you dish out.

All you need to do is check out 2018 gf. The Ryan bump on him shows he can?t take what he gives out. The whining after the Sheed mark is another tell tale. Never given away a deserved free kick in his career.

Just trying to reconcile the claim Maynard's a "fake toughman" which is apparently confirmed by having his ribs caved in while fully exposed reaching for a high ball and needing a second to suck in some air?

Okey doke.

I see a bloke who cares deeply and plays like it and gee what I'd give for a few more of those in our colours, especially one with such immaculately gelled hair.

[bornadog]

Yes. Why not? (I assume) they got concussed by a guys knee recklessly hitting their head with zero opportunity to protect themselves.

It's easy to take speckies without concussing blokes, how many has Naughton taken and what's his body count?

Yes Cordys knee also gets him done. It's your responsibility to go into a contest and not pose a threat to the on going well being of other players. You can use your knee to "protect yourself" or help with momentum but if some guy gets knocked out from that decision then you wear the consequences.

Pretty simple isn't it, and at least it means the league consistently holds players to account.

As for whether or not it makes the sport non contact, I don't think it does. You can still do everything you have always been able to, but if an action you initiate hurts someone, regardless of intention, then bad luck you get suspended.

May as well play touch footy then

[bornadog]

Just trying to reconcile the claim Maynard's a "fake toughman" which is apparently confirmed by having his ribs caved in while fully exposed reaching for a high ball and needing a second to suck in some air?

Okey doke.

I see a bloke who cares deeply and plays like it and gee what I'd give for a few more of those in our colours, especially one with such immaculately gelled hair.

As I have said before, I would have him in my team anytime.

[soupman]

May as well play touch footy then

Not sure how making it clear that you can't just be free of the consequences of concussing someone because you were "doing a football action" makes the sport non contact.

There is an abundance of contact in the sport, I don't think saying players need to be somewhat careful when they execute some actions is too much to ask. I mean I've played 100s of games of footy, don't think I've concussed anyone.

[jazzadogs]

.

The tribunal has made a mistake. Maynard was clearly careless and the contact was high. 1-week. See you Grand Final day if you make it. The AFL should appeal this.

Does the tribunal have the power to do that? I think their options were either guilty = 3 weeks or not guilty = no suspension.

So it's a failure of the system, rather than the tribunal making a mistake.

[bornadog]

The AFL should appeal this.

Confirmed they won't be appealing

[Sedat]

This is a challenging situation and I know everyone has black (suspend for 3-weeks) and white (no charge to answer) opinions but I think it's a fair bit more complicated than that.

Maynard was careless - I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.
Brayshaw was unlucky.

To those suggesting Brayshaw contributed to the contact because he was 'seduced by the goals' etc - well...that's what he's supposed to do. The person with the ball is in charge and can do whatever they want. It isn't Brayshaw's fault in any way.

To those saying Maynard's was NOT a footy action because he jumped in the air...well, if someone is going to kick the footy, then you have to jump in the air to spoil it. Saying Maynard was attempting to 'smother' as I keep reading is simply not really what he was doing and it confuses the issue.

I am surprised he got off altogether because I think his CARELESS action enabled Collingwood to win the game...he hit him in the head - HARD. His injury history shouldn't come into the decision but he still hit him in the head. Was he unlucky to do so? Yes - but not as unlucky as Brayshaw.

Comparing this to other plays trying to leap over packs to take marks? Umm - their intent is 100% for the ball so it isn't the same thing, it isn't the same ball-park...it's barely the same sport.

The tribunal has made a mistake. Maynard was clearly careless and the contact was high. 1-week. See you Grand Final day if you make it. The AFL should appeal this.

I'm surprised any of the above is even being argued. Maynard is not Hannibal Lector but he was obviously careless - there are dozens of smother attempts in every single game, and yet this is the only one ever executed in the history of the game that has not only concussed a player, it rendered him unconscious for 2 minutes. It was a brutal hit and it was 100% the responsibility of Maynard. And now Brayshaw's entire career hangs in the balance, but because he had a couple of sleepless nights we are all suddenly supposed to feel great sympathy and pity for Maynard.

Good on the filth for getting their man off, but they are incredibly lucky (as is Maynard) and they know it.

I normally hate the hypothetical game but imagine if a douchebag like Steven May hit Nick Daicos in exactly the same way. Or dare I say it, if Toby Greene did. The good bloke defence is alive and well.

[JanLorMill]

Clearly everyone that's played a Grand Final in the last couple of decades? It's the same scenario there, you don't get penalised until after the finals, yet I can't recall any "thuggish acts".

2 wrongs don?t make a right.
Off the top of my head. Lynch was 2004 though they lost, Long 2000. Danger tried in 2020.
Making all finals a ?free hit? will just promote it