Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[Chief]

Continued in Part 2:

Oppo Camp - Non-Eagles Discussion

Who gives a **** about finals anyway So overrated It’s all about the draft these days

www.bigfooty.com

 

[EagleEgo]

Wasn't really my point but play on.

That is the danger of reading only half of the story.

 

[jesterwester]

I think it’ll eventually get to a point where if your feet leave the ground and you make contact with your opponents head then you’ll miss games

The exceptions to this will be marking and ruck contests plus those instances where two players are contesting possession for a ball that’s in the air

I don’t particularly like it but it’s where things are understandably heading to minimise the risk of concussion

Personally, I think it’s why the AFL made the decision to send it straight to tribunal.

IMO the MRP would have had enough grounds to class it as a football collision and I suspect that the majority of the public wouldn’t have raised too much fuss, to be honest. I don’t think anyone would argue that Maynard deliberately made the decision to take out Brayshaw when he left the ground to spoil.

But, With all due respects to both Brayshaw and his concussion and Maynard missing a GF, it’s a bigger conversation than both. I think it’s an intriguing insight into the future of footy as we watch it, even if in reality this was just an unusual event you don’t see every week. That being exactly what you said- the clear impetus is on you if you make the choice to leave the ground in a contest and collect another player high.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Maynards jumped forward instead of jumping upward. This defines the intent.

That's a reach.


Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[EagleEgo]

That's a reach.


Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Even worst, the ball is above his head. So he was trying to reach the man and not the ball.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Even worst, the ball is above his head. So he was trying to reach the man and not the ball.

I thought he braced. Now he's reaching.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Keys]

Personally, I think it’s why the AFL made the decision to send it straight to tribunal.

IMO the MRP would have had enough grounds to class it as a football collision and I suspect that the majority of the public wouldn’t have raised too much fuss, to be honest. I don’t think anyone would argue that Maynard deliberately made the decision to take out Brayshaw when he left the ground to spoil.

But, With all due respects to both Brayshaw and his concussion and Maynard missing a GF, it’s a bigger conversation than both. I think it’s an intriguing insight into the future of footy as we watch it, even if in reality this was just an unusual event you don’t see every week. That being exactly what you said- the clear impetus is on you if you make the choice to leave the ground in a contest and collect another player high.

I think Maynard will be found guilty at the tribunal but get off on appeal due to some technicality or other. The AFL will be able to claim their acting to alleviate concussions but privately be happy he’s playing

Then they’ll adjust the rules in the off season

Or maybe I’m too cynical

 

[jesterwester]

I think Maynard will be found guilty at the tribunal but get off on appeal due to some technicality or other. The AFL will be able to claim their acting to alleviate concussions but privately be happy he’s playing

Then they’ll adjust the rules in the off season

Or maybe I’m too cynical

Perhaps I am also cynical but I would agree.

The part I find difficult, and impossible for players, is they are playing in a real time world but they are being judged, not only in slow motion, but now also for the “game of tomorrow”. I dont think you can change the gameposts quite so suddenly and fairly judge Maynard for that.

But the cynic in me thinks it has only gone so far because they don’t like the image of Brayshaw unconscious for the length of time he was. It’s all about protecting the brand and by sending it to a tribunal means they can look strong whilst hiding time to consider their options behind closed doors.

So it will go like you said, then they will send out some some strong wording to all clubs in the off season around culpability in collisions even if they may historically have been classed as footy actions. Inevitably some one inconsequential will cop a 6 week ban in the pre-season next year and they will all clap each other on the back and call it a win for player safety.

 

[EagleEgo]

I thought he braced. Now he's reaching.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

It will be interesting if he is cleared tomorrow. Hit men will be out copying this act to their competitive advantage.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Did maynard bump?

i thought he braced for contact.

there should also be an onus on the player to protect themselves. IMO brayshaw should have been expecting some form of contact.

i guess we cant even smother now.

We're at the stage where minor movements by Maynard while in the air are being interpreted as intent. That's entering into the world of the absurd.

Maynard hit Brayshaw front on and people are saying he bumped or needed to consciously extend his arms to cushion to blow.

If the AFL has a duty of care Brayshaw would have been retired already.

 

[Ishmael_]

I think Maynard will be found guilty at the tribunal but get off on appeal due to some technicality or other. The AFL will be able to claim their acting to alleviate concussions but privately be happy he’s playing

Then they’ll adjust the rules in the off season

Or maybe I’m too cynical

I think the same. But I disagree that it's cynical. It would be the right thing to do.

Next year make it clear that whatever you do, if you concuss someone, and it was foreseeable, you get a week. No distinguishing between 'football' and 'non-football' acts. No getting off for 'contesting the ball'.

Strict liability but you can show leniency in the penalties. Get rid of the matrix (keep loose guidelines) and bring back precedent. Penalties are based on the MROs previous decisions, which they are bound by, and limit the tribunal's appeal powers to procedural fairness and 'errors of law' (e.g. not following precedent).

This would allow the AFL to make sweeping changes and hide behind the MRO. Players and coaches would learn very quickly.

It would change the game irrevocably and that would suck, Aussie Rules would in time become semi-contact. But we're headed there already and this confusing slow death does nobody any favours.

 

[KERRPOW]

Personally, I think it’s why the AFL made the decision to send it straight to tribunal.

The AFL intervened because brayshaw got concussed and was KO'd for 2mins.

If he didnt get KO'd then this wouldnt have even been cited.

 

[Seadog]

I think the same. But I disagree that it's cynical. It would be the right thing to do.

Next year make it clear that whatever you do, if you concuss someone, and it was foreseeable, you get a week. No distinguishing between 'football' and 'non-football' acts. No getting off for 'contesting the ball'.

Strict liability but you can show leniency in the penalties. Get rid of the matrix (keep loose guidelines) and bring back precedent. Penalties are based on the MROs previous decisions, which they are bound by, and limit the tribunal's appeal powers to procedural fairness and 'errors of law' (e.g. not following precedent).

This would allow the AFL to make sweeping changes and hide behind the MRO. Players and coaches would learn very quickly.

It would change the game irrevocably and that would suck, Aussie Rules would in time become semi-contact. But we're headed there already and this confusing slow death does nobody any favours.

I'm with Ross Lyon when he basically said the term "footy action" is horseshit. Shepherding, bumping and tackling are footy actions and all can lead to suspension if you get it wrong.

 

[kingerzz]

It's just a suspension everyday of the week. NBA players manage to charge at shooters and not knock them out. It was a reckless action and deserves a minimum of 3 weeks if not 4. Anyone that thinks this shouldn't be a suspension is a dinosaur and has lost sight of what is important.

 

[mick06]

It was prohibited, late contact, so a downfield free kick no matter what the outcome on brayshaw, if it was high or not.

It was high contact, he braced and knocked him out. Alternative? Put your hands out and push off / brush off brayshaw, i think thats a reasonable alternative that he had. His hands were up, it took more effort to brace than to put his hands out to brayshaw and 'push off' his chest. Looking at it, thats how i would have acted in that scenario. He was done anyway with a free kick down field, so bracing wasn't going to save anything.

Having said this, it didn't look malicious and its very 50/50 how it's viewed. If it was against an Eagle i think we would be livid and want the team to remonstrate. If it was an eagle in Maynards position, we would strongly defend him.

I still think he gets off throughout the process.

 

[squashface]

If you bump someone fairly then it's play on and you don't have a case to answer to. If you bump someone high you get suspended.

Similarly, if Maynard's smother attempt made no high contact then he would have been fine but he collected him high so he will get suspended.

 

[Spange]

Compare the pair. Both players, chicky and Maynard are attempting a smother.

One opposition player ends up concussed below. Can you guess which one?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Compare the pair. Both players, chicky and Maynard are attempting a smother.

One opposition player ends up concussed below. Can you guess which one?

Chick was at the ball drop to smother. Maynard was in no position to spoil the ball off the boot.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[ziad]

We're at the stage where minor movements by Maynard while in the air are being interpreted as intent. That's entering into the world of the absurd.

Maynard hit Brayshaw front on and people are saying he bumped or needed to consciously extend his arms to cushion to blow.

If the AFL has a duty of care Brayshaw would have been retired already.

Agreed, Maynards problem is that the incident is newish and the outcome not good for Brayshaw or the AFL. Maynard will likely be found guilty under a retrospective interpretation. Its unfair and unreasonable but the inconsistencies are soo deep than is life. Next a high mark with a knee to the head? It is absolutely predictable so the actions should be banned now, not after the even if the AFL is for real.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Agreed, Maynards problem is that the incident is newish and the outcome not good for Brayshaw or the AFL. Maynard will likely be found guilty under a retrospective interpretation. Its unfair and unreasonable but the inconsistencies are soo deep than is life. Next a high mark with a knee to the head? It is absolutely predictable so the actions should be banned now, not after the even if the AFL is for real.

It's a likely outcome.

The concern I have is the AFL is allowing players like Brayshaw to continue playing. We've seen numerous players retire after repeat concussions and we're always acting as if it's a single event.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[ziad]

It's a likely outcome.

The concern I have is the AFL is allowing players like Brayshaw to continue playing. We've seen numerous players retire after repeat concussions and we're always acting as if it's a single event.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Playing lip service to concussion at the moment. A couple of heavy payouts will sort that out.

 

[KERRPOW]

We're at the stage where minor movements by Maynard while in the air are being interpreted as intent. That's entering into the world of the absurd.

Maynard hit Brayshaw front on and people are saying he bumped or needed to consciously extend his arms to cushion to blow.

If the AFL has a duty of care Brayshaw would have been retired already.

Brutal, but agree.

 

[The Passenger]

Maynard could have easily lessened the impact.

He could have stayed upright or put his arms in the chest/should region of brayshaw.

But he clearly drops his shoulder after the ball passes. I don't see how that's possible to refute. Most of us have played footy before... It's the action of someone who wants to get a cheeky dig in at ab oppo player. Unfortunately he misjudged it completely and knocked brayshaw out.

You initiated a contact that didn't have to happen and you did so off your feet. Sorry mate, that's 2-3 weeks these days. IMO it's the correct call.

 

[The Passenger]

Also, let's also be honest... This is only a debate due to happening in finals and the potential to cost a guy a flag.

Which goes to show where most in the footy industry stands on "protecting the head".

 

[EagleEgo]

TOM MORRIS: Inside the AFL's call to overrule MRO on Maynard - and how Tribunal verdict will shape the game

It’s a myth Match Review Officer Michael Christian is independent. He works for the AFL, serving the needs of the game on a weekly…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[Bender_]

‘It was a dramatic day’: AFL heavyweight threatened to quit over internal conflict as ‘bluff called’

Wild quit threat over internal AFL conflict revealed as ‘bluff called’ in ‘dramatic’ scenes

www.foxsports.com.au

Oh no please Michael! Please! Don't **** off and never be heard from again you complete waste of space!