Discussion 2023 General AFL Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a very difficult thing to sort out. Really it comes down to should you be punished for an accident if it results in something bad happening.

Remember this when Ben King punched his own team mate in the head by accident? Should he have been sanctioned?

I get it. My solution is imperfect. King gets off under my rules and Maynard doesn’t. The jumper seems a somewhat arbitrary distinction.

But under the present position, Brayshaw is the one who is punished for his football act (kicking a football). That is less just for mine.
 
I get it. My solution is imperfect. King gets off under my rules and Maynard doesn’t. The jumper seems a somewhat arbitrary distinction.

But under the present position, Brayshaw is the one who is punished for his football act (kicking a football). That is less just for mine.
I do get your point, that everyone’s focusing on Maynard and not Brayshaw who gets the privilege of watching the finals from the sidelines concussed.
 
I thought the original argument about a teammate was David Mundy who was saying would Maynard have dropped the shoulder if it was an intraclub and it was Pendles or Daicos in the Brayshaw position.

Its not about suspending guys for contact on a teammate its about whether Maynard had another option than "bracing".
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I thought the original argument about a teammate was David Mundy who was saying would Maynard have dropped the shoulder if it was an intraclub and it was Pendles or Daicos in the Brayshaw position.

Its not about suspending guys for contact on a teammate its about whether Maynard had another option than "bracing".


It's a tough one still. Maynard took Brayshaw out of the finals series. It was actually a massive benefit to Collingwood to take a key piece out of a rivals side. If their laws are designed to discourage taking the brutal option over the more low impact one the laws failed. Next time I'm needing to get through in a final, I'm now taking the risk if I'm a player.

They have multiple interests to balance though. The AFL want the Pies to win a flag because a strong Pies is good for the bank balance in financially tight times. They also want the best players in for finals just for the spectacle.

If you're going on the vibe rather than using the made-up legal system that they pretend to have (without precedence...except sometimes), he probably should have gone for 2 to 3 weeks. Discouraging players taking the dangerous option except in absolutely rare situations is probably the first and last reason you need to suspend him.
 
It's a tough one still. Maynard took Brayshaw out of the finals series. It was actually a massive benefit to Collingwood to take a key piece out of a rivals side. If their laws are designed to discourage taking the brutal option over the more low impact one the laws failed. Next time I'm needing to get through in a final, I'm now taking the risk if I'm a player.

They have multiple interests to balance though. The AFL want the Pies to win a flag because a strong Pies is good for the bank balance in financially tight times. They also want the best players in for finals just for the spectacle.

If you're going on the vibe rather than using the made-up legal system that they pretend to have (without precedence...except sometimes), he probably should have gone for 2 to 3 weeks. Discouraging players taking the dangerous option except in absolutely rare situations is probably the first and last reason you need to suspend him.
Tend to agree.

For me personally it’s not a suspension.

For me based on the AFLs precedent (which as you point out they apply sparingly when it suits) he had to go for 3 weeks.

It’s a weird one where I’m actually comfortable with the outcome but think it just shows how fundamentally cooked the system is. The Bedford one was similar in that way.
 
Tend to agree.

For me personally it’s not a suspension.

For me based on the AFLs precedent (which as you point out they apply sparingly when it suits) he had to go for 3 weeks.

It’s a weird one where I’m actually comfortable with the outcome but think it just shows how fundamentally cooked the system is. The Bedford one was similar in that way.


To me it's fail because at the end of the day the rules have been set up to try to change the way footy has been played. We want players to only hit as an absolute last resort or accident. They have suspended heaps in the name of changing the way footy has been played but then sometimes they show unexplained lenience. I think that they lose track of what they want to achieve at times preferring money or different outcomes depending on the moment.

To me it encourages players to go in hard next time and like a strict parent that sits down and smokes a joint with their 15 year old kid, they have sent mixed messages constantly. Don't clean up players ever....except sometimes when its okay. I know that they are trying to assess intent but that seems to not apply in some cases either.

If there is an important game on the line and I'm a player I take the risk instead of holding back from contact. It's worth the gamble.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Divided if I want Carlton to suffer humiliation now or to let them get to losing a grand final so they vastly over-estimate their team and stagnate for another 10 years as a result just like another team whose name escapes me

EDIT: I'll go with humiliation tonight and still have a superiority complex which stops them from addressing their weaknesses and getting a reality check for the next 5 years
 
De Koning is Dutch I think, so maybe Van Gogh painted his great grandfather jacking off a pig behind a haystack in some of his early work before he was kicked out of art school.

Tom in particular has an evil little smile, when he kicks a goal, he looks like a little boy with jam around his mouth tormenting a cat in some twisted early nursery rhyme book.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to say what we're all thinking:

The De Koning brothers both look like nearly 20th century illustrations of children from the Victorian era but on long beanpole bodies.


Or bumpkins from the Swiss alps. Could see them both shovelling hay with a wooden pitchfork.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top