- Moderator
- #1
MRP / Trib. 2023 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
They are very different games where the kicker only has one available action, and, Maynard was penalised. The ump paid the free.
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
Yes, the ad agency was heavily involved in getting that term out and about on social media...imo!
If it was the 70's Maynard would not have walked from the ground....
My take on the Maynard circus (somewhat tainted by the ouzo here on the Greek Islands). If you want to take a player out, just attempt a front on smother while going full tilt.
- Jun 20, 2019
- 4,203
- 13,999
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I've appreciated many of the insights and analysis in this thread re Maynard case. We had different opinions in our family. Below is a link to ABC article. My question: does "this incident will be subject to close examination at the end of the season" mean rules could be adjusted to take into account Maynard type situations? And if so, how?
www.abc.net.au
AFL to review Maynard case after the season, as Demons player's father slams 'jaw-dropping' decision
The AFL concedes the Brayden Maynard tribunal decision "will not sit well with everyone" while accepting the not guilty verdict.
www.abc.net.au
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,422
- 20,454
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Whatever you do, don’t attempt a tackle…
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,883
RPCB
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,884
Demon’s father smashes ‘disgusting’ AFL after tribunal call
The tribunal’s decision has ripped the AFL world apart and a former great is fuming.
7news.com.au
“Former Collingwood player Brodie Holland also responded to Smith’s Facebook comments.
“Definitely an accident and he hit a bloke with a glass jaw,” Holland wrote.
“He’d be incredibly unlucky if he’d been suspended.”
Thank you, Brodie. But please stop thinking, you might hurt your head.
I tell you what after Stan Magro ironed out Alex Jesaulenko there was some argy bargy between supporters on the Bulleen bus on the way home - I can only imagine what was happening on the Hurstbridge and Epping Line trains on the way home too.
As I have said previously. I DON'T GIVE A STUFF ABOUT MAYNARD.
Can someone with more time and dedication than me please conduct an analysis on Michael CHRISTIAN and his penchant for over-penalising Carlton players?
It seems that the CFC are forever successfully appealing penalties Christian has given Carlton players.
It would be interesting to see how many he has charged, the penalty given, how many times we have appealed, and how many times we have been successful in overturning/reducing the penalty.
I found the Martin penalty infuriating, basing it on high impact when the 'victim' played out the entire game and was one of the Swans best player. Yet, in the same round he gives Van Rooyen medium impact.
Can someone with more time and dedication than me please conduct an analysis on Michael CHRISTIAN and his penchant for over-penalising Carlton players?
It seems that the CFC are forever successfully appealing penalties Christian has given Carlton players.
It would be interesting to see how many he has charged, the penalty given, how many times we have appealed, and how many times we have been successful in overturning/reducing the penalty.
I found the Martin penalty infuriating, basing it on high impact when the 'victim' played out the entire game and was one of the Swans best player. Yet, in the same round he gives Van Rooyen medium impact.
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,888
- Jun 6, 2012
- 10,024
- 17,815
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Rampage
It does seem a bit sus. The AFL went to the tribunal arguing that they graded it high impact because "the action had the potential to cause injury", as if they don't understand their own grading system (or the difference between impact and potential).
With my tin foil hat on - I think they knew it was only worth 1 week, but in giving 2 weeks they forced Carlton into the common sense appeal of getting it down to 1; whereas if they initially gave 1 week Carlton would have made a hail mary appeal attempting to get it down to zero.
It's all a bit bizarre when Van Rooyen gets 1 week, and Melbourne choose not to challenge for fear it may get upgraded....and in the same week Martin gets 2 weeks for a similar incident, and successfully challenge to get it downgraded to 1 week.
Even the media jocks who thought that Martin deserved 2 weeks all agreed that Van Rooyen also deserved 2 weeks.
I think Christo needs a cup of tea, a couple of bex, and a good lie down....
- Aug 22, 2014
- 14,016
- 51,129
- AFL Club
- Carlton
My main issue with this whole thing has been the complete lack of scrutiny on Michael Christian.
There are 17 other clubs in the competition, who would have had their player charged by the MRO had they done what Maynard did.
Plowman was charged after making high contact while spoiling a ball.
Cripps was charged after making high contact while contesting an aerial ball.
Lynch was charged after making high contact on arriving slightly late to a marking contest.
It's clear that, in the past, Christian has been more than happy to charge players for making incidental contact during a "football act".
Wind the clock forward and the ex-Collingwood player decides that a Collingwood player has no case to answer for making high contact while attempting (and failing) to smother a ball. Not only that, but when his direct manager, the new GM of Football Operations, decides that it is imperative that the charge be laid and the case reviewed by the tribunal....he threatens to quit his post.
And yet - no mention of this in any of the official media channels. Nobody on Twitter or Facebook or some random podcast with a decent following. The case dominated the headlines, and rightly so, but why has there been not a ****ing peep about the fact that an ex-Collingwood player with what appears to be almost sole judiciary powers, who has shown a willingness to suspend players for incidental high contact, decided he would die on the hill of "Maynard has no case to answer for almost killing a bloke"?
Irrespective of the tribunal's ultimate findings, the fact that Christian did not want him cited at all is suspicious at best and damning at worst.
There are 17 other clubs in the competition, who would have had their player charged by the MRO had they done what Maynard did.
Plowman was charged after making high contact while spoiling a ball.
Cripps was charged after making high contact while contesting an aerial ball.
Lynch was charged after making high contact on arriving slightly late to a marking contest.
It's clear that, in the past, Christian has been more than happy to charge players for making incidental contact during a "football act".
Wind the clock forward and the ex-Collingwood player decides that a Collingwood player has no case to answer for making high contact while attempting (and failing) to smother a ball. Not only that, but when his direct manager, the new GM of Football Operations, decides that it is imperative that the charge be laid and the case reviewed by the tribunal....he threatens to quit his post.
And yet - no mention of this in any of the official media channels. Nobody on Twitter or Facebook or some random podcast with a decent following. The case dominated the headlines, and rightly so, but why has there been not a ****ing peep about the fact that an ex-Collingwood player with what appears to be almost sole judiciary powers, who has shown a willingness to suspend players for incidental high contact, decided he would die on the hill of "Maynard has no case to answer for almost killing a bloke"?
Irrespective of the tribunal's ultimate findings, the fact that Christian did not want him cited at all is suspicious at best and damning at worst.
Last edited:
That’s a rhetorical question yeah ?
- Sep 28, 2018
- 4,894
- 9,002
- AFL Club
- Carlton
#Save Ferris
Putting aside whether Christian is bias or not.
How the tribunal found that Maynard deciding to jump and launch himself into Brayshaw wasn’t a careless act amazes me. Most realistic smothers don’t require players to jump/launch into the air. Take it away Buzz…
thylacine60
Post-Human
- Banned
- #2,897
there - at waverley sitting right behind it.........
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
Putting aside whether Christian is bias or not.
How the tribunal found that Maynard deciding to jump and launch himself into Brayshaw wasn’t a careless act amazes me. Most realistic smothers don’t require players to jump/launch into the air. Take it away Buzz…
It's clear they got they result they wanted.
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,372
- 16,290
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
Going to be a lot of Melbourne supporters eating their words on Pickett this week. Elected to bump, left the ground, caught Cripps high - if it's about intent and not outcome, he'd get weeks (he won't)
He must get weeks, second time he has sprung up and collected someone high this year!
Probably broke crippa’s nose and blackened his eye.
So intentional, high contact, high impact.
Just cos Crippa is the hulk doesn’t get you off.
His jumper punch is a week as well.
And whoever through Walsh into the fence gets weeks too, slinging action head high contact careless.
Viney catching Fogarty high should also be a week!
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Status
Similar threads
