Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[Bramax]

Phase 3 jumping to spoil ball is a vertical movement similar to centre square ruck. He jumps to spoil ball to reach higHest vertical point. This action has much more forward action and has intent to collide with player. Duty of care not followed , should be suspended.

What hypocritical rubbish.

If it were Butters, Rozee or JHF, you’d be screaming blue murder there is no case to answer.

 

[Kes1984]

Brayshaw being possibly concussed by Adams prior to the Maynard smother incident is just speculation. He showed no signs of having been concussed or impaired, and wasn’t assessed for a concussion at the time. I don’t see how it can be relied upon in any way in Maynard’s defence.

I think it shows a pattern of behaviour that despite his history, Brayshaw has little care for his own safety and avoidance of further head knocks.
Diving head first into Adams’ legs, not watching where he’s running into the path of Maynard, all in the space of 5 min.

 

[Kes1984]

Phase 3 jumping to spoil ball is a vertical movement similar to centre square ruck. He jumps to spoil ball to reach higHest vertical point. This action has much more forward action and has intent to collide with player. Duty of care not followed , should be suspended.

Rightio champ

 

[Bramax]

Fox Footy’s Garry Lyon fears the Maynard case will create a precedence going forward, allowing opponents to cannon into players under the guise of a smother.

“You open yourself up for that action in every other game when you say it’s a footy action,” he argued.

“I’m not surprise this goes (to the Tribunal) – put it up before the Tribunal and let them all go and present their cases.

“If it’s a footy action – is that what we want in footy? Are we going to be accepting of that?

“When you jump off the ground you take away any control.​

“If it comes out and they say this is an acceptable footy action, then we need to have to accept that now can happen in any game.

“You can run and jump to spoil, and take someone out and knock ‘em out.”


I wonder if Lyon would share the same views if a Melb player was in Maynard’s position…

Perhaps Lyon thinks a rule needs to be implemented that players feet are no longer permitted to leave the ground. It would make the game so much safer for Garry.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that Laura Kane got a little excited and tried to exert her power unnecessarily just because she got the job?

There was a meeting between all the big wigs at AFL House. She didn't make this decision on her own.

 

[Bramax]

Only accidents that are careless land in suspension.

I don’t understand what you mean by “the general argument state-of-the-art here is a poor one”?

Exactly.

 

[Bramax]

There was a meeting between all the big wigs at AFL House. She didn't make this decision on her own.

She may have called the meeting and pushed for suspension.

 

[Vicky Park]

There was a meeting between all the big wigs at AFL House. She didn't make this decision on her own.

Thanks for clarifying that, as others have, but it won’t stop the trolling. The process which has been followed seems - from the outside - to have been the correct one.

 

[Didak Wine]

Perhaps Lyon thinks a rule needs to be implemented that players feet are no longer permitted to leave the ground. It would make the game so much safer for Garry.

Lyons head wobbles when he says something scripted, or when he his simply emotional. Bruz will get off. I wouldn't worry about it anymore

 

[jathanas]

Not a lot of substance in this Garry Lyon piece. It's like foam, whole lot of words but not much to it.

A bit like his upstairs department I suspect.

I think you're being harsh on Garry.

He understands how important it is to have established non-negotiable values. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Would you date a mate's wife?

Garry wouldn't want to be the kind of guy that sets that kind of example. Oh wait...

 

[Vicky Park]

She may have called the meeting and pushed for suspension.

This is all supposition.

I believe she has been acting in her position for most of the year, which leads me to think she has been involved in this process for all that time. There would have been other MRO referrals involving Kane - why the focus on her now?

We are all on edge because Maynard is involved, but seeking to lay blame at Kane’s feet because this has gone to the Tribunal is disingenuous at best, and at worst - something else.

 

[Bramax]

This is all supposition.

I believe she has been acting in her position for most of the year, which leads me to think she has been involved in this process for all that time. There would have been other MRO referrals involving Kane - why the focus on her now?

We are all on edge because Maynard is involved, but seeking to lay blame at Kane’s feet because this has gone to the Tribunal is disingenuous at best, and at worst - something else.

I thought it was Kane whi was the one that overruled thd MRO? Are you telling me that’s not the case?

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

Phase 3 jumping to spoil ball is a vertical movement similar to centre square ruck. He jumps to spoil ball to reach higHest vertical point. This action has much more forward action and has intent to collide with player. Duty of care not followed , should be suspended.

How is this any different from jumping into a pack to mark or spoil the ball especially if coming from the side. Jumping to mark or spoil is vertical movement. Jump at the highest vertical point is the intent. There is always a possibility to collide with players forming a pack. Duty of care? And because you are in the air you always would brace for the fall with or without the ball. There was no intent to bump or tackel the ball carrier.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Fox Footy’s Garry Lyon fears the Maynard case will create a precedence going forward, allowing opponents to cannon into players under the guise of a smother.

“You open yourself up for that action in every other game when you say it’s a footy action,” he argued.

“I’m not surprise this goes (to the Tribunal) – put it up before the Tribunal and let them all go and present their cases.

“If it’s a footy action – is that what we want in footy? Are we going to be accepting of that?

“When you jump off the ground you take away any control.​

“If it comes out and they say this is an acceptable footy action, then we need to have to accept that now can happen in any game.

“You can run and jump to spoil, and take someone out and knock ‘em out.”


I wonder if Lyon would share the same views if a Melb player was in Maynard’s position…

Dumb **** only says that because it's a player he knows and a team he supports.

 

[windchimes]

I think you're being harsh on Garry.

He understands how important it is to have established non-negotiable values. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Would you date a mate's wife?

Garry wouldn't want to be the kind of guy that sets that kind of example. Oh wait...

I don't think old mate Garry would 'date' a man's wife per se but he may do other unspeakable misconduct with her, that we ought not to discuss on this family friendly platform.

But yes he sure lives and dies by his sword

 

[sideswipe]

I think you're being harsh on Garry.

He understands how important it is to have established non-negotiable values. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Would you date a mate's wife?

Garry wouldn't want to be the kind of guy that sets that kind of example. Oh wait...

Hard yes on a couple of them.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I think it shows a pattern of behaviour that despite his history, Brayshaw has little care for his own safety and avoidance of further head knocks.
Diving head first into Adams’ legs, not watching where he’s running into the path of Maynard, all in the space of 5 min.

Way too long a bow to draw. You may as well argue he was blinded by the stadium lights and so ran into Maynard.

 

[Vicky Park]

I thought it was Kane whi was the one that overruled thd MRO? Are you telling me that’s not the case?

Just saying we don’t know, but if it proves to be her, the other point I made is that there may have been other times this year when she did the same. She has been acting in her position for months. I’m querying why the focus on her and why now?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

She may have called the meeting and pushed for suspension.

None of us know who called the meeting and none of us know what was said in that meeting. And none of us know the motives.

It could be, and I'm hoping..it was to have this heard by the Tribunal so it could be tried, argued and clarified, so in the future incidents which are a result from a football act where players are trying to protect themselves are not treated in the same way as those graded as careless & reckless.

If that's the case, Maynard should be cleared.

 

[sam_e]

The changes the afl has made and will make in the future are based on knowledge at the time, not litigation. That is backward looking.

Are you a lawyer? If so, try harder.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Backward ..they co-exist, so not really sure what you’re arguing. Sure, conduct / behaviour is influenced by what you know, but also by what you do about it.

The threat of legal action has never influenced any type of behaviour in corporate or private life in the history of the world ..said no tobacco / mining /oil company or the NFL ever. In fact, the NFL class action was largely predicated on the fact they ‘knew’ but did nothing (or not enough) about it .. “they accused the NFL of being aware of the evidence and risks associated with repetitive traumatic brain injuries, but failing to warn and protect players against those long-term risks and ignoring and concealing this information from players.”

These organisations had ‘knowledge at the time’ and still did not act in good faith nor in line with their legal, contractual or moral obligations. Legal action or threat of litigation was the catalyst to initiate / force / accelerate the change to the standard required and/or to the level that would reduce their legal & brand risk.

Incompetence, negligence, apathy, financial greed, information asymmetry are all reasons that cause organisations and/or individuals to not act in good faith nor in line with the ‘knowledge’ they hold at the time.

In any event, ‘knowledge at the time’ includes any actual litigation, threat (likelihood) of litigation and potential damages + impact on brand. Organisations calculate this all time and factor it into decision-making, it’s just a commercial reality.

Are you a lawyer? If so, perhaps open your mind a little.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Brayshaw being possibly concussed by Adams prior to the Maynard smother incident is just speculation. He showed no signs of having been concussed or impaired, and wasn’t assessed for a concussion at the time. I don’t see how it can be relied upon in any way in Maynard’s defence.

Perhaps. But the AFL should be questioning it .

 

[thundercloud]

What hypocritical rubbish.

If it were Butters, Rozee or JHF, you’d be screaming blue murder there is no case to answer.
There is a case to answer he has been referred. Not a good comparison of players as they are all ball players.

 

[sr36]

There was a meeting between all the big wigs at AFL House. She didn't make this decision on her own.

Yeah. They basically threw out the MRO system for an incident because they wanted to reduce controversy. A bit of old fashioned AFL dodginess. No wonder they got a leak.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Perhaps. But the AFL should be questioning it .

It’s not even relevant.

This was an unavoidable collision on a football field. Maynard was committing a football act at high speed and airborne, and could not reasonably have foreseen the outcome.

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

Brayshaw did neither. It was almost like he either didn’t see Maynard (in which case he needs his eyes checked!) or he did but continued on with his normal kicking action and follow through as if I’m open play regardless of the impending impact

There is also another aspect here. He was wearing a protective helmet. It has been stated that players that wear helmets in contact sports believe they are safe and protected from impact. This mindset has an effect on how they play and the level of awareness of potential dangers around them. See american football.