Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[sr36]

Nope, players will being punished for running full pelt at a player and shoulder charging in someone’s head.

I don't understand. If you are saying he did that, why are you saying that he'll get off and it'll result in a rule change.

You don't need a rule change to suspend someone for "shoulder charging someone's head".

 

[JB1975]

Nah you just don't understand that severity of impact doesn't always determine if someone gets Ko'd or concussion.

Being hit in the right spot with a lesser impact can see that result vs a major greater impact in another part of the head that may see them rattled but straight back up.

So your attributing severity due to him being ko'd is wrong.

As for women having different bias, instincts and thoughts to men on most topics not just violent acts being wrong...its laughable to suggest there is no difference in the sexs and I'll stand by it.

Mate, whatever differences --biological, chemical, cultural-- there might be between men and women, two things are clear:

1. You are woefully unqualified to draw the line on those differences;

2. They have absolutely no relevance to the case of Maynard.

Stop talking absolute trash.

 

[loki04]

Mate, whatever differences --biological, chemical, cultural-- there might be between men and women, two things are clear:

1. You are woefully unqualified to draw the line on those differences;

2. They have absolutely no relevance to the case of Maynard.

Stop talking absolute trash.

1. I'm as qualified as any pleb on here your woeful self included.

2. I didn't actually reference Maynard and just made commentary around that sex is irrelevant.

 

[windchimes]

I see we're not holding off on the sexism with regards to Laura Kane?

FFS - I too was pissy about her being a party pooper but surely we're better than that? There have been continued thinly veiled insinuations about her being not qualified for the job as she's a woman, or not being able to understand what are clearly basic principles in regard to contact sports, etc which is piss weak, really.

 

[loki04]

I see we're not holding off on the sexism with regards to Laura Kane?

FFS - I too was pissy about her being a party pooper but surely we're better than that? There have been continued thinly veiled insinuations about her being not qualified for the job as she's a woman, etc which is piss weak.

There was no talk of her qualifications for said job.

The discussions center around stating there is no difference in men and women therefore irrelevant.

I was giving an example where there would be difference and everyone has bias. Men would have there own biases too.

 

[JB1975]

1. I'm as qualified as any pleb on here your woeful self included.

2. I didn't actually reference Maynard and just made commentary around that sex is irrelevant.

No, you've brought up one of your peanut theories and have tried to shoehorn it into the discussion.

It makes you look sillier than usual.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Firstly I wasn't referring to her the individual but as a whole on the comment that their is no difference on biases through the sexs.

And Serena Williams should play men in tennis matches am I doing it right?

No differences in the sexs yeah right.


And who says they have never let it influence their decisions? Just because they say it doesn't? Lol

Yes and again outliers in the general population not the general rule with your 2nd part of it.

Your natural biases are clearly coming through for everyone to see ..

 

[ZEV]

Just trying to unpack this post, and I don’t want to misrepresent what you’re saying - but - you seem to be implying that a female can’t make the call on an incident such as this because she has a natural disinclination for the physical aspects of the game.

Clearly the AFL brains trust don’t agree, given her appointment and how universally that has been lauded.

I still can’t believe that I have to have these discussions.

Then I remember - I’m on Big Footy!

From my understanding Laura Kane plays/played football.

From my limited viewing of AFLW the physical intensity and attack on players far exceed that of men's competitions.

 

[windchimes]

There was no talk of her qualifications for said job.

There discussions center around stating there is no difference in men and women therefore irrelevant.

I don't think you meant badly but you would benefit maybe from thinking before you write sometimes. She can be criticised just like anyone else but questioning her capabilities to judge a simple collision in a contact sport due to her gender is sexist regardless of intention. Bringing her gender into it needlessly is why these discussions come up.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It's weird those saying Maynard had no right to launch himself at a player, even though it was a smother and his right hand touches the ball .. but as he had to land somehow, those same people are saying he should not have turned and braced for contact .. but instead continued on that same trajectory & launch at the player front on, potentially causing even more catastrophic injuries to both players had their bodies, faces & heads smashed into each other front on.

So don't launch, but if you are launching, continue to launch..?? Lol.

 

[HyPIEcrite]

That awkward moment when you agree with Kornes for the first time…damn


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[loki04]

No, you've brought up one of your peanut theories and have tried to shoehorn it into the discussion.

It makes you look sillier than usual.

No. It's not a theory it's fact.
By and large Men and Women are different.
Built different.
Think different.
Talk different.
Act different.

The comment was around sex is irrelevant, where as I think it plays a part in the individuals personal bias or leaning in matters or their stance on a whole range of issues. You can take Kane and Maynard out of it I'm talking in general.

 

[Vicky Park]

There was no talk of her qualifications for said job.

The discussions center around stating there is no difference in men and women therefore irrelevant.

I was giving an example where there would be difference and everyone has bias. Men would have there own biases too.

Re the bolded, you implied that her gender would affect her ability to do her job, and her job includes the MRO.

That's why were all having this debate - its not a broader debate about nature versus nurture, or any other of those tired old discussions which I recall having in the 1980s!

At any rate, the decision is with the Tribunal which - given the context - is where it should be.

If Christo had dismissed it, we would currenty be in a shitstorm of biblical proportions which neither club, or Maynard, would want.

 

[NMBB]

....Listening to Caro et al this morning....

Try and avoid - better off listening to someone with football knowledge (vs peripheral gossip)

 

[loki04]

I don't think you meant badly but you would benefit maybe from thinking before you write sometimes. She can be criticised just like anyone else but questioning her capabilities to judge a simple collision in a contact sport due to her gender is sexist regardless of intention. Bringing her gender into it needlessly is why these discussions come up.

I was not speaking about her and Maynard solely is what I am saying, just the comment sex is irrelevant in decision making as a whole. It's why I said yes and no to Maggie.

 

[JB1975]

No. It's not a theory it's fact.
By and large Men and Women are different.
Built different.
Think different.
Talk different.
Act different.

The comment was around sex is irrelevant, where as I think it plays a part in the individuals personal bias or leaning in matters or their stance on a whole range of issues. You can take Kane and Maynard out of it I'm talking in general.

Sexes are different. No s***. The peanut theories start flying when peanuts start talking about the nature and reasons for those differences.

It's a conversation which has no place in this thread. It shouldn't have been brought up in relation to Maynard. Take it elsewhere.

 

[loki04]

Sexes are different. No s***. The peanut theories start flying when peanuts start talking about the nature and reasons for those differences.

It's a conversation which has no place in this thread. It shouldn't have been brought up in relation to Maynard. Take it elsewhere.

It wasnt you peanut.

It was bought up in relation to a comment sex is irrelevant in decision making.

 

[HyPIEcrite]

Irrespective of sex, why has it been written into the guidelines that the executives and GM of football clubs can send things to the tribunal (just going off the previous video)? Anyone familiar with the old cliche ‘too many cooks spoilt our vice-captain’s finals’?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[loki04]

Re the bolded, you implied that her gender would affect her ability to do her job, and her job includes the MRO.

That's why were all having this debate - its not a broader debate about nature versus nurture, or any other of those tired old discussions which I recall having in the 1980s!

At any rate, the decision is with the Tribunal which - given the context - is where it should be.

If Christo had dismissed it, we would currenty be in a shitstorm of biblical proportions which neither club, or Maynard, would want.

I said in a nut shell, gender can play a part in forming bias on subjects and gave an example. This works for men too.

 

[JB1975]

It wasnt you peanut.

It was bought up in relation to a comment sex is irrelevant in decision making.

That's when you felt the need to reach into your bag of peanuts and wave around one of your shamelessly deformed ideas on the sexes.

I'm gratified.

 

[sideswipe]

I don’t know what is worse, Loki’s thinking on gender coming into this or Loki’s thinking that raising the notion was a good idea.

Oh and if you think Gill/Dill had no input on this, you are off the mark.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DinoSoar]

Rightio, enough - the sexist and chauvinistic tropes have been called out for what they are and this discussion point, as erroneous and irrelevant as it is, needs to cease.

Move on and stick to the issue and the facts.

 

[Bianconeri]

I don't understand. If you are saying he did that, why are you saying that he'll get off and it'll result in a rule change.

You don't need a rule change to suspend someone for "shoulder charging someone's head".

Atm it seems to be protected by it being a footy action. I think next year it will lose such protection similar to the bump.

 

[JB1975]

No more peanuts.

 

[sam_e]

I just read the amendment from last year which I'll post below.
If it goes up as Careless Conduct High contact charge, then if I'm reading it right it could also be given 1 match ban as Medium impact.
However I thought any concussion is deemed severe impact by AFL house?
Can anyone confirm this?

Imo its not careless either as it was not a foreseeable outcome of a smother action.


"The Commission approved the following recommendations relating to the Match Review and Tribunal process to ensure the systems, guidelines and interpretations continue to evolve with the trends of the game.

The amendments are as follows:

1. Head high contact

Previously under the AFL & AFLW Regulations, “strong consideration” was required to be given to the potential to cause injury in certain circumstances. Regulations have therefore been amended as follows:

The potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of Impact; and

Notwithstanding any other provision of the AFL / AFLW Regulations, any Careless or Intentional Forceful Front-On Conduct or Rough Conduct (High Bumps) where High Contact has been made and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be classified as either Medium, High or Severe Impact (i.e. not Low Impact) even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low (e.g. the victim player has suffered no apparent injury). This reflects the approach that currently applies to the Impact determination for strikes.

The result of this change will be that, where there is Careless Conduct that is High Contact and has the potential to cause injury, a Medium Impact classification will usually apply, and a one match suspension will be the minimum sanction applied."

AFL cracks down on head-high contact among key 2022 Match Review changes

AFL cracks down on head-high contact among key 2022 Match Review changes

www.foxsports.com.au

As already outlined, this amendment ''lowers the threshold for grading 'impact', not the other way around.

It mandates they assess 'potential' to cause injury let alone actual injury. He was concussed (actual injury) and that's typically assessed as "severe".

Barking up the wrong tree though, focus on criteria for "careless" conduct. Both the 'contact' point and 'impact' are not really in dispute.