Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Seems to me that based on the 2nd last frame, both Maynard and Brayshaw had the same opportunity to avoid contact - that neither managed to do that shows that there was very little that either player could do to avoid the contact. Up until the last frame, the entirety of the sequence was a footy ball act, that is, Brayshaw kicking the ball and Maynard smothering the ball.I think these behind the goals stills are the smoking gun in this case,so to speak.They clearly show that Brayshaw deviated off his line and contributed far more to the collision than Maynard did.It also shows that it was almost impossible for Maynard to avoid contact given how Brayshaw moved off the line at the last moment.
I would be absolutely shocked if Maynard goes down for this.Hopefully it’ll be settled at the tribunal on Tuesday night,and we don’t have to go through the appeals process,which would only drag on the whole saga longer than it needs to be.
Do both thug acts and you get what Maynard could get for playing footy within the rules. What a joke this game has become. I miss the 90s footy I grew up watching.Seems to me that based on the 2nd last frame, both Maynard and Brayshaw had the same opportunity to avoid contact - that neither managed to do that shows that there was very little that either player could do to avoid the contact. Up until the last frame, the entirety of the sequence was a footy ball act, that is, Brayshaw kicking the ball and Maynard smothering the ball.
The irony for me is that Maynard received a three week sentence, whilst van Rooyen - with his running past the ball with a raised elbow and head high contact gets one week, and Martin gets a two week sentence for a swinging fist with head high contact!
I actually wasn't referring to you in my original post but others mentioned her being a female and not playing/understanding the game because she was a woman (which is incorrect) therefore incapable of understanding the incident.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.
Laura Kane made this decision it’s been reported she over ruled Micheal Christian who wanted to clear him and she said no the first time someone in her position has done this THATS the issue not that she’s a woman she had to make a statement in her new position and now she has to deal with consequences she made a silly decision then it was ticked off by silly people but she undermined the MRO’s decision that’s why it’s going to the tribunal so any criticism directed at her is valid
We do know who was involved it was reported on fox footy the Sunday footy show and on 7 news that Laura Kane over ruled the MRO you are right in saying we just need to work through the consequences but that doesn’t free her from the criticism of the decision it’s like everyone is just offended that people are criticising a female I’d have the same reaction if this was ANY man that made this stupid decisionWe don’t know who was involved in making the decision and it’s irrelevant anyway. AFL has made a call, over-ruled the MRO, we just need to work through the consequences of that call.
No I used an example of how it could influence on a decision.
Would/could previous record, football character reference have any influence on judgement?The biggest influence on this decision to send it to the tribunal would likely be as a consequence of the majority of the decision makers (Laura, Dillon and Meade) being lawyers ( as I am). I would refer this incident to the Tribunal 100/100 times to protect the AFL as an organisation in the context of the emerging exposure of the AFL to class action claims about concussion. Being a female (as I am) does not make me more irrational or ambitious than any man. Being a lawyer has much more impact on my thinking than gender.
Why would I refer it?
- there is a potential for future liability for the AFL if they make a unilateral decision at the MRO to clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so clearly articulated and documented following a form of investigation into the incident.
- The Tribunal process introduces a form of “independence” into the decision-making which affords protection to the decision-makers and the organisation . The Appeal does so even more.
- Insurers require compliance with any insurance policy terms covering player injury claims (and D&O for the decision-makers).
- to ensure that insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in future years. Concussions needs to be treated like any WHS risk and AFL needs to be able to show that they have adequate systems, processes and procedures to protect the welfare of players. This does not mean zero risk of collision in a contact sport but policies (and Rules) that are best practice to protect the head. This is challenging as this will move as they learn more about concussion.
- to ensure that there is some consideration of precedent setting and any unintended consequences of either clearing him or not clearing him are taken into account. Take the time to think it through as you could open up more problems than you solve.
- commercially to deal with brand damage and future pathways for kids to choose to play the sport over other competing sports.
My sense it that the referral to the tribunal makes it more likely to have a finding that this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed. If they wish to change the rules it can be done in the off-season but whilst awful to see, the action to jump and spoil was something a reasonable player would do, and he could not change how he fell except to do what he us trained to do and turn and brace for contact. Given Brayshaw steps towards him and contributes to the collusion to some degree, had Maynard stayed open, it could have been much nastier.
Anyway, can we please stop the gender based conversation about the new EGM of footy?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Have you ever considered that maybe rejecting sexism and pulling someone out on it is not inherently white-knighting?You mean me pointing out there is differences in men and women in decision making and how it can influence or show bias within that?
The rest is your take and yes people are always happy to ride white knight on this board, overstate things and read more into it then meant.
It wasnt even directly about her nupty. Just an argument that sex is irrelevant.
Agree. It's pretty annoying when people suggest he had a few seconds to make that decision... Yes, sure he does if you play it in slow motion. But not in real time. It was a millisecond.Has anyone actually timed the incident from when he jumps up to the time he lands?
I can't reconcile some of the suggestions being made as to what other options Maynard had in the time frame.
Most opposition supporters think of so many things he should have done, I can only think of one.
He left his jet pack at home otherwise he could have just pulled the cord and gone over the player.
The main board is a cesspit especially regarding anything Collingwood, most of us avoid it at the best of times. You have been doing some good work in the thread over there but to little avail. Amazing how little understanding there is about basic physics and momentum let alone about the rules of the game.Please, I was enjoying reading this thread before the sexism. I'm not going to report it but you guys need to stop it at the source.
As for Maynard, I wish you guys came and defended him more on the MB. Virtually every ex player has said that it was an accident. Of course all you have to do to realise this is, is watch it in normal speed. Or you could be like Gerard Whateley and watch 50 different slow-mos, 100 different still shots and appear as an experts in human psychology, biomechanics and law.
I'm glad I didn't even know what or where the MB is. I won't be trying to find it. It's challenging enough on our own team's forum with fellow Pie supportersThe main board is a cesspit especially regarding anything Collingwood, most of us avoid it at the best of times. You have been doing some good work in the thread over there but to little avail. Amazing how little understanding there is about basic physics and momentum let alone about the rules of the game.
Has anyone actually timed the incident from when he jumps up to the time he lands?
I can't reconcile some of the suggestions being made as to what other options Maynard in the time frame.
Most opposition supporters think of so many things he should have done, I can only think of one.
He left his jet pack at home otherwise he could have just pulled the cord and gone over the player.
The main board is a cesspit especially regarding anything Collingwood, most of us avoid it at the best of times. You have been doing some good work in the thread over there but to little avail. Amazing how little understanding there is about basic physics and momentum let alone about the rules of the game.
Probably the same as Iggy Pop.I think I'm a model for civilised discussion.
If you can't post without snark, condescension or poor humour, then you don't deserve to post at all.
Always think to yourself, what would JB do?
The biggest influence on this decision to send it to the tribunal would likely be as a consequence of the majority of the decision makers (Laura, Dillon and Meade) being lawyers ( as I am). I would refer this incident to the Tribunal 100/100 times to protect the AFL as an organisation in the context of the emerging exposure of the AFL to class action claims about concussion. Being a female (as I am) does not make me more irrational or ambitious than any man. Being a lawyer has much more impact on my thinking than gender.
Why would I refer it?
- there is a potential for future liability for the AFL if they make a unilateral decision at the MRO to clear Maynard without having the rationale for doing so clearly articulated and documented following a form of investigation into the incident.
- The Tribunal process introduces a form of “independence” into the decision-making which affords protection to the decision-makers and the organisation . The Appeal does so even more.
- Insurers require compliance with any insurance policy terms covering player injury claims (and D&O for the decision-makers).
- to ensure that insurers will continue to cover the AFL for claims relating to concussions in future years. Concussions needs to be treated like any WHS risk and AFL needs to be able to show that they have adequate systems, processes and procedures to protect the welfare of players. This does not mean zero risk of collision in a contact sport but policies (and Rules) that are best practice to protect the head. This is challenging as this will move as they learn more about concussion.
- to ensure that there is some consideration of precedent setting and any unintended consequences of either clearing him or not clearing him are taken into account. Take the time to think it through as you could open up more problems than you solve.
- commercially to deal with brand damage and future pathways for kids to choose to play the sport over other competing sports.
My sense is that the referral to the tribunal makes it more likely to have a finding that this was an unavoidable football accident based upon the current rules about smothers which are allowed. If they wish to change the rules it can be done in the off-season but whilst awful to see, the action to jump and spoil was something a reasonable player would do, and he could not change how he fell except to do what he is trained to do and turn and brace for contact. Given Brayshaw steps towards him and contributes to the collision to some degree, had Maynard stayed open, it could have been much nastier.
Anyway, can we please stop the gender based conversation about the new EGM of footy?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app