Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[Apex36]

Poignant last paragraph there

 

[Chrispiesssss]

“In order for this to be a bump, it needed to be, a voluntary bump”

Evidence clearly shows it wasn’t a voluntary bump.

 

[Jafo]

So the verdict is, stick to your f@cking lane!

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Only if he gets off, according to the tin hat donning Brayshaw

I'd love to see Gabbo & Hamish thrash it out.

 

[Bramax]

Encouraging.

 

[YouBeauty]

If they do it’ll be a good sign they went in with their mind made up/prejudice. Our guy has Better Caul Sauled the s**t out of the AFL

Did he go all slippin jimmy on him?

 

[sam_e]

Gleeson's instructions reasonably positive, if not just to feed the chooks.

But the AFL have not made their case in terms of their own 3 defining criteria for proving 'careless' conduct.

 

[Apex36]

So you believe the decision wont be biased.

I believe you’re displaying some serious paranoia. Nothing about this points to the tribunal upholding a ban. Particularly Gleesons instructions before deliberation.

 

[TradeDraft]

I don't Trust the AFL

 

[Gone Critical]

While it sounds like he should get off given the arguments from both sides, I expect the tribunal to ignore all logic and suspend him knowing we’ll appeal

They’d rather the decision let him off go to someone else I suspect

Nah. The tribunal people are independent to the AFL. Like Gleeson they tend to be senior people in the legal world who are not afraid to make their own decisions. They will call it as they see it.

 

[TradeDraft]

I Reckon the AFL will Appeal IF Maynard gets off

 

[Apex36]

I Reckon the AFL will Appeal IF Maynard gets off

Nah they won’t

 

[Kirby]

Gleeson's instructions reasonably positive, if not just to feed the chooks.

But the AFL have not made their case in terms of their own 3 defining criteria for proving 'careless' conduct.

They’re entirely positive.

He’s just saying that they are taking it seriously because the poor bloke was concussed but that the case is BS.

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

I don't Trust the AFL

You should have tipped the ban Dave

 

[YouBeauty]

Do you recommend this every time the Tribunal comes down with a not guilty decision, after a matter is referred to them? We’d run out of MRO people pretty quickly.

Yes preferably

 

[YouBeauty]

You should have tipped the ban Dave

He did by 40 weeks

 

[Vicky Park]

They’re entirely positive.

He’s just saying that they are taking it seriously because the poor bloke was concussed but that the case is BS.

Thanks Kirby, loving your insights and interpretations

 

[riddick78]

I Reckon the AFL will Appeal IF Maynard gets off

I wouldn't think so, they may bring in a rule for this kind of situation, whatever that rule would be.

 

[Vicky Park]

Yes preferably

Not very practical or workable I suggest.

 

[Maggie5]

I did it! I am angry!

I posted on the main board.

 

[TradeDraft]

You should have tipped the ban Dave

I did.

I said he will get Suspended

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I Reckon the AFL will Appeal IF Maynard gets off

That’d be a good look. Overrule your own MRO and the Tribunal!

 

[barrackers]

Reads like the decision won’t set a precedent and will stand alone. On one hand it doesn’t sit with the banning the smother narrative, on the other it seems separate to the typical high contact.

 

[swoop42]

COLL-ING-WOOD

COLL-ING-WOOD

 

[Scodog10]

So you believe the decision wont be biased.

Read Gleeson’s instructions. The final paragraph in particular is insightful toward the likely outcome. I’d say it’s 100-1 the charge is upheld from here.