Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell

[Maddo11]

Clearly two actions and unreasonable force.

Will Bruz be freed by the incredibly lucky lack of concussion, or will he get the "potential to cause harm" loading?

2 weeks for mine. Worse than some that have gotten weeks prior

 

[hoss]

I don't think it's roulette. Given what we've seen this year, that'll definitely cop a week. No head hit the turf but it didn't with the Harley Reid tackle either. Not sure Maynard's going to get the Charlie Cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

30

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

good guy treatment either.

On Pixel 7 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Romeoh1]

He will get a week. And agree with previous poster- it’s not a roulette- pretty consistent application.

 

[The Dodger]

The potential to cause injury is through the roof on that one. Very similar to Reid should be 2.

 

[bzparkes]

I'm sure this'll be a case of the MRP deciding not to apply the 'potential to injure' clause because he plays for Collingwood.

Will somehow get ticked off as ok, commentators will be 'bewildered' and nobody will question why one club consistently has rules applied to them which no other club enjoys.

 

[MF]

Textbook dangerous tackle. Has to be at least a week

 

[BF Tiger]

There seems to have been quite a bit of media about Maynard recently trying to rehabilitate his image (oh, he's really a big softy ), but then he goes and does stupid things like this.

 

[HTPunter]

Way worse than the Harry Jones on Fisher one. In terms of action & force. Bombers inexplicably didn’t challenge but I suspect Collingwood will if Maynard gets anything from Michael Christian.

 

[BF Tiger]

Way worse than the Harry Jones on Fisher one. In terms of action & force. Bombers inexplicably didn’t challenge but I suspect Collingwood will if Maynard gets anything from Michael Christian.

Remind me again... who did Christian play for?

 

[DamoESP]

Didn't even get looked at? AFL being consistent as always

MATCH REVIEW: Power to challenge Butters ban, Roos defender suspended

The Match Review findings for Sunday's round 14 games are in

www.afl.com.au

 

[nylexbandit]

Lol they’re not even trying to hide it anymore

 

[bzparkes]

Didn't even get looked at? AFL being consistent as always

MATCH REVIEW: Power to challenge Butters ban, Roos defender suspended

The Match Review findings for Sunday's round 14 games are in

www.afl.com.au

Worst example of a sling all year and no case to answer.

I mean, everyone fully expected it anyway but this comp is beyond a joke now.

 

[Citizen Erazed]

Confirmed. Maynard is soft and is incapable of potentially injuring someone. Faux tough man wins out again.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Head didn't hit ground that's why no case to answer, well that's what the reasoning for not suspending him

 

[bzparkes]

Head didn't hit ground that's why no case to answer, well that's what the reasoning for not suspending him

Even though they said it's based on action, not outome.

Clearly they just pick and choose.

 

[HTPunter]

Head didn't hit ground that's why no case to answer, well that's what the reasoning for not suspending him

Yeah, but if the action is outlawed then why not penalise him for body impact, instead of high impact?

I’m happy that within the current guidelines Maynard isn’t getting suspended. It was no more than careless, body, medium (potential to cause injury, just like Reid got boosted to high impact) so that’s a fine. How is it not cited? It’s not a Maynard witch hunt, 2 years ago it’s a highlight reel tackle.

But you can’t tell me Butters getting a week, and Jones getting a week, are “fair” while Maynard getting nothing is.

For the Butters suspension, they’ve penalised the action, not the outcome.

For Maynard, they’ve based penalties around the outcome, not the action.

For Reid they based it on the action. And Jones; well they just penalised him.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Head didn't hit the ground at all so I'm not sure what you are all going on about.
It was a forceful tackle, but not dangerous. Shouldn't have even been a free kick. Another dubious decision that cost Collingwood a goal yesterday

 

[bzparkes]

Yeah, but if the action is outlawed then why not penalise him for body impact, instead of high impact?

I’m happy that within the current guidelines Maynard isn’t getting suspended. It was no more than careless, body, medium (potential to cause injury, just like Reid got boosted to high impact) so that’s a fine. How is it not cited? It’s not a Maynard witch hunt, 2 years ago it’s a highlight reel tackle.

But you can’t tell me Butters getting a week, and Jones getting a week, are “fair” while Maynard getting nothing is.

For the Butters suspension, they’ve penalised the action, not the outcome.

For Maynard, they’ve based penalties around the outcome, not the action.

For Reid they based it on the action. And Jones; well they just penalised him.

There's no guidelines.

If others have been suspended for this action(Reid & Barrass, just from my team) then Maynard simply needs to go based on precedent.

 

[Seadog]

Head didn't hit ground that's why no case to answer, well that's what the reasoning for not suspending him

But but but potential to cause injury. Sigh, there are probably better ways to spend the $1400 we shell out every year for memberships, I'm just about there.

 

[sherb]

Christian has obviously been reading the feel good Maynard articles.

 

[bzparkes]

Head didn't hit the ground at all so I'm not sure what you are all going on about.
It was a forceful tackle, but not dangerous. Shouldn't have even been a free kick. Another dubious decision that cost Collingwood a goal yesterday

It's not based on that, it was a textbook sling tackle, which other players have got suspended for when the other player's head hasn't hit the ground either.

 

[HTPunter]

There's no guidelines.

If others have been suspended for this action(Reid & Barrass, just from my team) then Maynard simply needs to go based on precedent.

The guidelines being the careless/intentional, body/head contact, low/medium/high impact ones.

I’m happy that there was reason that you could grade it for not a suspension, unless you went with high impact. The others at least have had a degree of whiplash effect for the head hitting the ground making it high impact. Powell wasn’t close.

It still needed to be graded though.

 

[bzparkes]

Christian has obviously been reading the feel good Maynard articles.

Ex-Collingwood player Michael Christian finds current Collingwood player, who does the exact same action he's suspended others for this same season, has no case to answer.

Muppet league.

 

[bzparkes]

The guidelines being the careless/intentional, body/head contact, low/medium/high impact ones.

I’m happy that there was reason that you could grade it for not a suspension, unless you went with high impact. The others at least have had a degree of whiplash effect for the head hitting the ground making it high impact. Powell wasn’t close.

It still needed to be graded though.

Read the grading then.

Reid was graded as 'high' impact, even though under the guidelines themselves he simply couldn't be graded that high due to the player not being injured.

 

[TW Sherrin]

As expected nothing to answer. It was an error to even pay a free