Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell

[TW Sherrin]

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.

Who?

 

[bzparkes]

Who?

Barrass got a week, for starters. Walters head never hit the ground and it was the exact same motion Maynard did. In fact, Maynard's was far more forceful.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Just wondering how the hell this one wasn't even a 1 weeker? One of the most aggressive sling tackles in recent times but lucky Powell didn't make head contact with the ground.

Obviously don't like Maynard but surely this was ban worthy??

 

[Stax on the mill]

Excellent and correct outcome. No surprise the usual Pies hating nuffies ( bzparkes and Maddo11) are embarrassing themselves again.

 

[bzparkes]

just when I thought Pies supporters couldn't get more distasteful...

 

[Demon in Hell]

Your kidding me...not even mentioned in the review....AFL should sack this biased incompetant idoit now.

200 games and this thug still gets away with it.

 

[DapperDon]

One week the sling action is the cause of suspension, the next it's not.

Not surprised it's Collingwood getting the benefit.

 

[Maddo11]

Excellent and correct outcome. No surprise the usual Pies hating nuffies ( bzparkes and Maddo11) are embarrassing themselves again.

Awww precious, don't think you're special, I hate all Victorians equally

Also how is starting a thread for discussion that says its a ****ing roulette luck of the draw embarrassing myself

Pies fans, 'ey

 

[TW Sherrin]

Barrass got a week, for starters. Walters head never hit the ground and it was the exact same motion Maynard did. In fact, Maynard's was far more forceful.

Dude you might want to rewatch that incident. Walters head clearly hits the ground.

 

[Matrix10]

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

Great tackle by Bruzz. Throw the ball in , Nup. Cost us a goal. Herein is the lesson on how to play football boys and girls .

 

[FireKrakouer]

 

[hoss]

Wow, that's some sort of bullshit right there! He shouldn't get off because people feel sorry for him.

On Pixel 7 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Smotie2]

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.

We clearly see and we all know there are 2 sets of rules in play.

Those that are considered protected species also known as Collingwood and the rest of the AFL.

They said repeatedly that it's the sling tackle they have outlawed not the outcome and that's the very definition of a sling tackle and yet this one was based on an outcome.

It's corrupt. The AFL is a ****ing corrupt organisation and all conspiracy theories about bias and how certain clubs and people get protected arent theories any more.

They are showing in living colour they are fact.

 

[Smotie2]

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.

The vafl are making it very hard for traditional footy supporters to continue with their memberships.

It's a farce and a corrupt league. I used to think it was an incompetent league but I've now come to the realisation it's just outright corruption and they don't even care about hiding it anymore

 

[TheWeapon]

Looked identical to Harley Reid's with the slinging action was a callous act

 

[flyinghi64]

Headed over to see if I was the only one bemused by this "nothing to see here" non decision.
The past couple of years umpiring and MRO have been bad with occasional WTF's.
This year has gone to a whole new level.
Corrupt.

 

[Barrybran]

Not at all surprised that the MRP have ticked this one off. No injury to Powell nor did his head hit the ground. This was a textbook dangerous tackle though and multiple players have been suspended for less simply because the player they tackled's head hit the ground.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Not at all surprised that the MRP have ticked this one off. No injury to Powell nor did his head hit the ground. This was a textbook dangerous tackle though and multiple players have been suspended for less simply because the player they tackled's head hit the ground.

If the tackled players head hits the ground that would make it more not less.

 

[Barrybran]

If the tackled players head hits the ground that would make it more not less.

If Powell's head hit the ground, Maynard would be looking at a 3-4 week suspension. It was an unnecessarily forceful tackle.

 

[Deepthroat]

Throw the Barrass, C Cameron, H Jones, Reid, D Moore and Maynard tackles in a random replay order.

Tell an impartial that there's a 2,1,1,0,0,0 in the mix.

I bet 100% of the time they get it wrong.

 

[Deepthroat]

If Powell's head hit the ground, Maynard would be looking at a 3-4 week suspension. It was an unnecessarily forceful tackle.

The lack of distinction between the head "hitting" the ground and the head "touching" the ground has no nuance.

 

[lmach]

This is absolutely beyond a joke now.

 

[Lockyer24]

Barrass got a week, for starters. Walters head never hit the ground and it was the exact same motion Maynard did. In fact, Maynard's was far more forceful.

Just had a look at the Barrass one, as I hadn’t seen it.

The tribunal stated:

“The combination of excessive force, pinning of the arm, and forceful rotation created significant potential for a head or neck injury.”

Looking at the Maynard incident, the arms were not pinned, and also it was no where near the force of Barrass in my opinion.

The sling motion was somewhat dangerous, but only met the threshold for a free kick. There would be a lot of suspensions if you expect that to be the level required.

This is not a good like for like comparison, and looks like further Maynard bashing, which has become absolutely embarrassing lately.

 

[The Dodger]

What the tribunal said of Reid's tackle:

The AFL's assertion the nature of the tackle - to lift, rotate and sling Wilson backwards onto the ground - had the potential to cause a serious head or neck injury was accepted, with the panel agreeing Wilson was "lucky" he landed the way he did.

Could that not be applied to Maynard's case?

 

[420]

Failing to see any real difference between this and Reids/Barrass' tackles. Wonder if the latest sooky-arse articles about the man had anything to do with it