No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[MinerBoy]

Brayshaw goes straight backwards, maynard goes to the left after impact.

Yep, that's the point. Brayshaw goes straight down on his ass, Maynard gets thrown much further from impact point.

You made my point. Maynard did not drive through Brayshaw as Brayshaw was the one who hit the contest with momentum and despite the injury to Brayshaw due to contact point, it was Maynard who was thrown further from contact.

 

[Brishawk]

You know that you've just successfully argued the case for Maynard. They'll also be able to use the Rampe case which was also football related and well off the ball.

Not sure rampe is that close to this. Again the argument is that rampe didnt choose to make contact with mcneil. Same with lynch. Maynard chose to jump at brayshaw. He chose to turn his body/shoulder towards brayshaw. That is why he will likely go.

 

[Brishawk]

Yep, that's the point. Brayshaw goes straight down on his ass, Maynard gets thrown much further from impact point.

You made my point. Maynard did not drive through Brayshaw as Brayshaw was the one who hit the contest with momentum and despite the injury to Brayshaw due to contact point, it was Maynard who was thrown further from contact.

Ypu are watching a different video to me.

Maynard’s movement after contact but before he lands is still forward.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

How good is footy going to be now you can just jump at a player and knock them out!

 

[Yardie]

Not sure rampe is that close to this. Again the argument is that rampe didnt choose to make contact with mcneil. Same with lynch. Maynard chose to jump at brayshaw. He chose to turn his body/shoulder towards brayshaw. That is why he will likely go.
View attachment 1799206

You are reading the point about "Swans successfully argued Rampe did not elect to bump"......And Collingwood will be arguing that Maynard was not electing to bump.

Again, you are doing a great job for the defense.

 

[Crankyhawk]

You are reading the point about "Swans successfully argued Rampe did not elect to bump"......And Collingwood will be arguing that Maynard was not electing to bump.

Again, you are doing a great job for the defense.

lets face it, the real issue is "Swans successfully argue" it really is they are kissed on the proverbial whenever it comes to MRP and tribunal decisions.

 

[badgrill]

how many weeks did Kozzy Pickett get for his bump on Smith?

EDIT: it was 2 weeks, and that was as deliberate a bump as you can get

 

[badgrill]

how many weeks did Kozzy Pickett get for his bump on Smith?

EDIT: it was 2 weeks, and that was as deliberate a bump as you can get

I reckon gets downgraded to 1

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The lawyer-ification of assessing these things is really painful.

The hyper detail and scrutiny applied to something that is a really quick motion really intellectualises something that is really a physical thing. it rationalises decisions that were made well outside of top-down cognitive processes but applies that level of rationality to them.

What Maynard did was quite unconventional. We never see players sprinting at each other for high ball smothers and then colliding.

Marking contests, tackle, ruck contests, pack situations - they've all played out a million times and so players have been coached to protect themselves and how to not get suspended/free kicks against.

This situation was new. Maynard went up high fall the ball then came down heavy. The guy was concussed and on that alone we should suspend Maynard for a week and he can work himself how to not accidently knock someone out while smothering.

But instead everyone is talking about intent versus outcome and all the categories and grading and every bit of this approach makes the ruling more abstract from the incident. The way we have lawyers involved results in some of the most ridiculous conversations about how much a player can reasonably expect to rotate their body while mid air, trying to define something as a football action or not a football action. Does my absolute head in.

Do we want to encourage people doing what Maynard did?

Nah.

Do we want to actively discourage it?

I say yes to this - give him a week and I bet next time he will still go for the smother and will also find a way to not KO someone.

 

[Viddiot]

I liked what Kane Cornes had to say about Maynard (which surprised me), and am on the side of no suspension.

I think having Cornes put it the way he did has opened the door for a 1 week suspension. Which will be a sort of middle ground.

The AFL can then say...welp, we did ban him, and those who believe he shouldn't be suspended can say...Ok. it's probably reasonable in the end.

The hard part for the AFL is then getting to work nailing down some rules, so that legal tackles don't get suspensions, accidents of adrenaline can, and strikes/intentional acts on or off the ball earn you weeks.

 

[mcnulty]

This situation was new

That’s the thing for me. Never seen anything like it. Purely accidental? Reckless? Maynard is a common flog but wouldn’t like to see him miss a big final over that.

 

[Roby]

Got to love the “unless you’ve played the game line” from Cornes.


I also found Nathan Browns comment interesting “the question you need to ask is could he have done anything differently and if there was a team mate would he have still turned and braced” - adlib

That's a dumb hypothetical to postulate in a head on collision to an attempted smother.

But let's ask what would Maynard had done in a intra-club match. The same thing. How is he supposed to not make contact once he's in the air?

 

[Roby]

That’s the thing for me. Never seen anything like it. Purely accidental? Reckless? Maynard is a common flog but wouldn’t like to see him miss a big final over that.

I'm not really fussed if Maynard misses a final or not, if anything the last team I want to see win is Collingwood, but this is about the integrity of sport.

Sicily got 3 weeks, but I still saw him do a couple of diving tackles after he came back from suspension. That's because 99% of time nothing happens, and he knows this.

 

[Brishawk]

You are reading the point about "Swans successfully argued Rampe did not elect to bump"......And Collingwood will be arguing that Maynard was not electing to bump.

Again, you are doing a great job for the defense.

Im telling you what the rules actually say and what the decisions were amd why they are different. Im not sure why you are suggesting im ‘arguing’ for anything. clearly the difference with Maynard is he did turn his body and brace for contact at the expense of his duty of care towards brayshaw.

 

[theiaofseed]

The lawyer-ification of assessing these things is really painful.

The hyper detail and scrutiny applied to something that is a really quick motion really intellectualises something that is really a physical thing. it rationalises decisions that were made well outside of top-down cognitive processes but applies that level of rationality to them.

What Maynard did was quite unconventional. We never see players sprinting at each other for high ball smothers and then colliding.


Do we want to encourage people doing what Maynard did?

Nah.

Do we want to actively discourage it?

I say yes to this - give him a week and I bet next time he will still go for the smother and will also find a way to not KO someone.

Because he went for the contact and not the smother in the end, he could've landed like slappy the seal on Brayshaw but took his body with the opportunity presented it self.

The contact was late, high, intentional* and severe. The only thing you can argue is intention but I don't see a way he gets less than 2 weeks.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Because he went for the contact and not the smother in the end, he could've landed like slappy the seal on Brayshaw but took his body with the opportunity presented it self.

The contact was late, high, intentional* and severe. The only thing you can argue is intention but I don't see a way he gets less than 2 weeks.

That's what I mean. If you suspend him for a week he'll never accidently knock someone out on a smother.
This was the first time this kind of contact has happened. Usually the kicker will protect themself and usually the smother is from someone lunging at the foot instead of jumping as high in the air as they can.

Unlike Sicily, where there literally was no other choice except to let the guy waltz away untackled.

 

[Nick the Pig]

I also watch a bit of rugby and for me the Maynard incident was alot like a rugby collision with two players running at each other and colliding front on.

In rugby this would be at a minimum a Yellow card sin bin but more likely a straight Red send off. Intent, accident, going for the ball, none of it would matter and it wouldn't really be up for debate. If you clean someone up in rugby like this you are gone.

Facts are he was off his feet, he collected him high, he knocked him out.

 

[Yardie]

Im telling you what the rules actually say and what the decisions were amd why they are different. Im not sure why you are suggesting im ‘arguing’ for anything. clearly the difference with Maynard is he did turn his body and brace for contact at the expense of his duty of care towards brayshaw.

Yes, I am aware of what you have done. But in doing so you have made a case for Maynard to get off. You're just blinded in trying to show it as you want it to be rather than what it could be.

 

[MasterSamurai]

I'll stick by what I've said when I saw it the first time around. How many players get knocked out from been smothered? This is going to be extremely difficult for Maynard getting off.

 

[MinerBoy]

Ypu are watching a different video to me.

Maynard’s movement after contact but before he lands is still forward.

Clearly if you think that’s what happened lol


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Brishawk]

Yes, I am aware of what you have done. But in doing so you have made a case for Maynard to get off. You're just blinded in trying to show it as you want it to be rather than what it could be.

Nonsense. I presented what i felt was Maynard’s best defence and why i thought it would fail. You have made disingenuous attempts to ‘ahah!’ me without ever engaging with what i said. I dont care either way. Im just trying educate.

 

[Yardie]

Nonsense. I presented what i felt was Maynard’s best defence and why i thought it would fail. You have made disingenuous attempts to ‘ahah!’ me without ever engaging with what i said. I dont care either way. Im just trying educate.

I'm not trying to "aha" you at all. I am disagreeing with your take on it and you are struggling with it. To say you are "just trying to educate" is just condescending and says more about you than you realise.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm not trying to "aha" you at all. I am disagreeing with your take on it and you are struggling with it. To say you are "just trying to educate" is just condescending and says more about you than you realise.

By all means point out to me which part of my post you disagree with. Simply stating repeatedly ‘you are making a case for the defence’ isnt an argument its a conclusion. Which part do you disagree with?

 

[Roby]

I also watch a bit of rugby and for me the Maynard incident was alot like a rugby collision with two players running at each other and colliding front on.

In rugby this would be at a minimum a Yellow card sin bin but more likely a straight Red send off. Intent, accident, going for the ball, none of it would matter and it wouldn't really be up for debate. If you clean someone up in rugby like this you are gone.

Facts are he was off his feet, he collected him high, he knocked him out.

On that logic, you agree Sicily should've got three weeks

 

[Nick the Pig]

On that logic, you agree Sicily should've got three weeks

No. I'm equating the Maynard smother with a Rugby charge down gone wrong and how it would be officiated in that sport. Nothing to do with a comparison to Sicily's tackle or any tackle for that matter.