No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Roby]

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.

Sicily lunged and left the ground with both his feet, that tackle caused a concussion.

Not much difference to what you said:

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

 

[Dipper]

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.

Did you watch England v Argentina in the world cup yesterday.

Argy jumps at England kicker and hits England him late, hip and shoulder, too late to even pretend to be an attempted smother/ charge down. Should've been red, they do a thing now where they give them yellow and then the ref in the TV bunker determines whether red.

It should have been red, mystery it wasn't, outcome not as bad but unlike Maynard, Argy player took out England kicker late on purpose and whilst he was still holding his position from making his kick and in no position to defend himself.

Here it is 40 seconds in




I hope Maynard gets off, I think he should; I doubt he will for one moment.

Seeing that flog of a coach having a whinge again makes me really hope he gets off.

 

[KermitJagger]

Did you watch England v Argentina in the world cup yesterday.

Argy jumps at England kicker and hits England him late, hip and shoulder, too late to even pretend to be an attempted smother/ charge down. Should've been red, they do a thing now where they give them yellow and then the ref in the TV bunker determines whether red.

It should have been red, mystery it wasn't, outcome not as bad but unlike Maynard, Argy player took out England kicker late on purpose and whilst he was still holding his position from making his kick and in no position to defend himself.

Here it is 40 seconds in




I hope Maynard gets off, I think he should; I doubt he will for one moment.

Seeing that flog of a coach having a whinge again makes me really hope he gets off.

It's funny, the unspoken "players and coaches don't talk about suspendable offenses or throw other players under the bus" rule disappeared so quickly.

There used to be an agreement, or at least common understanding, that players and coaches would give straight bat answers or not comment, but this year it seems like everyone is lining up to help blokes get rubbed out. I remember Joel Selwood doing it with Sic dropping into him a few years back, but it was extremely rare.

 

[Yardie]

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?

I have already pointed out before what my position is and that is Maynard is not bumping. He is smothering and then bracing. The collision in a pack example says that under his duty of care he must take reasonable action to slow his momentum. He hasn't gone against his duty of care in this case due to being in the air so he cannot slow his momentum so he braces for contact. And this is the point we disagree on, your opinion is that Maynard launched himself at Brayshaw and I think he didn't. We can both spin the rules to make the argument to support out positions. I just actually thought what you were posting was actually providing more of a case for Maynard to not be suspended.

The actual issue that we were discussing previously was that the AFL are not making it black and white for players and flip flop on interpretation. And to me this is the real problem.

 

[Walshawk]

Maynard had a choice. If it were a Pies intraclub and he jumped to try to smother Nick Daicos, do you think he would have braced and dug the shoulder in? No. He would have put his arms out, like anyone does when they are about to bump into a child.

 

[Kil Phearns]

Hawks won at least one final in each of our first SEVENTEEN (17) finals series, so GWS still have a ways to go to match that.

 

[Brishawk]

I have already pointed out before what my position is and that is Maynard is not bumping. He is smothering and then bracing. The collision in a pack example says that under his duty of care he must take reasonable action to slow his momentum. He hasn't gone against his duty of care in this case due to being in the air so he cannot slow his momentum so he braces for contact. And this is the point we disagree on, your opinion is that Maynard launched himself at Brayshaw and I think he didn't. We can both spin the rules to make the argument to support out positions. I just actually thought what you were posting was actually providing more of a case for Maynard to not be suspended.

The actual issue that we were discussing previously was that the AFL are not making it black and white for players and flip flop on interpretation. And to me this is the real problem.

Ok so im not arguing he bumped. The absence of bumping is not sufficient to meet duty of care obligations.

When i say maynard launched at brayshaw, im just trying to describe what happen without inferring intent. At, towards, in the direction of,…pick the phrasing you think suits best. It is a matter of fact that maynard jumped in the air towards brayshaw in at least some sort of effort to smother. I make no assumption on intent.

As previously noted, incidental contact is permitted in marking contests. This is written into the laws of the game. You cannot automatically transfer the outcome of decisions based on marking contests to smother attempts as no such law exists for smothers.

In the lynch marking contest, lynch argued he had a sole objective of the ball as evidenced by the fact he didn’t brace for impact. Maynard does brace and doest get the protection of the incidental contact law. There is no spin here, im just stating facts. I interpret this to suggest these facts narrow the opportunity to argue the same defence.

Rough conduct can be avoided in one of two circumstances: what he did was reasonable; or what transpired was due to circumstances beyond his control.

Was maynard’s attempt to smother reasonable? The tribunal will assess this but i dont believe it is reasonable to leap towards the kicker in this manner to smother. Any material contact with the kicker is a free kick and we seldom see this type of attempt made. Much more typical is for a player to leap vertically with only a small movement towards the kicker. Every football code protects the kicker from post kick contact through free kicks, send offs and/or suspensions. This is because players kicking the ball are very vulnerable and likely to suffer injury in the event of heavy contact. I would judge his attempt to smother as careless. This is where we differ, if i understand you correctly.

 

[Yardie]

Ok so im not arguing he bumped. The absence of bumping is not sufficient to meet duty of care obligations.

When i say maynard launched at brayshaw, im just trying to describe what happen without inferring intent. At, towards, in the direction of,…pick the phrasing you think suits best. It is a matter of fact that maynard jumped in the air towards brayshaw in at least some sort of effort to smother. I make no assumption on intent.

As previously noted, incidental contact is permitted in marking contests. This is written into the laws of the game. You cannot automatically transfer the outcome of decisions based on marking contests to smother attempts as no such law exists for smothers.

In the lynch marking contest, lynch argued he had a sole objective of the ball as evidenced by the fact he didn’t brace for impact. Maynard does brace and doest get the protection of the incidental contact law. There is no spin here, im just stating facts. I interpret this to suggest these facts narrow the opportunity to argue the same defence.

Rough conduct can be avoided in one of two circumstances: what he did was reasonable; or what transpired was due to circumstances beyond his control.

Was maynard’s attempt to smother reasonable? The tribunal will assess this but i dont believe it is reasonable to leap towards the kicker in this manner to smother. Any material contact with the kicker is a free kick and we seldom see this type of attempt made. Much more typical is for a player to leap vertically with only a small movement towards the kicker. Every football code protects the kicker from post kick contact through free kicks, send offs and/or suspensions. This is because players kicking the ball are very vulnerable and likely to suffer injury in the event of heavy contact. I would judge his attempt to smother as careless. This is where we differ, if i understand you correctly.

The problem is that at the moment the action (smothering) is not covered under the rules. Hence why I see it as a football act similar to Rampe & McCartin. Noting that Sicily was thrown under the bus to make an example about concussions (which is what does my head in with the AFL).

However, all I know is that the AFL will somehow make a mess of all of this just like it did with Sicily. There will be an outcome that will either exonerate Maynard, with the AFL then trying to close out by changing the rules (where people will get weeks until the tribunal overturns) or he will get weeks and the AFL will come out with a "if you concuss someone you'll get weeks", until you don't (see Rampe).

The AFL needs to really take a step back and try and get some consistency on how they handle suspensions. Especially around how the tribunal continues to not take into account any sort of precedent when they make a decision.

 

[moginie]

Hawks won at least one final in each of our first SEVENTEEN (17) finals series, so GWS still have a ways to go to match that.

Yeah, but it took us 32 years to get there, so the hunger was real.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

TOB has been given the boot at the doggies.

 

[Mopar Jason]

TOB has been given the boot at the doggies.

Poor Timmy should have stayed a hawk and played another 3 games for 100

 

[Ned Ryerson]

TOB to Norf? Clarko loved persisting with that one despite the lack of results to back up why the hell he did.

 

[Brishawk]

TOB has been given the boot at the doggies.

Bring him home macca!

 

[Dewnior]

Bring him home Ed!

fify

 

[MasterSamurai]

Tob! Most frustrating player I've seen play so many games at Hawthorn.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

Is it just me who sees the irony in Timmy O almost, but just not quite making it to 100 games?

 

[Hodgey 15]

I remember Hodgey saying recently that TOB's problem and the thing that held him back was he just couldn't put on muscle which obviously impacted him as a forward because he could be so easily out muscled by defenders.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Straight sets coming up.

 

[Fleabane]

re TOB. Sure, he hasn't had the career we felt he could have had with his talent but he's still had a hell of a better career than many players who remain on the fringes with a handful of games and never even scratch the surface as an AFL player. Such a decent, likeable guy - he'll always be a Hawk in my eyes - wish him all the best.

 

[Brishawk]

Straight sets coming up.

Wonder if they select grundy…would hate to lose a final because your one ruckman couldn’t run out the game…

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Straight sets coming up.

Voss v Lions in a prelim is a fun storyline.

 

[Fleabane]

Wonder if they select grundy…would hate to lose a final because your one ruckman couldn’t run out the game…

Final indignity for Grundy. Don't select a fit Grundy and play an injured Gawn...

 

[cryptor]

Straight sets coming up.

Dee-lightful

 

[Yardie]

Straight sets coming up.

Haven't learned from the Petracca debacle last year.

 

[DogDaySonny]

The problem is that at the moment the action (smothering) is not covered under the rules. Hence why I see it as a football act similar to Rampe & McCartin. Noting that Sicily was thrown under the bus to make an example about concussions (which is what does my head in with the AFL).

However, all I know is that the AFL will somehow make a mess of all of this just like it did with Sicily. There will be an outcome that will either exonerate Maynard, with the AFL then trying to close out by changing the rules (where people will get weeks until the tribunal overturns) or he will get weeks and the AFL will come out with a "if you concuss someone you'll get weeks", until you don't (see Rampe).

The AFL needs to really take a step back and try and get some consistency on how they handle suspensions. Especially around how the tribunal continues to not take into account any sort of precedent when they make a decision.

The AFL have made this bed they lay in and I laugh at them for it while crying for myself and the game. The AFL wrap their infraction process with a veneer of legal impartiality while at the same time punishing outcomes, not acts. On top of that, they leave themselves the latitude to declare "because we said so" (and defend this privilege vigorously at all times, even to the detriment of a player) in order to justify any arbitrary or convenient ruling that suits an agenda other than a code infraction (such as star player availability in the post season). The tyrants in so many Latin American banana republics could learn a few things from the boys down at AFL House.