-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Is it time for Michael Christian to go
- Thread starter bumsonseats
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Responding to the guy who said that Brayshaw had a duty of care to Maynard. Utter tripe.
I'm not saying the hit was the same, I'm saying the intent was the same. That is, to apply some physicality to a player who had just disposed of the ball.
The Collingwood legal team basically said that Maynard didn't have time to adjust his body which begs the question, why was he turned side on in a bumping position in the first place? I thought he was trying to smother which you know, involves your hands being up...
The issue is precedent had already been set this year by the Mansell case for his "bump" on Aish. Mansell's intent was to win the ball but due to the ball bouncing sideways, contact was made between him and Aish who got concussed. I didn't think Mansell should've been suspended as the Tigers legal team used similar arguments (pretty much no time to react to the ball which had deviated off its line). Tribunal threw this out and gave him 3 weeks. By precedent, Maynard should've gotten the same punishment.
Neale Balme has already been on radio asking for a please explain between the 2 incidents. Make no mistake, the MRO/tribunal have severely ****ed up and clubs are well aware of it.
To me, he was side on coz that's what side of his body Brayshaw was on. He was in a 'bumping' position coz thats just what position you're in when your arm is down and over your ribs to protect.
Intentional and careless are two different elements. No one could reasonably argue that it constituted an (intentional) bump., particularly with the expert evidence However, the AFL counsel was rubbish at arguing the careless play.
'Careless' in the AFL Laws can be interpreted to mean 'negligent or reckless'. At the time of launching himself, and effectively rendering himself as a "missile", his intention was to smother the ball. He consciously decided to launch forward at the player to do so. I'm yet to see their basis for concluding that he was not negligent or reckless in the action, noting that contact was unavoidable by reason of his action.
Where is the distinction then made to sliding in and taking your opponent's legs out where the intention is solely to get the ball?
I'm not surprised with the outcome, but it just further demonstrates the ineptitude with the inconsistency in application.
'Careless' in the AFL Laws can be interpreted to mean 'negligent or reckless'. At the time of launching himself, and effectively rendering himself as a "missile", his intention was to smother the ball. He consciously decided to launch forward at the player to do so. I'm yet to see their basis for concluding that he was not negligent or reckless in the action, noting that contact was unavoidable by reason of his action.
Where is the distinction then made to sliding in and taking your opponent's legs out where the intention is solely to get the ball?
I'm not surprised with the outcome, but it just further demonstrates the ineptitude with the inconsistency in application.
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
Have you not seen the vision? Maynard had his hands up.
Maynard was around 7 meters from Brayshaw when he jumped. He was flying through free space and had no control over his trajectory. Brayshaw deviated into Maynard’s path - that’s not Maynard’s fault and nothing Maynard could have done about that.
Mansell was in contact with the ground at all times and had full control over where he was and what he was doing.
Again I refer you to the verdict - where it was clearly established that 0.12sec reaction time is insufficient to make a conscious decision to apply physicality, as you put it.
And why are you conveniently ignoring the additional point that was accepted by the tribunal, that Brayshaw deviated into Maynard's path.
The difference with the Mansell incidence is that there was NO contest for the ball in this case - and its a very dumb question for Balme to ask if he can't see such an obvious difference.
A contest for the ball where there is a collision is more a football action compared to a collision with the ball nowhere near either player.
My point is that Mansell had the same or less time to make a conscious decision once the ball deviated, however the tribunal still deemed his action as reckless, hence the 3 week ban. As the poster above said, the moment Maynard jumps, he abandons his duty of care and that any contact after should be deemed as reckless.
So on the basis that this was not deemed a "contest" for the ball, one can launch into an opponent under the guise of a smother (irrespective of whether the smothering attempt was successful).
Also, not quite sure there was actual evidence from the expert about Brayshaw deviating into Maynard's path. Maynard's lawyer made the submission but there was not any report (happy to be corrected) that the expert gave evidence that Brayshaw consciously veered into Maynard's path which was not reasonably foreseeable etc.
AFL Counsel was rubbish.
Christian has now had 5 decisions involving Carlton players overturned on appeal on a little over 12 months. In that time only 3 suspensions he has issued have stood (and in one of those instances the club didn't bother appealing because the suspended player was injured)
Surely this is getting untenable? For collingwood person to be so consistently wrong on incidents involving Carlton players is just a bad look
Surely this is getting untenable? For collingwood person to be so consistently wrong on incidents involving Carlton players is just a bad look
I think the tribunal is smart enough the distinguish a fake/ in guise smother and a genuine one.
Don't be so naive.
You must have been asleep if you didn't hear the accepted evidence that Brayshaw deviated.
Lol wot?
The two incidents are nothing alike. One ran past the ball and shouldered a guy straight to the head, the other executed a legitimate smother.
What a ridiculous comparison.
Derrrp, intention is irrelevant. I can genuinely attempt to smother the ball and have no regard to the physical consequences on the opponent. That's the point. Don't be so naive to assume.
Did the evidence come from the biomechanic expert did it, that Brayshaw naturally deviated from the known and accepted line of where a reasonable person might've moved after kicking a football? I think you're eating up the bar table submissions.
Intention is completely relevant ? - how do you think "careless" etc are defined if intention is irrelevant.
The tribunal was satisfied Maynard had no "intention" of hurting Brayshaw, AND he touched the ball thereby proving it was an action to smother the ball.
The collision was accidental, and thankfully means a precedent has now been set, confirming the game is not without risk, and blameless accidents will occur. That is just common sense, because otherwise the game will be sanitized beyond recognition.
And again I make the point - the idea of the tribunal not being able to recognise a fake smother with the intent to hurt a player, is just a naïve nonsense..
I suggest you tell a few Carton players to try it of Friday night, if you're so confident they can get away with it.
If you have an issue the the decision then I suggest you send the tribunal an email accordingly - and attach your legal qualifications.
AND while your at it, you'd better send your Captain an email, expressing indignation that he agreed Maynard was innocent.
Last edited:
- Jun 23, 2014
- 2,507
- 2,200
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
it's the second action that I'm questing. rule 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT. Charges an opposition Player;. Maynard had no way to protect himself Post attempted smoother, and after Viney kicked the ball he kept charging towards him. you can call it a peanut but the tribunal agrees with me.
- Jun 23, 2014
- 2,507
- 2,200
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Brayshaw has two Acts one kicking and one charging.
Just like every player thats ever flown for a hanger ¯\(ツ)/¯
Which is far, far worse in terms of having no regard for the physical consequences on the opponent, considering the actual aim there is to contact the opponents shoulders/head with your knees.
Last edited:
jannissary
AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
believe the specifics from the expert were to do with the specific time to make the decision was too small for it to be conscious, which i agree with, but the same goes for brayshaw, to call him going one way over another deliberately is farfetched and irresponsible, especially to say it’s his fault he got hit
- Sep 14, 2005
- 18,419
- 18,679
I think it was tongue in cheek, as he was obviously responding to someone else around Maynard.
There a very few incidents exactly the same, however there are many incidents that deliver the same outcome i.e. concussion.
This incident clearly had to go before the Tribunal and Christian should have referred immediately (a bad optic that he didn’t).
At the tribunal the decision involved much debate regarding trajectory, biomechanics, duty of care, reckless, football act etc and was eventually decided ‘no case to answer’.
I for one aren't happy with the outcome, not because it’s Collingwood, not because it’s Maynard, not because of the evidence presented ………. It’s because I believe this ‘entire’ incident could of been avoided, and I’m not blaming Maynard.
Concussion in sport is horrendous and the impact to participants and families is tragic. The AFL and by extension the rules committee MUST make this game safer and all players must be conscious when playing of the potential for damage, I blame the AFL more than Maynard, given he should have been educated and subsequently known years ago this ‘football act’ delivered in this fashion is likely to cause serious injury.
More needs to be done, I’m no expert and have no solution to what’s going on in AFL footy, but no-one wants to see anyone concussed on the footy field and the more done to reduce it, is required urgently.
This incident clearly had to go before the Tribunal and Christian should have referred immediately (a bad optic that he didn’t).
At the tribunal the decision involved much debate regarding trajectory, biomechanics, duty of care, reckless, football act etc and was eventually decided ‘no case to answer’.
I for one aren't happy with the outcome, not because it’s Collingwood, not because it’s Maynard, not because of the evidence presented ………. It’s because I believe this ‘entire’ incident could of been avoided, and I’m not blaming Maynard.
Concussion in sport is horrendous and the impact to participants and families is tragic. The AFL and by extension the rules committee MUST make this game safer and all players must be conscious when playing of the potential for damage, I blame the AFL more than Maynard, given he should have been educated and subsequently known years ago this ‘football act’ delivered in this fashion is likely to cause serious injury.
More needs to be done, I’m no expert and have no solution to what’s going on in AFL footy, but no-one wants to see anyone concussed on the footy field and the more done to reduce it, is required urgently.
Its impossible without making it not the same game though.
Eg. the hanger/high mark I referenced above. Its practically the defining feature of our game - and is absolutely something that would have to go were the AFL to go ultra hard on negating concussion. I just don't see how it can be done while retaining the essence of the game.
Mandatory head gear will probably be brought in at some stage (which admittedly is a better solution than banning football actions).
- Mar 7, 2006
- 3,823
- 4,620
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Right decision was made.
It’s unfortunate for Gus however and I hope he makes a full and speedy recovery.
It’s unfortunate for Gus however and I hope he makes a full and speedy recovery.
VinnieB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 28, 2021
- 7,413
- 11,533
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Well if Melbourne has allows him to play in the prelim (assuming they get over Carlton), questions over the club as well as the AFL should be asked.
If he was out cold for 2 mins and has had a history of concussion, both club and afl would be negligent to allow Brayshaw to play.
Similar threads
