Opinion Non-Crows AFL 8 - Daddy Donuts Delivers Dream Drubbing

[George Kramer]

Didn't he choose to leave his feet? How else was he midair?

The ball is kicked up, it’s fair and reasonable for a player to jump up and try and smother it.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Didn't he choose to leave his feet? How else was he midair?

But it isnt just chosing to jump though thats not allowed..

Its chosing to jump and deliberately go the hip and shoulder thats the action thats not allowed..

Maynard didnt chose to jump to go the hip and shoulder bump.. he chose to jump to attempt the smother then on the way down he simply braces his body for contact (which is a split second natural reaction).

Go on.. go run at the nearest wall at full speed, jump two metres from it putting your arms up as if you are gonna smother an imaginary footy.. then tell us all what your body instantly does when it realises its about to collide with something.. tell us all how much control you have over your body’s actions in those split seconds.

Maynard didnt leave the ground and jump straight into a hip and shoulder bump position like Danger did the Kelly a couple of years back or Pickett did to smith in R1 this year..

What fxxkn next?.. are we gonna ban blokes jumping for marks if the position they come down from a mark is a tucked in body protective position that just happens to knock an opponent in the head and off his feet?..

What if its a team mate you collide with?.. do you still cop a ban?.. should Rohan have copped one for his collision with Cameron this year?..

The game is over if we start opening this can of worms..

 

[cleanhands]

Didn't he choose to leave his feet? How else was he midair?

Huh so Maynard has no feet

 

[FR0GGY]

Exactly, also Brayshaw wasn't in line with Maynard when Maynard left the ground how is Maynard supposed to know Brayshaw is going to fall off his kick and into his path? If he kicked with the other leg, Maynard would have landed no where near him.

Yep I’ve posted a few times the screen shots that clearly show brayshaw fell to the side post kicking.
They would have most likely missed had he continued on the path he was on when Maynard made his original decision.

 

[cleanhands]

Yep I’ve posted a few times the screen shots that clearly show brayshaw fell to the side post kicking.
They would have most likely missed had he continued on the path he was on when Maynard made his original decision.
View attachment 1801015

Exactly this

end of story

 

[FR0GGY]

Hang on..

So the bloke that is employed as the expert to make a call on these incidents just simply gets overriden if he doesnt make a call the CEO, the incoming CEO amd Laura Kane are all happy with?..

WHAT.THE.ACTUAL. F*CK??..

This would have to be the least professionally run organisations in the country.. especially given its a multi-billion dollar one!.

Looking from the outside in.. Its as if its being run by school fxxkn children.. decisions made on the run by popularity contest and thought bubble and not a drop of accountability.

Gillion has completely fxxked this league..

And someone please tell me when the fxxk he is finally going to step down?..

what sort of self important moron anounces he is stepping down, then renegs to sort out an issue that has arisen, but then doesnt actually sort that issue out, then announces his successor who is in the office next to his, and then just hangs around for the rest of the year???...

Kane should step down immediately. Ridiculous to do what she has done.

 

[Mostyn]

Shepherding is not going for the ball, it’s going for the man.
Smothering is going for the ball, it’s not a complex issue this one.
Same as going for a mark and kneeing someone in the back of the head is ok, because your objective is the ball.

Sure - so, in this case Maynard has sprinted at a player, leapt in the air, and then crashed into him. Each of those are choices and each come with a duty of care.

Good on him for trying for a defensive act, and trying to put pressure on the player disposing of it, but you don't get to waive responsibility because of that. It was clearly a reckless attack on the ball.

 

[GROTTO]

What if its a team mate you collide with?.. do you still cop a ban?.. should Rohan have copped one for his collision with Cameron this year?..

The game is over if we start opening this can of worms..

Exactly. Sometimes unavoidable accidents occur where a player is hit on the head. Its not always a suspension.

Case in point, you can knee a player to the back of the head in a marking contest and not only is there no report, the mark is awarded to the player who laid his knee into the opposition.

 

[Mostyn]

Exactly, also Brayshaw wasn't in line with Maynard when Maynard left the ground how is Maynard supposed to know Brayshaw is going to fall off his kick and into his path? If he kicked with the other leg, Maynard would have landed no where near him.

Maynard left the ground and used his momentum to leap forward and into the player disposing of the ball. His momentum was taking him towards Brayshaw, and he did have other options.

 

[Bay62]

I think the Maynard decision is less about whether he intended it or whether it was a footy accident, and more about what policy the AFL want going forward.

Even if they decide it was a footy accident, they will then decide: do we want these type of footy accidents to continue, given the harm they can do? Or do we want the policy to be that you can smother the ball as long as you don’t jump off the ground in the direction of the player - because doing that means you lose control of your ability to pull out, and your speed and momentum increases the chances of a bad injury. Whether you intended that or not.

It’s like the front on tackles we used to have in the game. No one intended to hurt the other blokes head or neck, they were just diving for the ball head on or looking to tackle the other guy who’s got his head down. No intent to harm. Any harm is just a footy accident.

But the AFL decided the potential harm from these unintended accidents was too severe, both to the immediate availability of the recipient to play next week and the long term effect eg concussion, and decided to stop these types of tackles.

At the time people said “but you can’t stop that, it’s instinctive from under 9’s to go for the ball, you tell kids to go in full bore at the ball”

A year after those actions started being penalized and players had learnt not to go in full bore but to pause, stop and prop, tackle over the shoulders not the head, or wait for the other player to pick up the ball then tackle.

Same here. It won’t be what Maynard intended, it will be what level of potential harm does the AFL want to tolerate and what does it want to eradicate

 

[Bay62]

Exactly. Sometimes unavoidable accidents occur where a player is hit on the head. Its not always a suspension.

Case in point, you can knee a player to the back of the head in a marking contest and not only is there no report, the mark is awarded to the player who laid his knee into the opposition.

Which will continue to be the case until evidence shows that knees to the head cause CET, then it will be outlawed

 

[baldandbroke]

He’ll get 2 weeks, argued down to 1 OR cleared after some legal dancing.

All the logic and sensible discussion is going to be ignored both ways.

AFL will say there is NO WAY a player misses a GF for that. PF is punishment enough.

They are corrupted. To the core.

Look at Cotchin. Go back and watch his hit in the PF … even with the “things were different back then” discount, it’s still amazing.

 

[cleanhands]

Maynard left the ground and used his momentum to leap forward and into the player disposing of the ball. His momentum was taking him towards Brayshaw, and he did have other options.

There are always other option, but at that given time you don’t get to sit down and go thru them all

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Part of me hopes Maynard is found guilty, gets weeks, and the Pies take the AFL to court
But I dont think he should

It's about time someone took this corrupt league to court.

 

[FR0GGY]

Sure - so, in this case Maynard has sprinted at a player, leapt in the air, and then crashed into him. Each of those are choices and each come with a duty of care.

Good on him for trying for a defensive act, and trying to put pressure on the player disposing of it, but you don't get to waive responsibility because of that. It was clearly a reckless attack on the ball.

So we going to expect Maynard to know brayshaw will fall off to the side? Without this contact most likely doesn’t occur.
Maynard cannot be expected to account for random things once in the air.

 

[Geoffa32]

I think the Maynard decision is less about whether he intended it or whether it was a footy accident, and more about what policy the AFL want going forward.

Even if they decide it was a footy accident, they will then decide: do we want these type of footy accidents to continue, given the harm they can do? Or do we want the policy to be that you can smother the ball as long as you don’t jump off the ground in the direction of the player - because doing that means you lose control of your ability to pull out, and your speed and momentum increases the chances of a bad injury. Whether you intended that or not.

It’s like the front on tackles we used to have in the game. No one intended to hurt the other blokes head or neck, they were just diving for the ball head on or looking to tackle the other guy who’s got his head down. No intent to harm. Any harm is just a footy accident.

But the AFL decided the potential harm from these unintended accidents was too severe, both to the immediate availability of the recipient to play next week and the long term effect eg concussion, and decided to stop these types of tackles.

At the time people said “but you can’t stop that, it’s instinctive from under 9’s to go for the ball, you tell kids to go in full bore at the ball”

A year after those actions started being penalized and players had learnt not to go in full bore but to pause, stop and prop, tackle over the shoulders not the head, or wait for the other player to pick up the ball then tackle.

Same here. It won’t be what Maynard intended, it will be what level of potential harm does the AFL want to tolerate and what does it want to eradicate

What happens if you injure a guy whilst riding his back taking a mark?



I bet if it was any other player, Maynard doesn't knock the player out. Brayshaw having concussion issues got injured easier than most.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Disco Fox]

Kane should step down immediately. Ridiculous to do what she has done.

For the last 15 years or so the GM of Football(or whatever title they've had over the years) does on occasion get involved in this way. Michael Christian for starters should have excused himself from this incident given his Collingwood ties.
Do you remember early this year a couple of players were suspended for sling tackles, not because the player they tackled was injured/concussed, but because it had "the potential to cause harm". I think this is the future AFL environment - none of us are forced to watch it.
And why on earth would you think that Laura Kane should resign - if you bothered to listen to any of the interviews it's pretty obvious that she has the potential to be very effective in the job. Thank goodness she didn't play amateur footy with Gil, like pretty well all the male executives at AFL House!!

 

[Mostyn]

I bet if it was any other player, Maynard doesn't knock the player out. Brayshaw having concussion issues got injured easier than most.

Maybe, but that's impossible to know. The only thing we do know is that Brayshaw was creamed.

 

[Scorpus]

Jumping into players' heads for "football actions" like smothers and marks will be banned in the next few years regardless of this Tribunal outcome IMO

They've done so for bumps, then tackles, even though both are football actions too. Makes sense they would also outlaw jumping into a player's head. Players will get weeks for anything that hits the head with force and causes a concussion.

 

[GROTTO]

Jumping into players' heads for "football actions" like smothers and marks will be banned in the next few years regardless of this Tribunal outcome IMO

They've done so for bumps, then tackles, even though both are football actions too. Makes sense they would also outlaw jumping into a player's head. Players will get weeks for anything that hits the head with force and causes a concussion.

Next few years is optimistic. I think a lot of changes will happen in 2024.

This is like the Toby Greene Karate Kick.

Maynard will be let off, but the changes will happen. It might even be effective immediately.

 

[BRL121]

What happens if you injure a guy whilst riding his back taking a mark?



I bet if it was any other player, Maynard doesn't knock the player out. Brayshaw having concussion issues got injured easier than most.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Going for the speccy is much less likely to cause concussion, because both are moving in the same direction and the change of relative momentum will be much less. In the head-on case here, the change of relative momentum is huge because the participants' momenta are in opposite directions.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Hopefully Christian follows through with his threat to quit!

 

[cleanhands]

Hopefully Christian follows through with his threat to quit!

Is there a bottle of wine on it

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Is there a bottle of wine on it

Think we would all chip in to have Christian leave.

The ironical thing is imo he is right on this one... yet could be the case that ends his career.

 

[cleanhands]

Think we would all chip in to have Christian leave.

The ironical thing is imo he is right on this one... yet could be the case that ends his career.

Could end the careers on people who watch as well