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

[Multiballz]

What, he was close to touching it. As I’ve shown with the picture.
It wasn’t a complete misjudgment that’s rubbish.
And why are people ignoring Brayshaws movement to the side, no one can be expected to account for that.

Or his ballwatching/complete disregard for oncoming traffic after disposal?
He had more time to alter his course and take protective action than Maynard did.

 

[FR0GGY]

Didn’t a collingwood new debutant this year get subbed off from concussion this year in a marking contest?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Didn’t a collingwood new debutant this year get subbed off from concussion this year in a marking contest?

Was a player who didn't last long... for some reason I recall a Richmond player... but could be wrong.

Didn't even last the 1st quarter.

 

[Sanders]

Are you a hacker?

Statistician

 

[FR0GGY]

Looking at these still shots.. and bare with me here.. this could have some unprovable bullshit included!..

1) maynard launched his jump off his right leg.. if he wanted to go towards him with a bump and not simply jump up and smother/put him off the kick, then he jumped with the wrong leg.. pushing off his left leg instead wouldve propelled him toward brawshaw…

think about it.. when you are running at full speed and launch a jump off your right leg in which direction (no matter how small a change of direction that is) does that point your body in..

so his intention was never to make contact with Brayshaw.

2) the collision occurs because of Brayshaw.. it looks as if Brayshaw has “checked” his kick at the last minute to get it “around“ (you know what I mean - kick across the ball to “slice it slightly) the smother attempt.. so he’s ended up kicking it slightly across his body with his right leg towards his left side..
in doing this he has instantly put himself off his centre of balance and made himself fall toward the right after the kick.. straight into the path of Maynard.

think about.. when you kick across your body like that whilst leaning back into the kick.. which way do you fall..

maynard.. in the split seconds has realised he’s now about to collide with brayshaw and his body‘s immediate response is to tense up bring the arms in and protect itself.. its a subconscious reaction.

Is that far fetched?..

He even goes to slightly put his arms out a split second before contact and if anyone’s run and jumped, you don’t land with your arms still up (unless marking)

 

[Sanders]

So you're position is that ONLY the player without the ball is responsible for the health of the player with the ball. The player with the ball has absolutely no responsibility to avoid contact where that's possible.

Brayshaw contributed to the contact by deciding to continue to kick and doing so in a manner to avoid the smother. He chose not to dodge, as he could have.

You're having a laugh if you want the game to be this way.

Laughter is involved, yes.

 

[chazwazza]

Jeez there’s some baffling opinions on here.
I guess trying to minimise concussion events comes down to the lesser of two evils….let’s say a few evils.

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of players that are susceptible to concussion, like Brayshaw, ruled out of the game for months or out of the game for good?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of massive court cases against the league and clubs?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal but happy for ex players and their families to be suffering from the effects of concussion and suicide?

Surely the odd player missing a few finals games is a small price to pay.

 

[feenix67]

Laughter is involved, yes.

Still won't say it will you?

 

[FR0GGY]

Jeez there’s some baffling opinions on here.
I guess trying to minimise concussion events comes down to the lesser of two evils….let’s say a few evils.

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of players that are susceptible to concussion, like Brayshaw, ruled out of the game for months or out of the game for good?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of massive court cases against the league and clubs?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal but happy for ex players and their families to be suffering from the effects of concussion and suicide?

Surely the odd player missing a few finals games is a small price to pay.

Say you suspend this player, what’s going to come of that, it’s not something that’s regularly occurring in the game like the sling/dangerous tackle was.

 

[chazwazza]

Say you suspend this player, what’s going to come of that, it’s not something that’s regularly occurring in the game like the sling/dangerous tackle was.

Players, coaches and umpires adjust just like they have forever in all sports.

 

[GROTTO]

Jeff Gleeson instructions before deliberating:



We should judge the evidence fairly and impartially in the light of their (Tribunal members) common sense, their experience of life and where appropriate their experience as footballers.



No one should be under any misapprehension that, despite the fact we've been going for almost three hours with a minute analysis of this matter, this will be decided on the basis of common sense, a sensible and fair viewing of footage.



I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that this has taken nearly three hours.



A footballer was concussed and stretchered from the MCG in a final, another footballer has got a couple of pretty important games he’ll either play in or miss depending in part on what we decide tonight.



As importantly as any of that, there are footballers playing today, next year and in the decades to come who need to understand the basis on which this decision was made and the basis on which we approach these matters generally.



It ought not be assumed that this is going to be some watershed moment in the announcement of the duty of care.



There'll be an analysis of the duty of care specific to this incident.



One thing I think we've all appreciated from hearing the evidence tonight is that none of us can quite think of a specific factual circumstance that’s identical.



That's almost always the case. So many of the cases have subtle but important differences from the others.



We're here to analyse this matter and this evidence presented to us tonight and we will take no regard whatsoever of the many and various views that have been quite understandably circulating about the matter.



We’ll decide it only on the evidence.



There's been a common ground about the high bump provision. I just want to make quite clear and give this instruction to myself and my fellow panel members.



When we come to consider the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, it was fairly and appropriately acknowledged by Woods (AFL) that, in order for us to find that this was a bump, there needed to be a voluntary bump, not a bumping into someone, but a bumping of an opponent.

 

[feenix67]

Jeez there’s some baffling opinions on here.
I guess trying to minimise concussion events comes down to the lesser of two evils….let’s say a few evils.

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of players that are susceptible to concussion, like Brayshaw, ruled out of the game for months or out of the game for good?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of massive court cases against the league and clubs?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal but happy for ex players and their families to be suffering from the effects of concussion and suicide?

Surely the odd player missing a few finals games is a small price to pay.

We have that game already, it's called touch footy.

There's a difference between ensuring players suffering concussions are appropriately cared for, and going down a fruitless path of trying to mitigate all semblance of risk in a fast contact sport.

Blaming Maynard because Brayshaw got concussed is like hunting the shark that killed the swimmer. People will still swim, people will still get eaten. The only way to stop it is to close the beaches.

Do you want to close the metaphorical beach?

 

[Sanders]

Still won't say it will you?

No, obviously I’m not interesting in your strawmen and flawed premise.

That’s the point Rumpole, people aren’t obliged to indulge your fallacies just because you fail to present serious or credible argument

That’s a you problem.

What you’ve presented is the garden variety “games gone soft” nonsense mixed with a little “back in my day” and some “have none of you played the game?”

These aren’t arguments, they’re sketch comedy

 

[cleanhands]

Statistician

Hope that works out for you better than your detective work

 

[feenix67]

No, obviously I’m not interesting in your strawmen and flawed premise.

That’s the point Rumpole, people aren’t obliged to indulge your fallacies just because you fail to present serious or credible argument

That’s a you problem.

What you’ve presented is the garden variety “games gone soft” nonsense mixed with a little “back in my day” and some “have none of you played the game?”

These aren’t arguments, they’re sketch comedy

What's sketch comedy is your pseudo intellectual rhetoric. It fools noone.

 

[Sanders]

We have that game already, it's called touch footy.

Damn straight grandpa!

Should we reintroduce national service too?

I mean c’mon, you can’t be serious

Bradshaw was unconscious for 2 minutes and you want to invoke the most reductive of cliches?

 

[Sanders]

What's sketch comedy is your pseudo intellectual rhetoric. It fools noone.

“No you are”. Always the refuge of the finest advocates

I can write your lines for you if you like, add a bit of originality

 

[kirky]

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

Absolute rubbish. Dillion, Kane and McLaughlin all agreed to send this to tribunal. Michael Christian needs to go.

This was a bad look no matter which side you are on and Michael Christian said no case to answer. Michael Christian should have said this goes to tribunal and both sides can answer their cases respectively.

Irrespective of the outcome tonight, there will be a new rule next year that you can’t jump to smother.

All I will say is “duty of care”. Maynard made the wrong initial decision.

 

[chazwazza]

We have that game already, it's called touch footy.

There's a difference between ensuring players suffering concussions are appropriately cared for, and going down a fruitless path of trying to mitigate all semblance of risk in a fast contact sport.

Blaming Maynard because Brayshaw got concussed is like hunting the shark that killed the swimmer. People will still swim, people will still get eaten. The only way to stop it is to close the beaches.

Do you want to close the metaphorical beach?

To be honest, I don’t really care. I’m just trying to point out what sports are facing especially Aussie Rules.
It’s not your decision making arse on the line when you face a torrent of court cases is it!
If you don’t like what the game is becoming don’t follow it. Go smack your head into a tree multiple times if that’s what is important to you.
This isn’t going away so either accept the rationale of don’t

 

[cleanhands]

Absolute rubbish. Dillion, Kane and McLaughlin all agreed to send this to tribunal. Michael Christian needs to go.

This was a bad look no matter which side you are on and Michael Christian said no case to answer. Michael Christian should have said this goes to tribunal and both sides can answer their cases respectively.

Irrespective of the outcome tonight, there will be a new rule next year that you can’t jump to smother.

All I will say is “duty of care”. Maynard made the wrong initial decision.

Then they’ll eliminate centre bounces

 

[Bearded Clam]

Jeez there’s some baffling opinions on here.
I guess trying to minimise concussion events comes down to the lesser of two evils….let’s say a few evils.

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of players that are susceptible to concussion, like Brayshaw, ruled out of the game for months or out of the game for good?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal at the behest of massive court cases against the league and clubs?

Do you not want changes to the rules/tribunal but happy for ex players and their families to be suffering from the effects of concussion and suicide?

Surely the odd player missing a few finals games is a small price to pay.

And suspending Maynard stops this football incident happening in the future how?..

and does it somehow instantly cure Brayshaws current concussion?

its football. Its a high speed contact sport. You are NEVER going to completely stop this occuring.

you can reduce its occurance by outlawing sling tackles.. blatant hip and shoulders that contact the head.. dog acts etc etc..

but as soon as you start trying to ban actions like this that are thankfully rare but are just in the course of normal play.. you’re not gonna have a game to watch.. might as well turn it all into a big non-contact netball game on an oval field.

 

[kirky]

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

Brayshaw was unconscious for two minutes.

Another furphy.

 

[FR0GGY]

Players, coaches and umpires adjust just like they have forever in all sports.

Adjust what?
What should they adjust in this instant?
You can’t jump if you are moving?

 

[FR0GGY]

Brayshaw was unconscious for two minutes.

Another furphy.

What’s the furphy?

 

[feenix67]

Damn straight grandpa!

Should we reintroduce national service too?

I mean c’mon, you can’t be serious

Bradshaw was unconscious for 2 minutes and you want to invoke the most reductive of cliches?

Brayshaw, the recipient of a head knock earlier in the match, with a predisposition for concussion, was out for two minutes, having failed in any way to attempt to avoid contact because he attempted to execute his kick with the intent to avoid the smother.

Selective recounting of events is a skill of yours isn't it.