Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

[Chief]

Continued in Part 2:

Oppo Camp - Non-Eagles Discussion

Who gives a **** about finals anyway So overrated It’s all about the draft these days

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Cuzz09]

Ok.

I remember the 2 Pies finals were good but the rest were meh

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Shuestar13]

Fremantle winning a final certainly wasn’t good. The Semi final against Collingwood was much better, should have been a bigger loss mind you, Collingwood were wasteful

 

[Cuzz09]

Brissy feels like 2018 us

Had a breakthrough away final win the year before and prob play Melb in the Prelim and maybe Coll in the GF.

Here's my tip... dont let Pies get 5 goals up in the GF

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[KERRPOW]

Wrapt that Port lost, but I'm not sure you can call it a choke. Brisbane were the higher ranked team, it was at their home ground, and they haven't lost there all year.

Still happy with the result. EAD Rioli you kent.

The choke is coming up this week.

#itsabigbigsound

 

[UseR2006]

GWS v Brisbane GF is the goal.

 

[Bender_]

GWS v Brisbane GF is the goal.

Watch the Vic Harley Reid chatter go into hyper-space if so.

Ludicrous speed. Go.

 

[KERRPOW]

Would love to see the dees and port go out in straight sets.

That result would go to the blues heads also.

 

[ziad]

Would love to see the dees and port go out in straight sets.

That result would go to the blues heads also.

Blues celebrated like it was their GF, we shall see.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Will be happy with a Collingwood vs Brisbane Grand Final.

With Brisbane winning.

 

[Cuzz09]

Old mates Partington and Matty Allen playing in the 2nd Semi for Glenelg v Crows.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Goroyals22]

Good old QLD’s… they certainly are a rare breed over here


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Truckosaurus]

Will be happy with a Collingwood vs Brisbane Grand Final.

With Brisbane winning.

One time, for old time's sake.

 

[EagleEgo]

What is wrong with Kane Cornes? Brickshaw was the ball carrier. Maynards is not allowed to hit the ball carrier on the head after Brickshaw disposed the ball, let alone concussed him (disregard of whether Maynards was jumping or not).

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

What is wrong with Kane Cornes? Brickshaw was the ball carrier. Maynards is not allowed to hit the ball carrier on the head after Brickshaw disposed the ball, let alone concussed him (disregard of whether Maynards was jumping or not).

You're allowed to jump to spoil the ball unfortunate that brayshaw got concussed but it is what it is

 

[EagleEgo]

You're allowed to jump to spoil the ball unfortunate that brayshaw got concussed but it is what it is

Maynards jumped forward instead of jumping upward. This defines the intent.
Maynards made contact to Brickshaw‘s head. This defines the location of contact.
Maynards concussed Brickshaw. This defines the consequence.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

You're allowed to jump to spoil the ball unfortunate that brayshaw got concussed but it is what it is

Nah. If that had been a teammate coming the other way there is no way Maynard would have dropped the shoulder and hit him flush in the face.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Not sure if this is the right thread to post it but we have threads on the cricket, world cup etc...

Novak Djokovic winning his 24th Grand Slam (and counting) is possibly the single most impressive sporting achievement of the 21st century. Arguably bigger than Tom Brady's multiple Superbowl wins, bigger than Tiger Woods' 2019 Masters win, bigger than Phelps' 2008 Olympics, bigger then Kipchoge's world record in the marathon, and bigger than Messi winning the World Cup last year.

He won't get the plaudits necessarily because of the perception about him, however, his career very much eclipses the universally loved Roger Federer, and by some margin:

Majors
24 Majors v 20 Majors
36 Finals v 31 Finals
88.3% winning percentage v 86% winning percentage
3 x Career Grand Slam v 1 x Career Grand Slam

Other tournaments
39 Masters v 28 Masters
6 ATP Finals v 6 ATP Finals
96 total titles v 103 total titles

Rankings
391 weeks at no. 1 (with many more to come) v 310 weeks at no. 1
8 Year-End no. 1s v 5 Year-End no. 1s

Also
251 match wins vs top 10 opponent (69.5%) v 224 match wins vs top 10 opponent (64.55%)
27 wins H2H vs 23 wins H2H

Despite Federer being touted only a couple of years ago as the greatest of all time he will likely only hold one relevant record, being consecutive weeks at no. 1, by the time Djokovic has retired.

All sorts of other sporting achievements and events are acknowledged and discussed on the West Coast board (which I have limited interest in). Ergo I thought it reasonable that I could mention this enormous sporting achievement, even if I may be the only excited poster on this forum.

 

[Feeling Groovy]

Maynards jumped forward instead of jumping upward. This defines the intent.
Maynards made contact to Brickshaw‘s head. This defines the location of contact.
Maynards concussed Brickshaw. This defines the consequence.

He jumped forward due to momentum as he was running to smother/touch the ball. You can't run forward and jump vertically without some forward momentum. The question of intent really comes down to whether you think he was intending to smother the ball or to clean up Brayshaw. I can see arguments on both sides but lean towards he was going hard at the ball and then once in the air, protected himself and cleaned up Brayshaw. Part of the game.

But I accept that others may see it differently. I am a product of my age a bit when it comes to contact in footy and when I played.
There is no doubt Maynard made contact with Brayshaw's head. But they let that go in marking contests all the time if you are going for the ball. Plenty of knees in the back of the head concussing people. So it isn't definitive. The issue is whether it was a football action and on that, see above for my take.

Players can be concussed running into the goal posts or in marking contests. So that isn't definitive either.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It's a bit of a litmus test because while the outcome was far less severe, I thought there was more intent to hurt in the Martin hit compared to the Maynard one. The outcomes of both will be very interesting.

 

[WCE_phil]

Brayshaw is a pretty big guy. He's 1cm shorter than Maynard but a couple of KG's heavier.

Lets put it a little differently.

If it was Kossie Pickett do you think he would have done the same thing? Maybe (Lets face it, it's Maynard so most likely)
If it was Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

33

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

is he entitled to do the same thing to protect himself as Max is 20cm and 22kg heavier than him? I sure as shit would have thought so.

Easiest way to get injured (other than not stretching or being warm) is by not protecting yourself in footy.

 

[Dazzler9]

Brayshaw is a pretty big guy. He's 1cm shorter than Maynard but a couple of KG's heavier.

Lets put it a little differently.

If it was Kossie Pickett do you think he would have done the same thing? Maybe (Lets face it, it's Maynard so most likely)
If it was Max Gawn is he entitled to do the same thing to protect himself as Max is 20cm and 22kg heavier than him? I sure as s**t would have thought so.

Easiest way to get injured (other than not stretching or being warm) is by not protecting yourself in footy.

There will come a day in footy where a player will sue the AFL because they got injured not protecting themselves because they were trying to avoid suspension.

 

[EagleEgo]

He jumped forward due to momentum as he was running to smother/touch the ball. You can't run forward and jump vertically without some forward momentum. The question of intent really comes down to whether you think he was intending to smother the ball or to clean up Brayshaw. I can see arguments on both sides but lean towards he was going hard at the ball and then once in the air, protected himself and cleaned up Brayshaw. Part of the game.

But I accept that others may see it differently. I am a product of my age a bit when it comes to contact in footy and when I played.
There is no doubt Maynard made contact with Brayshaw's head. But they let that go in marking contests all the time if you are going for the ball. Plenty of knees in the back of the head concussing people. So it isn't definitive. The issue is whether it was a football action and on that, see above for my take.

Players can be concussed running into the goal posts or in marking contests. So that isn't definitive either.

I believe the judgement should take into consideration of the fact that Brickshaw was the ball carrier. He had the ball. Opposition can action legally against him (like tackle or even bump), but has the duty of care on the ball carrier.

If Maynard could not stop his momentum, then do not do what he did. Note that this is not a marking contest. (Brickshaw has the ball)

 

[Wild Kelly]

He left the ground at full pace and hit a player high after disposal and concussed him. 3 weeks minimum.

 

[Forward Press]

I don't think Maynard when in the split second deciding to go for the smother intended or wanted or knew he would hurt Brayshaw - but that's not the relevant question. The vast majority of players with the odd rare exception walk into the tribunal as fair players that never dream of hurting others, if we use the 'never wanted to hurt him in any way' as an excuse no one would ever get suspended.

The relevant question is the duty of care towards others - if Maynard was to jump in that fashion to smother the ball and collects a player, then the consequences may (should?) be something he has to cop if it all goes wrong. I don't think he'd get cited much less sent to the tribunal if it was a 'normal' smothering action that unfortunately got Brayshaw in the head. Was it a reasonable football action? That should be the sole question the tribunal has to deal with imo.

Anyway, whichever way you slide it is an interesting test case for how the tribunal deals with similar incidents in the future.

 

[Feeling Groovy]

I believe the judgement should take into consideration of the fact that Brickshaw was the ball carrier. He has the ball. Opposition can action legally against him (like tackle or even bump), but has the duty of care on the ball carrier.

If Maynard could not stop his momentum, then do not do what he did. Note that this is not a marking contest. (Brickshaw has the ball)

And that seems to be the way the game is going. But I am not sure we want to take out all contact from the sport or to stop players going hard at the ball and man. It is the fabric of the game. It is a contact sport and I think everyone who plays it knows the risks and some things are inevitable in contact sport. The same way a Formula 1 driver knows the risks of a crash.

Not suggesting the Maynard hit necessarily falls into that category, as I see it as a 50/50 call but assuming he was going hard at the ball/smother, I think he is perfectly entitled to protect himself once in the air.

I understand the need to protect the head but if something is a football action and as a consequence of that concussion accidentally occurs, then I think that is part of the game.

The real issue to me is whether Maynard's action was a football action or was he really intent on cleaning up Brayshaw in the guise of a football action.