Non-Lions discussion 2023

[BangyBangy]

That's a big issue.

They didn't raise 20% of the issues that I as a lawyer would've raised.

Shabby and ill researched preparation with no investment in the outcome.

Are you a lawyer Marty?

 

[vinnievavoom]

Maynard had other options once he chose to intercept Brayshaw. To me there was a lot more to it than a genuine smother attempt which if you look at any previous Maynard smother attempts are aimed at the boot. He jumped miles high and kept coming knocking him out with a shoulder to the head to a player who had no possibility of protecting himself.

Fair call. That's your opinion and not looking to change it.

 

[CarterS]

I'm a bit surprised the tribunal agreed that he was not careless in the way he landed on Brayshaw, I thought he could have repositioned himself or stuck his arms out or something.

I also am a bit sceptical about the fact they haven't classed it as a bump because he didn't intend to bump. Intention or not that is the result, that's why we have careless.

 

[martinson]

So many questions!

Yeah. Was curious to see how peoples rational thinking is skewed by their allegiances. I didn't associate it with a possible match up with your good selves should we make the GF.

Curious to see how peoples rational thinking is skewed by their allegiances ?? I couldn't care whether it was Maynard or Mitch Robinson.

Do your research at the Lincoln Institute then.

The reason this is an unusual case is that no one attempts to smother in the manner Maynard did . But I've seen plenty of charges back in the day that were exactly the same.

 

[dazzledavey36]

Please beat them on grand final day.

 

[BangyBangy]

Please beat them on grand final day.

We're just taking it one week at a time....

 

[CarterS]

If mitch robinson

5

Mitch Robinson

Age

35

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.9

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

8.7

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

15.8

4star

K

11.3

4star

HB

4.5

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

1.9

3star

CL

1.8

4star

D

13.2

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.6

5star

does that in round 1 does he get off?

 

[martinson]

Tbh I'm not concerned whether Maynard plays or not against us or anyone else .

But I'd be completely perplexed if I were one of the many dozens of players who've been rubbed out for unintentional contact with no deleterious outcome over the last couple of years.

 

[martinson]

It's just my view that the two big tribunal cases of the last 2 years ,Cripps and Maynard have both been thrown out largely due to the ineptitude and ill preparedness of the AFL's counsel who are just picking up their pay cheque.

 

[CarterS]

It's just my view that the two big tribunal cases of the last 2 years ,Cripps and Maynard have both been thrown out largely due to the ineptitude and ill preparedness of the AFL's counsel who are just picking up their pay cheque.

I'm not a lawyer, but some of their arguments didnt look the strongest.

 

[AFLQLD]

The AFL will come to regret this decision in time.

I think there are five ethical and logical factors that should have been considered:

- the ball is the centre of the game and while duty of care applies to all players, particular duty of care must be paid to a player with the ball. This duty of care is not cancelled or reduced by performing a “football act” in order to get control of the ball or dispossess a player of the ball.

- players are responsible for the decisions they make and their duty of care is linked to their decisions. They cannot claim that their responsibility for exercising duty of care is beyond their control, after making the decision. Choosing to jump at a player is the decision. They cannot divest themselves of duty of care just because they are now in the air and at the mercy of the forces of physics. That is a logical nonsense to even argue. Duty of care begins with the decision, not halfway through the action.

- a player can reasonably predict the outcomes of “football acts” and the simple test of this is whether the player would perform the same act in an intraclub game against his own teammates. Maynard would not have decided to do that “football act” in that way against a teammate. Why? Because he would have been able to decide in the moment that the risk of injury was too great and would exercise duty of care accordingly. It doesn’t mean he intentionally harmed Brayshaw, but he did decide on an act that he could have reasonably predicted might lead to injury. It is illogical to argue otherwise.

- the rules of the game must include at their core an active, ongoing responsibility of duty of care. You can’t switch that responsibility off at some moments when you can’t exercise proper duty of care because of the decision you made. There isn’t a free pass because you chose to take a particular action that then physically plays out beyond your control and injures someone. Duty of care either exists at all times or it doesn’t exist at all.

 

[Elixuh]

It's just my view that the two big tribunal cases of the last 2 years ,Cripps and Maynard have both been thrown out largely due to the ineptitude and ill preparedness of the AFL's counsel who are just picking up their pay cheque.

Counsel would be instructed as to the level to which the AFL wants to pitch its argument. How they pitched it tonight was very deliberate.

This was a case where they would make some self-serving statements knowing there was enough grey and wiggle room to let Maynard off.

 

[CarterS]

The AFL will come to regret this decision in time.

I think there are five ethical and logical factors that should have been considered:

- the ball is the centre of the game and while duty of care applies to all players, particular duty of care must be paid to a player with the ball. This duty of care is not cancelled or reduced by performing a “football act” in order to get control of the ball or dispossess a player of the ball.

- players are responsible for the decisions they make and their duty of care is linked to their decisions. They cannot claim that their responsibility for exercising duty of care is beyond their control, after making the decision. Choosing to jump at a player is the decision. They cannot divest themselves of duty of care just because they are now in the air and at the mercy of the forces of physics. That is a logical nonsense to even argue. Duty of care begins with the decision, not halfway through the action.

- a player can reasonably predict the outcomes of “football acts” and the simple test of this is whether the player would perform the same act in an intraclub game against his own teammates. Maynard would not have decided to do that “football act” in that way against a teammate. Why? Because he would have been able to decide in the moment that the risk of injury was too great and would exercise duty of care accordingly. It doesn’t mean he intentionally harmed Brayshaw, but he did decide on an act that he could have reasonably predicted might lead to injury. It is illogical to argue otherwise.

- the rules of the game must include at their core an active, ongoing responsibility of duty of care. You can’t switch that responsibility off at some moments when you can’t exercise proper duty of care because of the decision you made. There isn’t a free pass because you chose to take a particular action that then physically plays out beyond your control and injures someone. Duty of care either exists at all times or it doesn’t exist at all.

Tribunal didn't address this factor in their statement either, Ross Lyon addressed it on 360 last night, talking about looking at the decision to jump in the first place and conducting yourself in a way that doesn't injure other players. "when you do own your own action?" he said

 

[martinson]

Counsel would be instructed as to the level to which the AFL wants to pitch its argument. How they pitched it tonight was very deliberate.

This was a case where they would make some self-serving statements knowing there was enough grey and wiggle room to let Maynard off.

I'd be very disappointed if that were the case..

We're not talking Perry Mason with a couple of these guys. They've got form for being sloppy.

 

[martinson]

The AFL will come to regret this decision in time.

I think there are five ethical and logical factors that should have been considered:

- the ball is the centre of the game and while duty of care applies to all players, particular duty of care must be paid to a player with the ball. This duty of care is not cancelled or reduced by performing a “football act” in order to get control of the ball or dispossess a player of the ball.

- players are responsible for the decisions they make and their duty of care is linked to their decisions. They cannot claim that their responsibility for exercising duty of care is beyond their control, after making the decision. Choosing to jump at a player is the decision. They cannot divest themselves of duty of care just because they are now in the air and at the mercy of the forces of physics. That is a logical nonsense to even argue. Duty of care begins with the decision, not halfway through the action.

- a player can reasonably predict the outcomes of “football acts” and the simple test of this is whether the player would perform the same act in an intraclub game against his own teammates. Maynard would not have decided to do that “football act” in that way against a teammate. Why? Because he would have been able to decide in the moment that the risk of injury was too great and would exercise duty of care accordingly. It doesn’t mean he intentionally harmed Brayshaw, but he did decide on an act that he could have reasonably predicted might lead to injury. It is illogical to argue otherwise.

- the rules of the game must include at their core an active, ongoing responsibility of duty of care. You can’t switch that responsibility off at some moments when you can’t exercise proper duty of care because of the decision you made. There isn’t a free pass because you chose to take a particular action that then physically plays out beyond your control and injures someone. Duty of care either exists at all times or it doesn’t exist at all.

You should've run this case

 

[martinson]

Counsel would be instructed as to the level to which the AFL wants to pitch its argument. How they pitched it tonight was very deliberate.

This was a case where they would make some self-serving statements knowing there was enough grey and wiggle room to let Maynard off.

I can see however that it's possible that could've occurred . I just don't see that it's in the AFL's interests. If players get knocked out in similar fashion they're left wide open on the litigation front which is just warming up.

I'm not into conspiracy theories per se , mostly they're just hot air. I suppose it is the AFL so not a lot would surprise.

 

[Gadzorks]

Wonder if they will let the tribunal lawyers litigate the concussion class actions.

Or if they will get ones who can argue successfully.

 

[BigCat2]

The AFL will come to regret this decision in time.

I think there are five ethical and logical factors that should have been considered:

- the ball is the centre of the game and while duty of care applies to all players, particular duty of care must be paid to a player with the ball. This duty of care is not cancelled or reduced by performing a “football act” in order to get control of the ball or dispossess a player of the ball.

- players are responsible for the decisions they make and their duty of care is linked to their decisions. They cannot claim that their responsibility for exercising duty of care is beyond their control, after making the decision. Choosing to jump at a player is the decision. They cannot divest themselves of duty of care just because they are now in the air and at the mercy of the forces of physics. That is a logical nonsense to even argue. Duty of care begins with the decision, not halfway through the action.

- a player can reasonably predict the outcomes of “football acts” and the simple test of this is whether the player would perform the same act in an intraclub game against his own teammates. Maynard would not have decided to do that “football act” in that way against a teammate. Why? Because he would have been able to decide in the moment that the risk of injury was too great and would exercise duty of care accordingly. It doesn’t mean he intentionally harmed Brayshaw, but he did decide on an act that he could have reasonably predicted might lead to injury. It is illogical to argue otherwise.

- the rules of the game must include at their core an active, ongoing responsibility of duty of care. You can’t switch that responsibility off at some moments when you can’t exercise proper duty of care because of the decision you made. There isn’t a free pass because you chose to take a particular action that then physically plays out beyond your control and injures someone. Duty of care either exists at all times or it doesn’t exist at all.

Hear hear.

The tribunal process itself, besides the arguments presented, was also flawed. Just before the tribunal went to deliberate, chairman asked everyone to consider carefully, as this decision had potential for a player to miss a couple of important matches.

Hello? Since when has that got to do anything? If you do something bad, but are about the play in a grand final next week, you should get off? Or if you've retired and played your last match, you should be suspended for 20 matches because it doesn't matter?

Terrible instruction from the tribunal chair.

If you don't want to risk getting suspended and missing important matches, simple: don't do anything that might result in suspension.

I'm wondering if AFL might actually appeal this decision. They've done it before when they deemed tribunal outcome and punishment was 'manifestly inadequate' - didn't they get someone's suspension increased from 2 weeks to 4 weeks? It'll be a difficult decision to overturn though, unless they can demonstrate the process and judgement wad flawed.

 

[Elixuh]

I can see however that it's possible that could've occurred . I just don't see that it's in the AFL's interests. If players get knocked out in similar fashion they're left wide open on the litigation front which is just warming up.

I'm not into conspiracy theories per se , mostly they're just hot air. I suppose it is the AFL so not a lot would surprise.

Its not a conspiracy. This is a multibillion dollar entertainment industry and the entire process we just witnessed is an AFL process. It is constructed so that for most ordinary incidents (eg those that don't involve a Gaff style punch) there is scope to deal with matters (often involving a very similar set of facts) in a range of ways - that is both in terms of what the Tribunal can take into account and the rules they are applying.

 

[martinson]

Its not a conspiracy. This is a multibillion dollar entertainment industry and the entire process we just witnessed is an AFL process. It is constructed so that for most ordinary incidents (eg those that don't involve a Gaff style punch) there is scope to deal with matters (often involving a very similar set of facts) in a range of ways - that is both in terms of what the Tribunal can take into account and the rules they are applying.

True. But Maynard getting rubbed out would just mean more clicks ,more attention ,more controversy adding to the entertainment value. With 2 more tribunal hearings to throw fuel on the fire. Getting the NRL off the back page of the Telegraph.

It's just my experience that when an issue arises for large organisations/companies where they have to decide on a strategy on the run in a couple of days, they're not that equipped or lethal enough at it to do anything much but let it play out. It's a stretch to think that the AFL would set up Maynard's prosecution to fail. But yes, it's possible.

Looking at how the case was presented something wasn't right.

 

[Elixuh]

True. But Maynard getting rubbed out would just mean more clicks ,more attention ,more controversy adding to the entertainment value. With 2 more tribunal hearings to throw fuel on the fire. Getting the NRL off the back page of the Telegraph.

It's just my experience that when an issue arises for large organisations/companies where they have to decide on a strategy on the run in a couple of days, they're not that equipped or lethal enough at it to do anything much but let it play out. It's a stretch to think that the AFL would set up Maynard's prosecution to fail. But yes, it's possible.

Looking at how the case was presented something wasn't right.

No, their product is the game of AFL and this saga diminishes their premium product being finals, both if he doesn't play and the carry on through appeals.

 

[Gadzorks]

Appeal will depend on the consumer surveys that have not yet been completed.

Many people against tonight's decision, they appeal.

Many people ok with tonight, they let it slide.

And yes, I do believe they will be getting feedback and considering it in their actions. Conspiracy whaaat?!

 

[Grasshopper17]

Had a listen to Hoyne on SEN tonight. Some key take outs:

• You're not going to believe this, but kicking for goal accuracy actually matters. 1 in 9 home and away results are influenced by it, and this becomes 1 in 4 in finals. Blow me down with a feather duster.
• Collingwood were great for the first 40 minutes, particularly in contested possession.
• Melbourne's inside 50 entries were rubbish for the rest of the game. Pretty definitive answer to the question about whether Collingwood's defence was phenomenal or whether Melbourne's play forward of centre was simply woeful.
• Carlton were beaten at clearances which was surprising, but they were also able to generate a large portion of their score from turnover, which was also surprising.
• GWS are 2nd best in the comp at converting possession to a score, and best in the comp at stopping their opposition doing that. The best profile in the comp. Tips them to beat Port this week on the strength of that.
• We are 1-5 this season when we lose contested possession by 10+. Otherwise we're 17-1.
• Hugh has gone from 33% wing time to 1% wing time since Ashcroft's injury, and his rating has skyrocketed accordingly. Thankyou captain obvious

 

[Dom PC]

People are trying making rules after the fact. It's very unfair on Maynard. Im glad he got off.

Legislate something for next season. It's such a freak accident (anyone that challenges that fact feel free to show vision of Maynard doing the same thing to another player previously - i doubt there would be many other examples if any).

Accidental head knocks will happen in AFL. No matter how much you make rules to reduce the risk.

The talk that this outcome results in the AFL condoning head knocks is laughable and just embarrassing to suggest.

It is a contact sport after all... there is an implied consent by the players who choose to play professional AFL... the league is obviously taking the right steps to mitigate the odds of head knocks but it will never be zero.

 

[Grasshopper17]

So many questions!

Yeah. Was curious to see how peoples rational thinking is skewed by their allegiances. I didn't associate it with a possible match up with your good selves should we make the GF.

It's a good thing no rational thinking of any Collingwood supporters has been skewed by their allegiances. This has allowed them to remain the moral arbiters of all that is right and just throughout this debate.