No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVIII

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wooden Robot said:
He did not 'launch' himself at the player - he 'launched' himself at the ball which was travelling upwards.
It was in no way reckless.
The outcome was unfortunate in that Brayshaw was injured, but players for a hundred years have attempted to smother the ball the same way Maynard did.
What you and the AFL seems to want is a free shot at goal, while Maynard steps aside to allow him to do it.
PS It's impossible to run towards the player and leap totally vertically - momentum is always going to carry someone forward.
Go outside and try it.
Run at 35 km per hour and see if you can jump totally vertically. Freakin' impossible. maybe off 5 km per hour you can.
Applaud the tribunal for throwing it out.
Click to expand...

Maynard definitely was not running at 35kph or anywhere near that speed. You can run to a point and leap vertically without moving further forward, footballers did it for years manning the mark for shots at goal etc. But that isn't the key question. Nobody need to provide Maynard with an alternative way to attempt to smother, the Tribunal rules have changed to render that irrelevant. It simply needs to be judged whether his actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and satisfied his duty of care to the other player. It is pretty easy to demonstrate his actions did not satisfy any duty of care simply by looking at 2 things:

- the resultant collision and injury, and

- the fact Maynard took no discernible steps to avoid causing the collision and injury.

If you say the collision occurred because Brayshaw subtly changed direction late, then it needs to be explained why Maynard owned the space he occupied and why Brayshaw did not own that space. A player needs to be able to dispose of the ball without a human missile crashing into his head one step later. That to me is plainly obvious.

If this decision is to be seen as authoritative on how the game should or can be played, we have just discovered a new way to maim opposition players legally. This is not a trend the game needs at this time.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Meteoric Rise said:
Maynard definitely was not running at 35kph or anywhere near that speed. You can run to a point and leap vertically without moving further forward, footballers did it for years manning the mark for shots at goal etc. But that isn't the key question. Nobody need to provide Maynard with an alternative way to attempt to smother, the Tribunal rules have changed to render that irrelevant. It simply needs to be judged whether his actions were reasonable in the circumstances, and satisfied his duty of care to the other player. It is pretty easy to demonstrate his actions did not satisfy any duty of care simply by looking at 2 things:

- the resultant collision and injury, and

- the fact Maynard took no discernible steps to avoid causing the collision and injury.

If you say the collision occurred because Brayshaw subtly changed direction late, then it needs to be explained why Maynard owned the space he occupied and why Brayshaw did not own that space. A player needs to be able to dispose of the ball without a human missile crashing into his head one step later. That to me is plainly obvious.

If this decision is to be seen as authoritative on how the game should or can be played, we have just discovered a new way to maim opposition players legally. This is not a trend the game needs at this time.
Click to expand...
If you are running 35km'hr that means you are running 100 metres in 9.7222 seconds

I agree, no way he is running that fast.
 
Coach_Required said:
If you are running 35km'hr that means you are running 100 metres in 9.7222 seconds

I agree, no way he is running that fast.
Click to expand...
Too much maths for my liking. Lol
 
Meteoric Rise said:
Of course we are all allowed to have different opinions. But if you want yours to count with me, you might want to go into a bit more detail as to why you believe the decision is so sensible.

If you look at the incident from the perspective of a player disposing of the ball in an uncongested situation. Is it acceptable that he is knocked out cold after suffering forceful contact from the front well after he has disposed of the ball? A player has an enshrined right under the rules of the game to not suffer any forceful contact after disposing of the ball, for a start. Let alone a very forceful blow directly to the head.

Maynard trying to smother is fine, nobody is going to say otherwise. The technique he employed was horrendously dangerous. He basically launched himself through the air at the kicker - or near enough for the now known result to be well in play. There is no way you should be allowed to do that. And the reasons for that are obviously displayed in the outcome of this incident. Maynard's only priority was to close down Brayshaw's space to pressure his kick. Fair enough, but it needs to be done safely. It was done with total reckless abandon. Maynard needed to allow Brayshaw much more space to react to Maynard's presence after he had kicked the ball. Any leap to smother needed to be vertical and not forward into the space Brayshaw was going to occupy after kicking the ball.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I'm truly not at all bothered if my opinion doesn't count with you.
 
Michaels said:
With all due respect, I'm truly not at all bothered if my opinion doesn't count with you.
Click to expand...

Good, I was worried it might bother you, but seeing as you are so indifferent to your wrong opinions being marmalised, I will take the gloves off next time. :tearsofjoy:

And ffs do not accord me due respect. Nothing I hate more than someone who refuses to be disrespectful when they should be. :)
 
Wooden Robot said:
He did not 'launch' himself at the player - he 'launched' himself at the ball which was travelling upwards.
It was in no way reckless.
The outcome was unfortunate in that Brayshaw was injured, but players for a hundred years have attempted to smother the ball the same way Maynard did.
What you and the AFL seems to want is a free shot at goal, while Maynard steps aside to allow him to do it.
PS It's impossible to run towards the player and leap totally vertically - momentum is always going to carry someone forward.
Go outside and try it.
Run at 35 km per hour and see if you can jump totally vertically. Freakin' impossible. maybe off 5 km per hour you can.
Applaud the tribunal for throwing it out.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

The suggestions of bumping or launching at him, wasn't going the ball etc are wild.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kozi said:
Who the farrk brings a guy flowers after knocking them out
Click to expand...

I bought a guy a beer once and asked him to lie for me at the Tribunal. He did too, so must have liked his beer. :) The Tribunal knew we were both lying so they gave me a week to smarten up my ideas. They couldn't give me the 4 weeks I deserved though, we lied too well for that.
 
The AFL went nuts on the sling tackle protecting the head. Lots of players suspended this year. Broady became Exhibit A and duly copped his due. For mine the same should apply for bumps even if they are not intentional. Obviously Maynard didn't mean to knock out Brayshaw but the consequences of the action I believe is what warrants a suspension. The AFL is on very dangerous grounds here. A whole can of worms has been opened up. Just my take on it. If you look at blokes like Johnny Platten and Greg Williams from another wild era in footy it's devastating how they will have to function for the rest of their lives. As a teenager I used to love watching the hard hits at the footy and I still do but these days I reflect on the personal toll on a players life after footy. 🥺
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Groupie_
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIX
747 748 749 750 751
Replies
19K
Views
364K
lumpinee
lumpinee
Truetiger
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XL
280 281 282 283 284
Replies
7K
Views
127K
ComfortablyNumb
ComfortablyNumb
beema limapep
US Election Day thread - results and mild observational discussion only
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
293
Views
3K
guruisatiger
guruisatiger
T
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVII
424 425 426 427 428
Replies
11K
Views
212K
DickieKnee
DickieKnee
Meteoric Rise
Toast New Years AA Observations 2024....
Replies
15
Views
1K
JAKLAUGHING
JAKLAUGHING
Hank Heavenly
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXVI
502 503 504 505 506
Replies
13K
Views
301K
tigers12
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top