MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[sobrave]

Biomechanist: Once he's airborne, he's essentially a projectile. He's like a frisbee with arms and legs.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Such a laughable result.

Was never going to be any different. They were always going to find a way to get him off.

It's stupid on so many fundamental levels though. A bump is not a brace, it's a contact magnifying action. If he puts his hands out as he lands on him, which is exactly the action that we should be encouraging, and likely there's no injury and no major collision. Instead we're again saying that if an inevitable collision is coming then it is ok to basically take the guy out.

It's stupid, but there was never going to be another result.

Who put the fix in??

Gleeson KC who belittled players when he was the AFL advocated and always went for the harshest penalty??
Ex Swans and crows player Scott Stevens who is a lawyer and had to quit his career early because of concussion issues?
Ex Swans and Richmond player Darren Gasper?

Which of the 3 above put the fix in??

For those who have forgotten who Scott Stevens is, this 2011 article is a reminder.

Adelaide Crows utility Scott Stevens has retired from the AFL due to ongoing concussion problems

Crows' Scott Stevens retires

www.foxsports.com.au

The 29-year-old has not played since round three this season after being concussed in a training incident.

Scans failed to reveal a specific problem with Stevens, leaving Crows medicos puzzled by what they termed post-concussion syndrome. Stevens told his teammates of his decision to immediately retire on Tuesday morning.

"Concussion is a brain injury, something to be taken very seriously, and it affects your whole quality of life and has ramifications beyond football," Stevens said in a statement.

"To play again, I would have to regain health and fitness and then be prepared that if I suffered another concussion the recovery time would be as long or longer.

"This is something I don't want to go through again."

Stevens played 144 AFL games - 119 with Adelaide and 25 with Sydney Swans, where he made his debut in 2002. Renowned for his versatility, Stevens twice won Adelaide's best team man award and was a member of the Crows' leadership group since 2009......

 

[ClintEastwood]

Maynard was not a rigid body ffs, in the physics sense. It's not like he is made out of steel.

Yes, the overall momentum of his body can't be controlled by himself once he's airborne, but that doesn't stop him from being able to change his posture mid-air, a fact the 'expert' biomechanist conveniently left out.

It's quite clear he can change posture mid-air because he DID.

And if, instead of twisting his body, so as to slam his shoulder into Brayshaw's cranium, he had done literally anything else, Brayshaw would have been unlikely to be knocked out.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Those "lanes" are absolutely ridiculous. Brayshaw ran in a straight line and kicked. He didn't deviate. He landed with one foot a split second before Maynard clobbered him and any movement at all was him bracing for the contact himself.

It was a normal kick, he landed predictably.

Pathetic from the AFL counsel that they allowed that line of argument to gain traction because it is absolutely undeniable that Maynard ran and jumped straight at him and undeniable that Maynard knew that heavy contact above the shoulders was going to happen as he jumped.

The tribunal didn't want to suspend someone for a potential GF and bought every bullshit story the Collingwood counsel threw at them. Disgusting result for football.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Who put the fix in??

Gleeson KC who belittled players when he was the AFL advocated and always went for the harshest penalty??
Ex Swans and crows player Scott Stevens who is a lawyer and had to quit his career early because of concussion issues?
Ex Swans and Richmond player Darren Gasper?

Which of the 3 above put the fix in??

For those who have forgotten who Scott Stevens is, this 2011 article is a reminder.

Adelaide Crows utility Scott Stevens has retired from the AFL due to ongoing concussion problems

Crows' Scott Stevens retires

www.foxsports.com.au

The 29-year-old has not played since round three this season after being concussed in a training incident.

Scans failed to reveal a specific problem with Stevens, leaving Crows medicos puzzled by what they termed post-concussion syndrome. Stevens told his teammates of his decision to immediately retire on Tuesday morning.

"Concussion is a brain injury, something to be taken very seriously, and it affects your whole quality of life and has ramifications beyond football," Stevens said in a statement.

"To play again, I would have to regain health and fitness and then be prepared that if I suffered another concussion the recovery time would be as long or longer.

"This is something I don't want to go through again."

Stevens played 144 AFL games - 119 with Adelaide and 25 with Sydney Swans, where he made his debut in 2002. Renowned for his versatility, Stevens twice won Adelaide's best team man award and was a member of the Crows' leadership group since 2009......

These guys are as susceptible to media pressure and potential fallout as anyone else. They openly stated that it was a big decision because of what was on the line for Maynard in terms of a GF.

The idea that they aren't swayed by this stuff is silly. Everyone is. They allowed a very clear high bump suspension to have doubt cast on it and bought into some bullshit arguments. They then made a bad decision that they can live with because the scrutiny of being wrong is less than the scrutiny of denying someone a PF and GF.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The idea that Maynard didn't reasonably know he was going to land on Brayshaw is laughable when you watch the footage from the released angles.

Nobody is ever trying to KO a bloke. Every high bump is someone committing too hard to a contest (usually trying to "make him earn it"), losing control or mistiming their jump, bracing and hitting a guy in the head.

This is no different. The only difference is that 2 games from now is a GF for Maynard.

 

[bomberclifford]

The only difference is that 2 games from now is a GF for Maynard.

Potentially. It was also a potential GF for Brayshaw.

AFL only seems to be worried about one of them though.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

These guys are as susceptible to media pressure and potential fallout as anyone else. They openly stated that it was a big decision because of what was on the line for Maynard in terms of a GF.

The idea that they aren't swayed by this stuff is silly. Everyone is. They allowed a very clear high bump suspension to have doubt cast on it and bought into some bullshit arguments. They then made a bad decision that they can live with because the scrutiny of being wrong is less than the scrutiny of denying someone a PF and GF.

Players are put on the panel to give a players viewpoint as to what is realistic and unrealistic when legal arguments and jargon are put into the mix.

To automatically think the two ex players aren't capable of making a decision that isn't influenced by media speculation is pretty arrogant on your part.

Take away all the comments by players in the media who have a connection to Collingwood and Melbourne, and I don't think I have heard any ex player say that what Maynard did was unreasonable.

If it was that heinous, then the AFL will appeal this decision given its paranoia to win Martin Lutrher King Jnr awards re the look, and fear of the ambulance chaser lawyers.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Basically the AFL has said two things tonight:

1. The consequence of Maynard's action was an inevitable concussion to his opponent that Maynard was powerless to avoid.
2. What Maynard did was a 'football act' within the rules of the game.

If Brayshaw has to retire as a result of that hit, a first year law student could win his claim against the AFL for lost income.

I thought they always said that the outcome ( ie concussion) is what they ruled on?

 

[El_Scorcho]

Players are put on the panel to give a players viewpoint as to what is realistic and unrealistic when legal arguments and jargon are put into the mix.

To automatically think the two ex players aren't capable of making a decision that isn't influenced by media speculation is pretty arrogant on your part.

Take away all the comments by players in the media who have a connection to Collingwood and Melbourne, and I don't think I have heard any ex player say that what Maynard did was unreasonable.

If it was that heinous, then the AFL will appeal this decision given its paranoia to win Martin Lutrher King Jnr awards re the look, and fear of the ambulance chaser lawyers.

Arrogant is one word I guess, but I've just opened my eyes and watched the incident several times from several angles and their decision is manifestly wrong. Maynard lined him up with plenty of time to do so, jumped up to smother knowing he was going to land on him and then knocked him out. It's no different to any other head high bump leading to a concussion and you could make the same arguments Collingwood did for almost every high bump.

The AFL may or may not appeal but again, they're also influenced by the media and by the potential pressure and scrutiny that will come with appealing.

The media run a protection racket for big clubs because the whole industry is about jobs and access for the boys. This isn't new information. Their opinion is of no more value than yours or mine and it's certainly more biased by existing relationships.

 

[Bramax]

No the Tribunal has said that, not the AFL.

So if a court says its acceptable to shoot people, then that is the government is also saying its all ok??

The AFL can appeal this and they might win it. They also can, just like a government can, change their laws after an unfavourable court ruling, to have new laws that deliver the outcome they want. The question is, do they have the intelligence to write better laws / rules???

Aren't you a lawyer?? Or at least got a law degree? You should know the difference.

No, the AFL won’t appeal. They made their best arguments which were proven wrong.
The AFL won’t want the humiliation of being comprehensively beaten twice.

 

[El_Scorcho]

They made their best arguments

No, they didn't. A lot of what Collingwood relied on was easily refutable. The "lanes" argument, Jesus Christ. Take the W but if Sam Powell-Pepper or Toby Greene does the same thing to a Daicos in 2 weeks you'll be baying for blood, and rightly so.

 

[Bramax]

No, they didn't. A lot of what Collingwood relied on was easily refutable. The "lanes" argument, Jesus Christ. Take the W but if Sam Powell-Pepper or Toby Greene does the same thing to a Daicos in 2 weeks you'll be baying for blood, and rightly so.

Firstly, it’s hard to feel like it’s a W given the concussion to Brayshaw. He’s the important part in this.
On the hearing side, the AFL made the best case they could and were beaten from pillar to post by a very thorough legal defense. Deny it as much as you like but it’s the facts.
And it’s a stupid analogy you make. It would be impossible for any player to replicate this incident for malicious reasons and expect to get away with it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Firstly, it’s hard to feel like it’s a W given the concussion to Brayshaw. He’s the important part in this.
On the hearing side, the AFL made the best case they could and were beaten from pillar to post by a very thorough legal defense. Deny it as much as you like but it’s the facts.
And it’s a stupid analogy you make. It would be impossible for any player to replicate this incident for malicious reasons and expect to get away with it.

No, they didn't present the best case they could. The best case they could have presented would have seen Maynard suspended.

They allowed Collingwood to successfully argue that Brayshaw came off his line and that Maynard couldn't have reasonably known contact was inevitable. Both of those things are ridiculous and can be disproven by looking at any of the footage of the incident. Brayshaw ran in a straight line and kicked, with a very normal kicking action, landing normally as a normal player kicking a ball would land. Brayshaw was still in his kicking motion, only having landed with 1 foot for a split second prior to being hit. Both players are running on a slight diagonal to the behind the goal view, and Maynard is running and jumping directly at Brayshaw. Maynard might not have expected to knock him out but he absolutely knew he was going to make some late and high contact as he jumped. There was no other possible outcome.

You're absolutely right that nobody else would get away with it, except maybe if they were set to miss a GF if they got suspended, which is the only reason we're having this discussion. In round 2, he's getting 3 weeks.

 

[Launchpad McQuack]

Just reeks of that time the Crows contested at the tribunal and brought in someone to analyse the data. The AFL hadn't even considered its use. Well done to Collingwood, I guess, that the AFL was underprepared and not diligent enough to actually dispute it.

No doubt that Maynard was looking to come off best from the contact with no interest in protecting a vulnerable Brayshaw.

 

[Econopower]

I’ve watched the replays of the Maynard/Bradshaw collision a number of times and also tried to put it into the context of other MRP/Tribunal decisions this year.

Having done so I struggle to see a compelling case for not suspending Maynard.

As others have pointed out, the incident should not primarily be judged on the basis of what happened after Maynard was in the air, but instead from the moment he started sprinting towards Bradshaw and in particular the decision to leave the ground.

If I know that when I leave the ground I won’t be in control of my body, and that my trajectory makes not just a collision but a head collision probable then I have a duty not to jump.

The fact that a successful smother was highly unlikely should also weigh on the decision, as should the fact that if he had time to turn and brace once he knew a collision was coming he also had time to decide to take a different and less dangerous body position.

Or to put it differently, once leaving the ground there was nothing inevitable about ending in the brace position, especially if the original intent was to smother.

Brayshaw’s deviation from the original line was also a red herring. First, it is small and a natural consequence of his kicking action. But more importantly it would seem to place some obligation on Bradshaw to avoid an action from Maynard that was unprecedented.

The Kangaroo court nature of the tribunal is demonstrated by the almost impossibility of drawing consistent connections between decisions, even within a season.

Take the Sicily tackle earlier in the year. It was clearly a ‘football’ act. And the first 90% of the tackle was textbook. Yet he was rubbed out for effectively continuing the tackle for too long, the consequence of the tackle and for breaching his duty of care.

I also don’t like the way that the threshold for suspension seems to be dependent on the importance of the games that a player would miss.

Hall, Cotchin and even Cripps last year all fall into the category of acts that would almost certainly yield a suspension in ‘normal’ times.

It isn’t even clear to me that the AFL wanted Maynard suspended. Sure, Christian’s original decision was overruled. But that seems more because the AFL wanted the appearance of taking the incident seriously.

Certainly the prosecution case was argued poorly and brought insufficient evidence to the table relative to the defence.

Tawdry is the best word I can find to describe the whole thing and without doubt it undermines the AFL’s supposed commitment to improving player welfare, within and post career.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

No, the AFL won’t appeal. They made their best arguments which were proven wrong.
The AFL won’t want the humiliation of being comprehensively beaten twice.

Did the Collingwood forum designate one member to go to the Maynard suspension thread on every other team's subforum and you drew the Port Adelaide short straw?

 

[theouthouse]

So hypothetically any player can be lined up going for a mark and the player attempting to "spoil" can arrive late after mistiming the spoil, brace for impact, and clean a guy up?

Thats classified as charging under rough conduct every day of the week. Running directly at an opponent and making contact with them in the form of a bump is charging, regardless of any "football act".

How Maynard got off for breaching that very clear and simple rule is beyond me, and the AFL will have to appeal as that very act of charging at a player is what is giving the AFL so many legal headaches today.

 

[Cheesey Mac]

These guys are as susceptible to media pressure and potential fallout as anyone else. They openly stated that it was a big decision because of what was on the line for Maynard in terms of a GF.

The idea that they aren't swayed by this stuff is silly. Everyone is. They allowed a very clear high bump suspension to have doubt cast on it and bought into some bullshit arguments. They then made a bad decision that they can live with because the scrutiny of being wrong is less than the scrutiny of denying someone a PF and GF.

They're also not the ones who are going to be paying out when the league loses litigation against former players suing the league over the concussions they suffered during their careers. It is more about the former players on the tribunal not letting a bloke miss a GF than it is setting a boundary that the head is sacrosanct.

And that's another thing in the whole public debate whether to suspend or not - the AFL over recent years, in a bid to be seen to be doing something about concussion, has conditioned the football viewing public to expect a player who KOs an opponent to get weeks. The fact that they've essentially ignored that a bloke has had his career ended because the guy who ironed him out would miss a Grand Final is I think why there's been such a reaction to this decision.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Players are put on the panel to give a players viewpoint as to what is realistic and unrealistic when legal arguments and jargon are put into the mix.

To automatically think the two ex players aren't capable of making a decision that isn't influenced by media speculation is pretty arrogant on your part.

Bernie Vince on the Rush Hour specifically stated that Thursday/Friday/on the weekend he absolutely agreed with the argument everyone was putting forward that it was a footballing act and we shouldn't be suspending people for footballing acts. After getting back to Adelaide, and looking back on the incident he started thinking back about his own career.

Vince, admits he was another footballer that like to make physical contact with his opposition. And how if he saw the chance someone "within the rules" he absolutely would take. And how if he was in Maynard's position as well, he would absolutely see that opportunity as well.

Pretty arrogant to think they aren't influenced.

Take away all the comments by players in the media who have a connection to Collingwood and Melbourne, and I don't think I have heard any ex player say that what Maynard did was unreasonable.

If it was that heinous, then the AFL will appeal this decision given its paranoia to win Martin Lutrher King Jnr awards re the look, and fear of the ambulance chaser lawyers.

Leigh Matthews, remember just recently that everyone was so disappointed that he decided to pass on an AFL Commission position? Yeah he said Maynard should've been suspended.

Will Schofield said Maynard should've been suspended.

David Mundy said he should've been suspended.

 

[Grave Danger]

I was just thinking that I hadn't heard the outcome of the VFL's appeal against their own tribunal in the case of Tyler Sonsie coward punching a N0rf player - he only got three weeks where everyone was expecting five. Well, the VFL lost the appreal. The original charge was downgraded from severe impact to high, so despite being intentional, it was only high impact, so only worth three weeks.

Tiger’s ‘woefully inadequate’ ban for brutal ‘king hit’ stands as VFL’s appeal dismissed

Tiger’s ‘woefully inadequate’ ban for brutal ‘king hit’ stands as VFL’s appeal dismissed

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[1954]

No, they didn't. A lot of what Collingwood relied on was easily refutable. The "lanes" argument, Jesus Christ. Take the W but if Sam Powell-Pepper or Toby Greene does the same thing to a Daicos in 2 weeks you'll be baying for blood, and rightly so.

Absolutely, and if Bruzzy boy was playing for any other club wobblers supporters would be strongly suggesting he is a mongrel campaigner!

 

[RossFC]

2 crows players should be looked at here. Head high bump, and a dangerous sling tackle.
View attachment 2024-02-24 07-25-22.mp4
View attachment 2024-02-24 07-22-52.mp4

 

[It Just Is]

A good defence would argue SPP was in position to tackle, not bump, and the player was slung into him.

I would be interesting our strike rate of weeks off suspensions vs other clubs. Feels like we aren’t very good at the tribunal.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

A good defence would argue SPP was in position to tackle, not bump, and the player was slung into him.

I would be interesting our strike rate of weeks off suspensions vs other clubs. Feels like we aren’t very good at the tribunal.

The problem was that he didn't tackle though, he dipped the shoulder and bumped.

Ultimately, this is just another one of those cases where a player has half a second to make a decision and in most cases they are going to look to stay in the contest and protect themselves. If he tackles he opens himself up to contact, if he jumps out of the way (which arguably he doesn't even have time to do) he looks weak. It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

It wasn't pre-meditated, it wasn't dirty, I would argue it was an accident. But given the rules now, as soon as you elect to bump and hit the head, almost regardless of the circumstances, you are going to get suspended.

His best hope is that he goes into the tribunal, pleas guilty, shows remorse and gets off with 3 weeks. I would say that is best case scenario given the current climate.