MRP | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

MRP

  • Thread starter Thread starter acatman
  • Start date Start date
They didn’t want to suspend him so they didn’t; simple as that.

The rules; how they’re interpreted and how player’s actions are graded leaves way too much wriggle room for tribunal hearing outcomes to be fudged in any direction.

This year if you tackled someone and they got knocked out you were gone because you didn’t provide enough care in your actions.

If you bumped someone too hard you could get suspended because you ‘had the potential to hurt them’

And ‘I didn’t mean it / I’m a good bloke / it was a footballing action’ didn’t matter.

Maynard ‘chose’ to canon ball into the opposition player at speed as part of his smothering attempt, which then left them concussed. It was reckless and not an accident caused by two players competing for the ball.

The fact that smashing his opponent wasn’t his intention shouldn’t have really mattered, with for me the ‘footballing action’ talk being nothing more than subterfuge.

For his execution was so off the mark his 90kg frame ended up in the opposition players face.

I’m fine with him getting off if most of the other stuff we’ve seen players get suspended for this year is now off the table*

And Isn’t tackling a football action action also?

(That also sometimes goes wrong even though it’s done with the right intention).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Redford said:
All good.

The more macro issue here really, is that the AFL wants to penalise players for executing legal actions illegally that cause moderate to serious injury eg bumping, tackling…and now smothering, especially where resultant head injuries are concerned, but they don’t have the guts to apply it consistently. They pick their situations, players and associated outcomes to suit.

Typical AFL in other words. Australian Fabricated League.
Click to expand...
The tribunal is not the AFL. The AFL has brought the case before the tribunal and may yet appeal against tonight’s decision.
 
Last edited:
Was Maynard's attempted spoil reasonable in the circumstances? Tribunal says yes, I say no. He had to leave his man and run flat out directly at Brayshaw who was clearly running towards him and towards goal with his eyes down watching the ball onto his boot. So Maynard should have realised that the most likely outcome is a shirt-front clash of bodies (which is outlawed isn't it?) along with the strong possibility of head contact because he jumped into the air in an ambitious attempt at a smother. Maynard had a rush of blood in an attempted smother that was never really on and very dangerous to carry out in the modern game. I hope the AFL make a ruling before the start of next season to declare future contests like Maynard's action to be judged reckless and a 3-4 week penalty...but they probably won't because it is just a football action. Or is it?
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 3 users
mrposhman said:
Who employs those (hence pays) that are on the tribunal? I reckon you already know.
Click to expand...
The tribunal carries out a judicial role, making findings of fact and then determining what if any penalty should be imposed.
There is also an appeal process in place, as you know.
Who pays their salaries. Come on.
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
tigermike said:
Was Maynard's attempted spoil reasonable in the circumstances? Tribunal says yes, I say no. He had to leave his man and run flat out directly at Brayshaw who was clearly running towards him and towards goal with his eyes down watching the ball onto his boot. So Maynard should have realised that the most likely outcome is a shirt-front clash of bodies (which is outlawed isn't it?) along with the strong possibility of head contact because he jumped into the air in an ambitious attempt at a smother. Maynard had a rush of blood in an attempted smother that was never really on and very dangerous to carry out in the modern game. I hope the AFL make a ruling before the start of next season to declare future contests like Maynard's action to be judged reckless and a 3-4 week penalty...but they probably won't because it is just a football action. Or is it?
Click to expand...
‘Football action’ is a loose term. A bump is a football action. A tackle is a football action. A spoil is a football action..but when they go wrong it’s a dangerous action.
Maynard had to be suspended for unduly rough play. It was highly reckless attempt & now a player’s career could be over because of it and his team punished because they lose a player. Whilst Maynard is free to play in a finals series.
The AFL must appeal the verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
Maynard is a thug and that was clearly deliberate. The Brayshaw family clearly know this as they know his character. I find the football media disgusting now due to their inconsistent opinions. They were happy to accuse Mansell yet they supported Maynard etc. If he plays in a Grand Final and hurts another player the same way it will be very interesting...
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 5 users
Immediate Focus now should turn to Brayshaw & his family.

Hope you are getting all the support and recovering well with love around you.

PRE family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Tigaman said:
If AFL do not appeal & the game is doomed. Brayshaw partly to blame what a load of absolute hogwash. Duty of care does not exist anymore.
Click to expand...
“Duty of care” is a line the afl use to justify a sentence applied to a player whenever it suits their narrative.
 
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Tigers of Old said:
The AFL must appeal the verdict.
Click to expand...

They wont.

Kelly and mcguire probably had a round of golf with Gil and Dil yesterday

And sorted it all out.

Ticked off.

Im fine with Maynard getting off in isolation,

But its not.

MRP/tribunal is a fixed lottery
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 2 users
momentai said:
The tribunal is not the AFL. The AFL has brought the case before the tribunal and may yet appeal against tonight’s decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the AFL selects the Tribunal members. And also the Appeals Board members. And I believe also pays those members. I’d have to check that though.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The precedent is now set.
If a player is coming towards you it is OK to launch yourself into the air and hit him with your elbow to the head.
If he is knocked out that is good because he is now out of the game.
Coaches should now include this tactic in their training programmes.
All players. kids, teens and older players take note.
This is what is called a "Football Act." and should be encouraged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Tigers of Old said:
‘Football action’ is a loose term. A bump is a football action. A tackle is a football action. A spoil is a football action..but when they go wrong it’s a dangerous action.
Maynard had to be suspended for unduly rough play. It was highly reckless attempt & now a player’s career could be over because of it and his team punished because they lose a player. Whilst Maynard is free to play in a finals series.
The AFL must appeal the verdict.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting then that guys going for a mark that knee someone in the back or head are also reckless and unduly rough and should be suspended ? They’re football actions. They’ve caused endless more injuries than anyone has smothering.

Think carefully here ToOts !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
waiting said:
Immediate Focus now should turn to Brayshaw & his family.

Hope you are getting all the support and recovering well with love around you.

PRE family.
Click to expand...
Imagine if this happened in 1984 or 1993. He wouldn't last a qtr against the same side they met.
Maynard would be retired like a 5yr gelding
 
Redford said:
Are you suggesting then that guys going for a mark that knee someone in the back or head are also reckless and unduly rough and should be suspended ? They’re football actions. They’ve caused endless more injuries than anyone has smothering.

Think carefully here ToOts !
Click to expand...
Agree
There are all sorts of footy actions that potentially could inadvertently cause career ending injuries to an opposing player (and sometimes a team mate) - fact of life.
By definition - accidents happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Tigers proposed sale of home games | Ban the long sleeve jumper >
Top Bottom