MRP

[tiger76]

'Wanted to hit, wanted to hurt': Brayden Maynard - the guilty man found innocent

Brayden Maynard got his man, and lived to tell the tale. The Maynard-Angus Brayshaw incident has been well-documented, and became one of the biggest…

www.theroar.com.au

Wanted to hit Wanted to hurt Sums it up very well

That’s what makes all the good bloke / he plays the right way BS so annoying.

He knew what he was doing.

And personally I like seeing players that are hard at it and that play on the edge, however when that crosses the line (someone ending up out cold), you pay the price for doing so.

This result is truly shambolic and a symptom of a dysfunctional AFL judicial system that presents more like a backyard operation.

And how is it appropriate for there to be PR spin being disseminated by team members through the media during the lead up to the hearing?

 

[tigertim]

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.

Trouble is the precedents set aren’t followed. If it were Maynard would’ve been suspended.

 

[momentai]

Who employs those (hence pays) that are on the tribunal? I reckon you already know.

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.

Don't like the decision either but the system in place is a judicial one, with members of the tribunal expected to bring a view which is independent of the Clubs and independent of the AFL.

Who pays them doesn't matter. In fact it is worth remembering that the prosecution was brought by the AFL, as the system demands.
Apparently and unusually, having to over rule the MRO in the decision to bring the charge in the first place.

David SSS gives an excellent analysis of the issues at stake here at 6083 above. This will test the AFL (Gill, Dyl and Laura) but I hope they consider those same matters before deciding whether to appeal.

 

[eZyT]

Maynard would be retired like a 5yr gelding

In 5 years time?

All The AFL has done here,

Is set a precedent from which to draw no comparisons in the future,

Like a floating datum in a blackhole.

The AFL has absolutely no reference point, absolutely no clarity or consistency, no framework whatsoever,

To protect the head.

Why?

Because it doesnt actually want to protect the head, even if it could, which it realistically cant.

The AFL lawyers (Dillon primarily) are merely seeking to establish a legally defencible position

Of protecting the head.

The AFL wants to protect the head in court, not on the footy field.

They'lle have a semi-trailer full of folders of policies, examples, of watertight gobbledegook, minutes, directives, documented chains of command decrying concussion, emails, public positions,

And a heap of broke ex-players dribbling in dementia wards, trying to remember who they played for, and a whole stack of present discombobulated players and coaches, perplexed by how to play the game they get paid for.

What an utter, *smile*, shemozzle.

And it seems relatively easy to not be an utter *smile* shemozzle.

Show clear intent, write policy, communicate it, adjudicate it, measure it.

Change the game, or keep it the same and budget for the damage.

Not *smile* 2-bob each way.

Theyre out of their depth, because theyre an entitled boys club short on talent

 

[waiting]

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

In past eras he certainly as you say Ziggy not last that first quarter, let alone the game.

But that’s the past.

The game has moved past that era, but at least once a year you still see acts of complete “smile”.

The game has “cleaned up’ but the rules, interpretations of them, tribunal inconsistencies have lagged behind.

We need lawyers and Biochemists completely infecting the game I love.

Collingwood had every right to get their man off.

How they did it disgusted me and the immediate aftermath of Eddie’s reaction to me shows no regard to Brayshaw.

There was no humility or dignity in that and too late for the Pies football boss to acknowledge Brayshaw after putting the ‘blame’ on a kid who I stress that, might struggle to have the ‘courage’ to play the game he aspired to fulfill till he retired.

The AFL’s council Wood has slot to answer here.

Completely stuffed everything up.

P155 the Pies, Eddie and the whole club.

 

[waiting]

I decided today to put a ‘media ban ‘ on myself and not listen to any radio, watch any TV Footy related programs and stay away from posting for 24 hours.

Horrible, horrible decision.

 

[eZyT]

Eddie’s reaction to me shows no regard to Brayshaw.

There was no humility or dignity in that and too late for the Pies football boss to acknowledge Brayshaw after putting the ‘blame’ on a kid who I stress that, might struggle to have the ‘courage’ to play the game he aspired to fulfill till he retired.

Eddie hasnt got a humble bone in his body.

A great day for The Collingwood Football Club! , toasted HURRAY with Sav blanc

With Angus Brayshaw's laying in an MRI.

The flowers and the bottle seemed to work a treat.

give BruzzyGreatBloke man-of-the-year!

Yay.

 

[Tigers of Old]

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 !

I can’t disagree. The line is constantly shifting. I love all footy acts because love footy but the research into brain injury & pending lawsuits has me questioning the game as we knew it before all this.

Marking contests are dangerous. Ask the countless footballers recently who’ve been forced out of the game (their livelihoods) with concussion. CTE is changing lives.

It used to be so simple. Got a head knock & shook it off. Now it’s a complete mess. I find it very confronting & sad tbh that the game is under threat.

 

[Brodders17]

I actually thought theyde get this one right

That was clearly your 1st mistake.

 

[graystar1]

Thought this was worth posting.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/former-melbourne-star-shaun-smith-slams-afl-after-brayden-maynard-cleared-at-the-tribunal-for-clash-with-angus-brayshaw/news-story/4bf3d6fae6e61f1b2878d7084c6fe698

 

[Willo]

Thought this was worth posting.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/former-melbourne-star-shaun-smith-slams-afl-after-brayden-maynard-cleared-at-the-tribunal-for-clash-with-angus-brayshaw/news-story/4bf3d6fae6e61f1b2878d7084c6fe698

Paywalled

 

[Brodders17]

The Pies certainly made sure Maynard's flowers and wine made the news, just like last time one of their guys was in front of the tribunal and they repeatedly mentioned how they wouldnt mention the wine/home visit/donation their player has tried to use to show remorse.

On the other hand I reckon certainly with Broad, we said nothing while the case went to the tribunal, and some social media said he showed no remorse, then after a while the truth came out that Broad did. legitimately, not for show, not to try to reduce his sentence, but because he actually cares. I think Mansell was similar.

 

[Redford]

I can’t disagree. The line is constantly shifting. I love all footy acts because love footy but the research into brain injury & pending lawsuits has me questioning the game as we knew it before all this.

Marking contests are dangerous. Ask the countless footballers recently who’ve been forced out of the game (their livelihoods) with concussion. CTE is changing lives.

It used to be so simple. Got a head knock & shook it off. Now it’s a complete mess. I find it very confronting & sad tbh that the game is under threat.

So true. I’m actually of the opinion that whilst we have always seen incremental to moderate change in the game, we might right now, be beginning to see very significant change and over a short period of time. And I’m not sure the AFL knows how to handle it without disenfranchising the fans and this whole “fabric of the game” protest that always comes up.

Been saying for years we’ve been progressing towards a glorified version of basketball - just on a bigger arena with more players and kicking and handballing being the delivery methods.

Maybe that’s just the way the game has to go ? Some will accept it. Others won’t. Who knows…

 

[eZyT]

That was clearly your 1st mistake.

Yeah, if id been sure theyde get it wrong,

Theyde have got it right.

Or wrong.

A physicist could do a Phd and try model MRP/tribunal outcomes,

And end up driving a tram

 

[tigersnake]

Just read the judgement. Very strange IMO, would be untenable in a court. They only consider the initial action of jumping to smother, saying Maynard was '7 metres' from Brayshaw when he jumped to smother, no consideration of the second motion of turning and leading with the shoulder (and I'd argue driving into him, but thats up for debate and I understand that). They seem to say that everything that happens after the initial jumping smother attempt is inevitable and beyond any control.

You could use the same argument for a lot of cases, 'player x didn't expect player y to end up so close when he started to run towards the ball' etc. Same old same old I suppose, chronic inconsistency, game importance and player personality and political pressure playing a part. Arguments used to suspend a player in one case used to clear them in another.

Politically, it seems like Collingwood owned the AFL.

 

[eZyT]

The Pies certainly made sure Maynard's flowers and wine made the news, just like last time one of their guys was in front of the tribunal and they repeatedly mentioned how they wouldnt mention the wine/home visit/donation their player has tried to use to show remorse.

On the other hand I reckon certainly with Broad, we said nothing while the case went to the tribunal, and some social media said he showed no remorse, then after a while the truth came out that Broad did. legitimately, not for show, not to try to reduce his sentence, but because he actually cares. I think Mansell was similar.

Yes.

Broady was submissive in the remonstrations that followed his dangerous tackle - he clearly owned it and regretted it in real time.

Maynard reacted by rolling his eyes back in his head and ripping Vineys jumper off.

He probably is a great bloke in real life,

But he clearly gets white-line fever and is a total *smile* on the footy field.

But the stage was set right from the outset,

When Abs goo-goo eyed him and declared

'We love how you go about your footy'

 

[Redford]

The cynic in me says I won’t be surprised if the AFL does not appeal. They’ve got their perfect outcome: faux outrage, straight to the tribunal, we care. But happy they failed because that would open up a Pandora’s box of problems where injuries from other non player attacking actions are concerned eg from marking contests, ruck contests etc. They’re not ready or capable of dealing with that undoubted extension that would come if Maynard was found guilty.

“We reluctantly accept the Tribunal’s decision.”

 

[tigertim]

The way Whately spoke this morning made me feel the AFL won’t contest.

 

[Harry]

lol - if this was some no name Richmond player it's a 4 week suspension easily.

And Whatley would be arguing manifestly inadequate

 

[Tigers of Old]

The way Whately spoke this morning made me feel the AFL won’t contest.

Well that agenda driving *smile* would know.