MRP

[ceehook2]

At first I wasn't onbaord with the AFL protecting the head
and as always the introduction of a new rule or tighter application of rules by the AFL is super clumsy, at best

I'm in my 60's and seen a few eras of our great game
and the crowd has always loved the tough stuff , myself included
and this new push does threaten to take that element away from us

but having reflected on my own playing time and seeing the stories emerging of footballers from league & AFL
struggling in later life I'm on the side of protecting the players

the speed our game is played out now opens up the chances of serious injuries and head knocks like what we have just seen with Brayshaw

our players are elite athletes and have very good reflexes and plenty good instincts which means a lot of serious injuries are avoided

our game is constantly evolving and will continue to do so
lets make the rules and their application clear and consistent

we should want to protect the long term health of our players

and nobody wants to see Eddies tasteless celebrations

 

[eZyT]

F.M.D.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701547203700179389

If there was a God,

Angus Brayshaws dad would run across the room,

And perform a textbook

Bruzzy Jordan Full Frontal JumpSmother Hip and Shoulder

On Eddie,

And inertia would see his cheap Sav Blanc clearly tumble into Mr.Brayshaws lane,

Mr.brayshaw catches it, tips it on the floor

And mimes (so as not to offend anyone) urinating on unconcious mcguires head,

Loudly declaring

'Its all love. I love you Ed'

 

[seven]

If there was a God,

Angus Brayshaws dad would run across the room,

And perform a textbook

Bruzzy Jordan Full Frontal JumpSmother Hip and Shoulder

On Eddie,

And inertia would see his cheap Sav Blanc clearly tumble into Mr.Brayshaws lane,

Mr.brayshaw catches it, tips it on the floor

And mimes (so as not to offend anyone) urinating on unconcious mcguires head,

Loudly declaring

'Its all love. I love you Ed'

I just wanted Collingwobbles to lose and then someone replicate this.

“Ladies and gentlemen, justice has been done! Collingwobbles are out of the finals”

 

[TigerForce]

If there was a God,

Angus Brayshaws dad would run across the room,

And perform a textbook

Bruzzy Jordan Full Frontal JumpSmother Hip and Shoulder

On Eddie,

And inertia would see his cheap Sav Blanc clearly tumble into Mr.Brayshaws lane,

Mr.brayshaw catches it, tips it on the floor

And mimes (so as not to offend anyone) urinating on unconcious mcguires head,

Loudly declaring

'Its all love. I love you Ed'

Wasn't his dad our CEO 20 years ago?

 

[Legends of 2017]

I'm surprised he wasn't in a gorilla suit.

Wait. What? He wasn’t
You mean that’s how he normally looks?
I’ll have to take another squiz at it

 

[spook]

The fact that it was Brayshaw makes a tough call even tougher. He's been knocked out a few times, and the more you get knocked out, generally the easier it is to knock you out again (see: Jones, Roy, Jr.). Maybe another bloke would have got up and played on. (I understand that is irrelevant in the outcome-based system we're supposed to be operating under.)

My first reaction was it was just bad luck. But the more you look at it the more you think, "he didn't have to drop his shoulder into the poor bugger's head", and that the act itself was reckless from the beginning.

I would never want anyone suspended for what Cotchy did in the 2017 prelim. They're different incidents but you can't trust the AFL with subtlety and nuance.

 

[larabee]

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.

That Gleeson is as inconsistent (or biased) as Christian.
I’d love to read the above judgement next to the one he made against Mansell.
From memory, he declared that Mansell had a myriad of options he could have undertaken in the split second before making contact with his opponent, but Maynard couldn’t do anything from 7 metres away except drop his shoulder into the head of Brayshaw.

The AFL, their Tribunal and MRO are a sh!tshow, inside a dumpster fire

 

[tigertim]

That Gleeson is as inconsistent (or biased) as Christian.
I’d love to read the above judgement next to the one he made against Mansell.
From memory, he declared that Mansell had a myriad of options he could have undertaken in the split second before making contact with his opponent, but Maynard couldn’t do anything from 7 metres away except drop his shoulder into the head of Brayshaw.

The AFL, their Tribunal and MRO are a sh!tshow, inside a dumpster fire

“Speedy Tigers half-forward Mansell was unable to make the case he did not bump Fremantle’s James Aish, coping a three-week ban for concussing his opponent.

He pled not guilty arguing it was not a bump, with Lisa Hannon for the AFL contending it was a high bump and even if not, falls within rough conduct - pushing for a three-match suspension.

The Dockers medical report found Aish is expected to miss two or more matches.

Mansell argued: “If I had’ve kept running straight on, I would’ve opened myself and both of us up to injury.”

The AFL argued Mansell knew at an early point he would not get to the ball first, which the Tiger disagreed with, as they went frame-by-frame through the vision.

“I don’t think I had any other option but to protect myself ... I don’t believe I could’ve (tackled him),” Mansell said, also arguing he could not slow down at the point Aish reached the ball.

Mansell did not agree with the idea he “ran through him (Aish)”.

Hannon argued Mansell could’ve tackled Aish, or slowed “even slightly”, stating: “If this does not constitute a bump, what is it then?”

“At the point of the bump, Mansell wasn’t contesting the ball. If he was, it wasn’t reasonable to contest the ball in the way he did.”

The Tigers’ Sam Tovey countered with the argument Mansell was bracing but “not driving through in a classic bumping motion”.

“Mansell’s attack on the ball was legitimate and it was genuine. Who was going to get the ball was dependent on that final bounce (which saw the ball enter Aish’s hands).

“He braces himself at the last possible moment. If this was a player who was lining up another player to bump, you would see that motion occurring earlier.”

The Tribunal disagreed with the Tigers’ case.

“The first question is whether Mansell was in the act of bumping Aish. We find that he was,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“Although he approached the contest at speed, the vision shows that from a metre or two from the point of impact he turns and bumps Aish. This was not simply a reflexive or involuntary bumping into an opponent. It was a bump.

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.

“This bump caused forceful contact to Aish’s head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.”

 

[craig]

Yes,

If we are looking for a positive out of the BruzzyGreatBloke Jordan Air SmotherHit,

Its that we have a real villain in the finals.

If our hatred for the Collingwood cartel needed renewing,

Its renewed.

I dont say this lightly,

But id barrack for Geelong or Gold Coast over Collingwood.

And hate in footy is good, and fluid.

Especially when Bruzzys SmotherHit, 'was all love'

I always have and always will barrack for any other team than Collingwood in a Gf.

The McGuire era had engrained this into my soul.

If GWS make the Prelim there is a big big chance Collingwood dont make it to the GF

 

[Willo]

“Speedy Tigers half-forward Mansell was unable to make the case he did not bump Fremantle’s James Aish, coping a three-week ban for concussing his opponent.

He pled not guilty arguing it was not a bump, with Lisa Hannon for the AFL contending it was a high bump and even if not, falls within rough conduct - pushing for a three-match suspension.

The Dockers medical report found Aish is expected to miss two or more matches.

Mansell argued: “If I had’ve kept running straight on, I would’ve opened myself and both of us up to injury.”

The AFL argued Mansell knew at an early point he would not get to the ball first, which the Tiger disagreed with, as they went frame-by-frame through the vision.

“I don’t think I had any other option but to protect myself ... I don’t believe I could’ve (tackled him),” Mansell said, also arguing he could not slow down at the point Aish reached the ball.

Mansell did not agree with the idea he “ran through him (Aish)”.

Hannon argued Mansell could’ve tackled Aish, or slowed “even slightly”, stating: “If this does not constitute a bump, what is it then?”

“At the point of the bump, Mansell wasn’t contesting the ball. If he was, it wasn’t reasonable to contest the ball in the way he did.”

The Tigers’ Sam Tovey countered with the argument Mansell was bracing but “not driving through in a classic bumping motion”.

“Mansell’s attack on the ball was legitimate and it was genuine. Who was going to get the ball was dependent on that final bounce (which saw the ball enter Aish’s hands).

“He braces himself at the last possible moment. If this was a player who was lining up another player to bump, you would see that motion occurring earlier.”

The Tribunal disagreed with the Tigers’ case.

“The first question is whether Mansell was in the act of bumping Aish. We find that he was,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“Although he approached the contest at speed, the vision shows that from a metre or two from the point of impact he turns and bumps Aish. This was not simply a reflexive or involuntary bumping into an opponent. It was a bump.

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.

“This bump caused forceful contact to Aish’s head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.”

Talk about two Bob each way
The prosecutor, the chairman, the mro, the rules need a complete overhaul.
These dimwits chop, change, amend and fabricate to suit themselves.
Not evidenced based, not factual, just an opinion without any transparency, sound judgement, expertise or any other relevant methodology to do their job in an honest, unbiased, non prejudicial and with sound judgement based on evidence.

Rather than their own measurement “of balance of probabilities without any basis of evidence. Our opinion outweighs everything else, contrary to any available evidence ”

Edit: inverted are my words.

”it was a high bump. If it wasn’t, it’s still rough conduct” Well, which was it?

“Tackled him or slowed” He had to catch him to tackle.“. If he slowed Aish was off

“At the point of the bump, Mansell wasn’t contesting the ball. If he was, it wasn’t reasonable to contest the ball in the way he did.”
So if he wasn’t contesting it what was he supposed to do? Stop? If haven’t a player wrapped up you can’t even chase, just in case you catch him?

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.” So it might have been reasonable, but bad luck

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.” How long do you think his *smile* arms are?

 

[immorta]

If there was a God,

Angus Brayshaws dad would run across the room,

And perform a textbook

Bruzzy Jordan Full Frontal JumpSmother Hip and Shoulder

On Eddie,

And inertia would see his cheap Sav Blanc clearly tumble into Mr.Brayshaws lane,

Mr.brayshaw catches it, tips it on the floor

And mimes (so as not to offenWd anyone) urinating on unconcious mcguires head,

Loudly declaring

'Its all love. I love you Ed'

I hate Carlton.

But *smile* me, I want to see the Blues knock off these *smile* in the GF so badly now.

 

[DavidSSS]

“At the point of the bump, Mansell wasn’t contesting the ball. If he was, it wasn’t reasonable to contest the ball in the way he did.”
So if he wasn’t contesting it what was he supposed to do? Stop? If haven’t a player wrapped up you can’t even chase, just in case you catch him?

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.” So it might have been reasonable, but bad luck

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.” How long do you think his *smile* arms are?

At the point of the bump Maynard wasn't contesting the ball, in fact, at no time was Maynard contesting the ball as Brayshaw was in possession of the ball.

The only question is whether Maynard bumped Brayshaw - he did.

From at least a metre or two prior to the collision Maynard turned and bumped, he was never reaching for the ball as Brayshaw was in possession of the ball.

Yet Maynard gets no weeks and Mansell gets 3.

WTF!

DS

 

[Brodders17]

The Tribunal disagreed with the Tigers’ case.

“The first question is whether Mansell was in the act of bumping Aish. We find that he was,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“Although he approached the contest at speed, the vision shows that from a metre or two from the point of impact he turns and bumps Aish. This was not simply a reflexive or involuntary bumping into an opponent. It was a bump.

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.

“This bump caused forceful contact to Aish’s head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.”

You can swap Maynard for Mansell and Brayshaw for Aish and have a pretty accurate description- except the 3 weeks but at the end.

 

[tigersnake]

You can swap Maynard for Mansell and Brayshaw for Aish and have a pretty accurate description- except the 3 weeks but at the end.

Agree, but I'd also argue Mansell 'braced' as the defence argued, while Maynard 'drove through', which wasn't mentioned, or if it was I missed it. That was the key reason to suspend IMO, the downward driving motion with the shoulder. You could argue it was unavoidable and necessary for self preservation 10, even 2 years ago, not now.

 

[RoryBaby]

You can swap Maynard for Mansell and Brayshaw for Aish and have a pretty accurate description- except the 3 weeks but at the end.

The biggest issue is that Gleeson is a keen Collingwood fan. How does he sit in his role and not have a conflict in the cases that involve his club? There is no doubt in my mind that he is compromised but that is just part of the Boys Club that is the AFL.

Same with Christian as MRO.

 

[tiger76]

What a bunch of shysters.

Most large organisations are self serving and corrupt in their own way, however the AFL and its tribunal is a gold standard of horse manure.

Coaches can't say sh*t during a press conference after a reaming from officials, yet teams can have players and media advocating for reduced sentences or for no sentence at all.

With some sentences already handed out live during a game.

Some players are rubbed out because they 'chose a particular action', whilst others are spared because their action, (an elbow or a bump to the face) is o.k because they 'had to protect themselves'.

Because what else are you going to do after sprinting and launching through the air and directly into an opponent?

For the life of me I can't imagine why we're not seeing this accident happen at least once a game, given it's just a footballing action.

Then again I don't watch every game, and I haven't played footy.

What a bunch of shysters.

 

[DavidSSS]

The AFL are gutless, won't make a definitive ruling on whether a football action which leads to concussion should be suspended and this will come back to bite them.

If Brayshaw never plays again there will be lawyers contacting him about suing the AFL and he will have a pretty good case.

DS

 

[Tenacious]

Assume for a moment that Maynard attempted the same thing - but the Melbourne player was Petracca - or even Max Gawn.

Who knows what might the result of that collision might have been - but would it have still been worth a suspension?
Maynard might have been knocked out himself!

FWIW - I‘m in the “it was a football action - no penalty” camp

 

[TigerMasochist]

The Tribunal disagreed with the Tigers’ case.

“The first question is whether Mansell was in the act of bumping Aish. We find that he was,” Jeff Gleeson said.

“Although he approached the contest at speed, the vision shows that from a metre or two from the point of impact he turns and bumps Aish. This was not simply a reflexive or involuntary bumping into an opponent. It was a bump.

“It’s important to note that under this provision, it does not matter whether the bump was reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether Mansell bumped Aish. We find that he did.

“This bump caused forceful contact to Aish’s head. The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball. We find that he was not.

“From a meter or two prior to the collision, he turned and bumped. His hands were not reaching for the ball. The charge is upheld and the sanction of three weeks’ suspension is imposed.”

Obvious difference between the Nigel v Bruzzy hearings was that Bruzzy was airborne and falling from a great height while Nigel was running along the ground.
Apart from that, pretty much identical actions and on field outcomes. 3 weeks for Nigel n Bruzzy can play more finals.

Only my personal opinion of course but, Mr Gleeson n his tribunal mates are *smile* imbeciles.

 

[theglove3]

Let's see what they do with Pickett.
Should be up on 2 charges.
Cripps to the nose. Bump.
Then striking on McGovern.
If it was our Pickett it would have been mentioned every 5 minutes.
Don't think it got mentioned too much.
(although I was channel surfing to The Storm on 9)
Pathetic double standards.
Should get a good delay going into next year.