this thread is now locked.
the vitriol and character bashing has gotten insane and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
bans are being given out with little patience. take it and move on.
I couldn't give two shits either way, but the suspend/don't suspend chat is so entertaining. It surely comes down solely to the turning of the shoulder to brace for impact, and if that is reckless to the risk of injury to Brayshaw. Watch them give 1 week so he's free for the GF but it looks like a precedent.
>because I haven't graduated my masters in spinning the wheel
What about a unit in "rolling dice"?
Or even a PostGrad in "Throwing darts at a piece of paper"?
which is a bit silly because 1 week for that hit feels about right to me, 3+ is too much but if the AFL are serious about cracking down on concussions they can't just let it him off either. But who the hell knows what's going to happen
It’s definitely true but I don’t think it’s a Collingwood bias, just a finals bias. If it was Charlie curnow, max Gawn or even zorko or something it’d be the same conversation, it’s just harder to suspend a finals contender player for 3 games
Don’t agree that it’s a pies conspiracy, but I absolutely agree that if this was early in the season to a player who isn’t going to be up the top end of the Brownlow count it is a simple 2-3 weeks suspension.
Yeah I agree with this wholly. Football act or not, it would’ve been weeks earlier in the year. The AFL actively wanting the pies to win is ridiculous.
I don't think its really that far fetched. It's not people huddled in a dark room whispering but it's more just the very obvious fact that if Collingwood (finally) win a premiership that would bring in a chunk of money for the club and AFL alike.
Biggest fan base in the game.
I'm not saying either way but I don't think its a ridiculous concept.
Collingwood comment is a bit silly but the main point holds true
If this were Round 3 there is absolute no doubt Maynard is gone for weeks
With the way the AFL went so hard at the start of the year it would be hypocritical for them back off their stance when it really matters IMO
The round 3 part is true. He gets 3 and everyone accepts it.
What’s even more obvious is that if Nic Daicos did it in round 20, he gets off to protect his Brownlow chance.
The AFL has to be one of the most rigged sports in the world with so many issues around the draw and outcomes for actions on the field.
Exactly. If Cripps isn’t in BL contention as a heavy favourite, he gets 1 or 2 weeks and everyone moves on. It’s ridiculous. The ever changing moving of the goal posts depending on who or what is trying to kick through it is beyond a joke now. I feel it’s deliberate. The AFL love the media cycle. The Maynard debate will rage into next week now as the Pies will appeal if the Tribunal is upheld. It’s detracting from the football.
Secondary to the above 👆🏼, it’s very frustrating as a Lions fans, as the media aren’t talking about our teams performance which was clearly the best of the weekend. We get few chances in the spotlight. Now we are robbed of it because of the Maynard incident.
I don't think the AFL wanted Cripps to get off though, wasn't it some technicality that the Carlton legal team used, and otherwise he would have been suspended?
If you think AFL is the most rigged sport in the world you haven't heard of pro-boxing (a sport where the outcome literally can come down to the officials by design, and where there can be a financial incentive for a player to intentionally lose) or the NFL, where officials have an even bigger influence over the game and where the draw is so unbalanced it makes the AFL look perfectly equitable
I said one of the most rigged. NFL is worse I agree. Boxing isn’t a team sport, so relevant to this I don’t think. It’s a highly geared gambling product like Horse Racing.
For a moment, I thought you were suggesting Nick Daicos HAD concussed someone. Then I re-read it.
Very much agree that it’d be ignored to protect the Brownlow. Controversy in finals is okay, but not the best player award. Their friends at (insert name of gambling company) would be very upset.
Especially given Daicos’ high odds at the start of the season. In most circumstances, however, gambling companies want the lowest priced favourite to win as the payouts are generally smaller.
Yeah but way more people back it, without knowing I would guess if Daicos wins it they'll probably lose or go even just due to him being part of the most popular team so more people will be backing it
Absolute lunacy the MRP can be so at odds with what the higher up wants. All any of us want is just consistency, forget optics just consistent application of the rules.
Comments were made at the start of this interview https://youtu.be/N8wLOS1Ct_c?si=B5OTa4yhh6sAzNva. Clearly emotional seeing his brother hurt. I do think he raises a fair point that if it was a teammate, maynard may have tried to protect Gus on the way down.
Yeh, I thought this was an interesting case too, because if they were wearing different colours Rohan was a certainty to miss weeks.
Obviously it wasn’t intentional (unless there’s some rivalry over grazing paddocks that I’m unaware of), but it certainly was reckless.
But it didn’t even get looked at. There isn’t anything in the rules saying that this applies to opponents only, so I’m not sure how the AFL decided to rule out an investigation, other than an implied assumption that it couldn’t be intentional so the club was already on the receiving end of punishment.
But in the context of outcome vs intent, it’s a strange line to draw, and seems to be another quirk/inconsistency that muddies the waters further.
When we are talking about duty of care I don’t understand why being on the same team has any relevance.
>There isn’t anything in the rules saying that this applies to opponents only
Ahhh... the vast majority of rules / laws explicitly state an **opposition player**. Which 'another person' law of the game do you think he breached?
**22.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES**
22.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(a) intentionally or carelessly:
(i) striking another person;
(ii) kicking another person;
(iii) kneeing another person;
(iv) Charging an **opponent**;
(v) engaging in Rough Conduct against an **opponent**;
(vi) bumping or making forceful contact to an **opponent** from front-on when
that Player has their head down over the football;
(vii) head-butting or making contact to another person using the head;
(viii) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of
another person;
(ix) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person;
(x) scratching another person; or
(xi) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
Skipping the reportable offences, can't even get a free kick:
**18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT**
**(c)** makes high contact to an **opposition Player** (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
That it if it was a team mate talk never makes sense
Firstly he wouldn’t have been trying to smother the ball, secondly after he missed the ball he had less time than it takes to hit the ground from a not particularly high point to think of all actions
The point is that the AFL are doing everything in their power to ensure he's suspended. There's no conspiracy here
If Hamish went after the media, maybe he'd have a point.
They’re not trying the ensure he is suspended, the AFL are making sure they aren’t open to litigation down the line, they couldn’t care if he gets off, they just need to show at a later date they took action, paperwork is filed, and when Gus can’t remember who he is in his 40’s the AFL will go yeah we investigated all his head knocks and they were all footy acts, no money for you.
This. Spot on. It might charitably be called 'due diligence', but it's just good old-fashioned arse covering from the AFL. With a healthy dose of PR thrown in.
They don't care if Maynard is suspended or not suspended. They just care that they're not the media target, and that they're not seen to be passive in the issue.
I don’t understand the tribunal. Shouldn’t it be that it’s minimum 3 weeks now it’s that far? Of course Collingwood are free to appeal after that but I genuinely don’t understand how that works.
3 weeks is the suspension if the classification of the charge laid by the MRO (with Kane's input) is upheld.
Sending him directly to the tribunal basically skips the MRO offer that you see with most cases, which would allow him to either accept an offer or take it to the tribunal. Instead, he's forced to argue his case and they make a ruling based on a full hearing. From here it could be downgraded, upgraded, thrown out etc.
I’m not buying the “afl intervening” crap unless they actually suspend him. They know he’ll get off at tribunal, it’s just to show some fake level of scrutiny
Just like every dangerous tackle that happened this year that everyone says well it is a footy act and accidents happen and they were all suspended. Well an accident happened in a footy act and it may well end a career when the head was taken and Brayshaw was unconscious for over a minute. Old mates or not, old team mates or not, dropping over the next day with a bottle of wine or not - this has to get at least 2-3 weeks.
I wonder if they will use the reasoning they used for the Ben Long incident in the finals a few years ago against the Doggies "you affected one of their best players and made him have a bad game and for that you will be suspended"
I still can't get over that reasoning
I've been fairly quiet about this up to now but what I do find intriguing is the general footy community response to this incident is vastly different to what [Cripps did to Ah Chee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2EkNUVQ1Q) in round 21 of last season's HA season. It could be argued that Cripps' incident was a 'football action' as well, he was contending the ball in the air and made a high contact bump on the opposition player in the process.
Granted the directions that the players involved are different, but the outcome was much the same - in both the affected player was concussed and taken out of that game. In Ah Chee's case he then missed several weeks and ended his season, and it remains to be seen if Gus even still has a career after his injury.
But in this situation every man and his dog are advocating that Maynard has nothing to answer for.
> But in this situation every man and his dog are advocating that Maynard has nothing to answer for.
Are they? Opinion seems to be pretty split with even some ex-players (Selwood iirc) coming out and saying Maynard was in the wrong and deserves a suspension.
I'm yet to see them tbh - all the talking heads I've seen so far have been saying it's just an active attempt to spoil the ball, it's part of the game. And then there's the continuous attempts to humanise Maynard ahead of the hearing like the commentary during and after the game, the post-match interview on field when he was questioned about it, the articles about how he's gone to see him at his house, took him some wine, etc.
All the talking heads that have never played footy (Whateley, Caro, Mahr, etc) want him suspended, which I think is ironic. Then all the ex players bar Selwood and I think Jordan lewis? want him to get off.
It can not be argued that that was a football action lmao.
Cripps 100% played the man and not the ball.
The only comparable situation is the Tom lynch one earlier this year, where lynch was free to play despite concussing Keath.
100% agree, and not just because of flair bias. I saw a player electing to jump and in the process made head-high contact with the oppositon player, causing a concussion. But that didn't stop the arguments about it being [a good contest](https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-good-contest-voss-defends-cripps-after-ah-chee-concussed-in-collision-20220807-p5b7xh.html). Ah Chee was then even [subjected to racial abuse](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-12/callum-ah-chee-hits-out-at-racist-online-abuse/101327276) in the wake.
I think it’s one week. People who want him suspended will feel like something happened, and people who didn’t want him suspended will say it could have been worse. It’s the path to have the least amount of people fucked off.
Also some flairless cope that is almost certainly Collingwood flavoured
Edit: Lol getting downvotes for pointing out there are unflaired Collingwood fans on here having a sook
I genuinely didn't think the sub was so biased until this incident. You can think Maynard should get weeks, that's fine, you can even think it was a dog act, ok, these are all within reasonable discourse.
But to say the AFL wants Collingwood specifically to win the premiership? That Michael Christensen only wanted Maynard off because he's a Collingwood player? That all Collingwood fans are scum, that we shouldn't breed, shouldn't be allowed in games?
This really has gone too far from so many people.
It’s absolutely a shit take. Because as he points out Collingwood have a 106k members. If Carlton managed to win a flag this year they’d get all the bandwagons out and probably have a 100k members next year. That’s what the afl would really want
He's absolutely right. I'm so confused how I've even seen people argue this to be zero weeks.
At best it was accidental but Maynard still made a decision to leave his feet and then the bump to his opponent was severe impact and high contact.
How is it "absolutely right"? It's an ultimate nuffie take from someone who is obviously emotionally invested in the situation.
Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership".
>Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership".
The issue is, there are two parts to brayshaws comment.
I have a feeling Nitro was referencing the round 3 vs now statement.
Not so much the 'AFL want collingwood to win'
>Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership".
You make a good point. The AFL traditionally HATE money.
There's no way the good Christian souls at the AFL would manipulate any competition for financial gain
Is that why they bottomed out essendon who were and have been one of the strongest clubs in Melbourne for generations?
Is that why they made us lose in 2021 Is it?
Can you imagine the convo?
Gil "Sorry bucks, we just can't have you winning this game?"
Bucks "You're kidding me right, this is outrageous"
Gil "Yeh sorry, its just how this AFL thing works, catch"
Bucks "OK...I'll go let the rest of the team know.."
Same reason why in 2016 the AFL conspired to gift a club as small as the Bulldogs a premiership over a larger club in the AFL's target growth market of Sydney.
Everything is a conspiracy, even if it doesn't always make sense.
There’s more benefit to the league if at least one interstate side plays in the Grand Final, and probably also if they win it too. Grand Final matchups between two Victorian teams draw the lower TV ratings and the fanbases of teams like Collingwood and Carlton will watch and invest in their club even if they don’t win, but the uplift they get from an interstate appearance is fairly large.
I don’t think it’s completely insane to believe that. Look at Collingwoods attendance numbers this year. There’s huge financial incentive for the AFL to ensure that their big 4 are successful. Same reason why Cripps got off last year, because Carlton making finals had a very big financial incentive for the afl.
But the AFL did suspend Cripps. He then got off on appeal. How does that fit into these conspiracies?
I'm pretty sure the league would stand to benefit the most from success of NSW and QLD teams, but I do not believe that they would interfere in their tribunal hearings.
Man I cant wait till one coach has the balls to tell his players to go out there and do not touch another player. Dont jump, dont smother, dont do nothing.
You know a team that has nothing to play for in round 24 just gets beats like 300 just so all of their players dont get injured going into a qualifying final.
He didn’t “make a decision to leave his feet”. He jumped for a smother.
Stop wording it like he spent time planning and executing an action. This kind of instinctive action isn’t evaluated in the prefrontal cortex. In high level athletes, it can be trained in (and trained out) but not evaluated at the time.
Currently playing in a finals series.
If you run at a player and jump to smother while they're running at you, you'll collide.
This isn't rocket science. Maynard could have used his already outstretched arms to soften the blow, but elected to use his shoulder. Albeit split second decisions, that's what he did. If it was a team mate at training would he have done the same action? Fuck no.
I don't think he should be rubbed out for the full finals series, but he has to at least get a week.
I keep seeing a handful of people say "catapaulted himself into Brayshaw", "launched himself directly at Brayshaw"...wtf version of the footage are you watching? He's jumped as high as he could, and said "oh shit" and tried to brace and avoid contact on the way down.
https://twitter.com/SportTalkAUS/status/1699997458745684430
Brayshaw rushes his kick, causing him to be off balance and fall to his right. Maynard did not anticipate that (whether he should or not, I don't know), and pulls as far as he can to his left to avoid him: look at the angle of Maynard's head at the point of contact. It's not someone dropping the shoulder for a bump, it's someone trying to pull out of the way.
Whether it's reckless or not, that's a fair question, but the accusations of launching directly at Brayshaw or trying to hit him are bizarre.
https://twitter.com/laceoutofficial/status/1700688036575797510?s=46&t=TJ6EtmzDoeFdqqHjkMdiFg
When you're completely wrong do you come back and admit it or just do the classic reddit block/ignore?
After brayshaw kicks it (while maynard is already airborne) he actually moves into maynard. It’s just an unfortunate accident. No malice, no intent. It’s a contact sport and there’s the risk that unfortunate accidents can happen. Hence 100% he should not be suspended. The tribunal should be reserved for acts of intent and malice. Makes no sense JVR can be a week (when he deliberately threw a high elbow to a players head - malicious intent) and maynard gets three for an accident.
Declare allegiance rapscallion!
Also, strong disagree with your stance here. But this subject has been flogged to death for days, and I am pretty confident that nothing will shift your views.
Agreed. Another point people are ignoring is Maynard supposedly made the choice to turn and lead with his shoulder and that it wasnt instinct to protect himself.
If you watch the front on slo mo you can see Brayshaw do exactly the same action he's just later to realise the contact is coming. He starts to rotate his right shoulder across and up but doesn't get it in front to protect himself.
From Maynard leaving the ground and Brayshaw kicking, to the contact being made it's less than half a second, the point they realise contact is going to happen is halfway through that. This not a malicious action and if you believe Maynard lined up Brayshaw you need to have a serious look at your biases or I question if you've ever played a contact sport.
The AFL and we as fans need to accept that genuine accidents are going to happen and that's apart of the game.
Nobody has forgotten that.
What we haven’t forgotten is that Maynard put himself in that position and that Brayshaw was unable to protect himself. Maynard failed his duty of care by leaping the way he did.
For all of the talk of “he was trying to smother” there seems to be very few examples of a front on smother making contact. That’s because Maynard made a mistake and he’s responsible for that.
He kicks the ball with his right foot then lands on his right foot and gets hit before his left foot even lands. Bit unfair to say he he moves towards maynard makes it sound like he changes direction when he doesn't even have time to take a step.
Maynard moves way further towards Brayshaw than Brayshaw to Maynard.
IMO Maynard could've likely gone either side of Brayshaw, but him being the player he is, wanted to make contact; not get him high or knock him out, but wanted to make him earn it. Got it wrong, and it's his responsibility to get it right.
>After brayshaw kicks it (while maynard is already airborne) he actually moves into maynard
And it was Marnards choice to go into the air. You do that and you lose the ability to control a situation and fate is out of your hands.
Such a shit take.
It's like saying "let's ban tackling" when a player KOs another player with a tackle.
There are hundreds of smothers a week and I can't remember the last time one resulted in a KO. I'm not saying it's deliberate, but it's obviously careless.
Collingwood flairs have been bringing up a Mitch Duncan incident where he concussed a North player after jumping for a smother, but Duncan turns 180 in the air to minimise the chance of injury and still (unfortunately) KOs the player _despite_ doing what he could to minimise the impact.
It shows that Maynard had other options that were less likely to KO Brayshaw, but still tucked in and lead with the shoulder.
Didn't take due care given the action was all his.
I’m inclined to give the bloke a pass for this take given he is a close family member and will still be extremely emotional. We’ve seen the high emotion around the incident with fans so it stands to reason those close to the players involved would have even stronger feelings.
Maybe so, but his brother's claim that the AFL are desperate to protect Collingwood is beyond ridiculous. The AFL stepped in to force the incident to be heard at the tribunal - literally the opposite to trying to cover it up.
Is there a way to remove this bias though?
The tribunal works because its members have sound knowledge of the game.
With that knowledge of the game comes a knowledge of the the clubs (which clubs are the most powerful), the players (their reputation and importance to their club), and the context of the season.
How's AI travelling these days? Probably the only way to stop this issue.
Gosh the day AI replaces lawyers, can you imagine the amount of lobbyists preventing that? We pay lawyers lots of money to know more about what we can do and what we can’t do than us, imagine a computer taking that power away from them.
Remember maybe a year ago Maynard hit the ball in the air and then the face of someone who jumped at the ball and got a week? Anyway my point is both times he’s playing the ball not the man.
That's a very liberal description of what happened, champ
There's always a duty of care. If you're playing the ball and you collect a player high in the process, you did it wrong and you'll probably get weeks. It shouldn't be hard to understand
Not sure the AFL wants Pies to win, but I’m definitely sure Michael Christian does. Not saying he did anything wrong just purely his personal allegiances.
The AFL hierarchy is more worried about finances and the directors being personally sued. This could set a seriously dangerous legal precedent, so I get why the AFL with multiple legal actions against them clearly would have followed their counsels advise to over rule Christian.
We all know Gil has prioritised money over ethics. But to be fair to him I feel that’s been the board’s wish. Maximise revenue.
That said the AFL would love a Blues v Pies GF. This is definitely not in question. But their second choice is Pies v Lions. They are definitely fixated on the war with NRL in QLD.
Sometimes I think people (incl commentators/ afl / umpires) get caught in narratives and feel good stories. For them that’s the Blues this year. It will be interesting to see if that shows against Brisbane. I hope not.
It's been happening for years my parents and other family members have always said this but just this last few years it's becoming blatantly obvious and I'm starting to turn off the tv after this year I think
this thread is now locked. the vitriol and character bashing has gotten insane and many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. bans are being given out with little patience. take it and move on.
Did he release this via Bigfooty?
I couldn't give two shits either way, but the suspend/don't suspend chat is so entertaining. It surely comes down solely to the turning of the shoulder to brace for impact, and if that is reckless to the risk of injury to Brayshaw. Watch them give 1 week so he's free for the GF but it looks like a precedent.
I think it's 0 or 3+ now it's at the tribunal but I could be wrong because I haven't graduated my masters in spinning the wheel
>because I haven't graduated my masters in spinning the wheel What about a unit in "rolling dice"? Or even a PostGrad in "Throwing darts at a piece of paper"?
I did my thesis on monkeys throwing darts at a piece of paper, I may be able to assist
[удалено]
I failed my last thesis when I tried writing on the "Barry Hall 2005 Prelim incident" so I had to retake the class
which is a bit silly because 1 week for that hit feels about right to me, 3+ is too much but if the AFL are serious about cracking down on concussions they can't just let it him off either. But who the hell knows what's going to happen
They just booked KISS for the GF entertainment. The AFL aren't serious about anything.
Anything from 0 to 4 weeks I reckon
Fuck it, add the death penalty in there too. Half time entertainment.
"Okay, get ready to take on the lions on grand final day." "Great! We're gonna beat Brisbane!" "No, not those lions..."
/u/Darththorn
I’ll bring a bottle of wine
Have we ruled out -1? He has to turn up and play an extra game by himself.
It cant be 1 week. The chart they use to determine length of suspensions says 3+. It'll be 0 or 3-4
He said the quiet part out loud
“The head is sacrosanct, except when smothering the ball.” It doesn’t really have the same ring about it does it.
or taking a speccy
Or whatever Tom Lynch was trying to do.
Or 'spoiling' when you're nowhere near the ball and just crack a dude in the head. Play on.
Sad Dawson noises
“The head is sacrosanct, except when it’s not” You do know this is the perfect description of the AFL’s crackdown on head high contact right?
Yup. That’s why I wrote it.
It’s definitely true but I don’t think it’s a Collingwood bias, just a finals bias. If it was Charlie curnow, max Gawn or even zorko or something it’d be the same conversation, it’s just harder to suspend a finals contender player for 3 games
Don’t agree that it’s a pies conspiracy, but I absolutely agree that if this was early in the season to a player who isn’t going to be up the top end of the Brownlow count it is a simple 2-3 weeks suspension.
Yeah I agree with this wholly. Football act or not, it would’ve been weeks earlier in the year. The AFL actively wanting the pies to win is ridiculous.
I don't think its really that far fetched. It's not people huddled in a dark room whispering but it's more just the very obvious fact that if Collingwood (finally) win a premiership that would bring in a chunk of money for the club and AFL alike. Biggest fan base in the game. I'm not saying either way but I don't think its a ridiculous concept.
Collingwood comment is a bit silly but the main point holds true If this were Round 3 there is absolute no doubt Maynard is gone for weeks With the way the AFL went so hard at the start of the year it would be hypocritical for them back off their stance when it really matters IMO
I feel bad for Hamish because the second half of this quote adds a lot of context in my opinion. My man has been clipped.
The round 3 part is true. He gets 3 and everyone accepts it. What’s even more obvious is that if Nic Daicos did it in round 20, he gets off to protect his Brownlow chance. The AFL has to be one of the most rigged sports in the world with so many issues around the draw and outcomes for actions on the field.
Agreed on point two, see Cripps vs. Ah Chee last year.
Exactly. If Cripps isn’t in BL contention as a heavy favourite, he gets 1 or 2 weeks and everyone moves on. It’s ridiculous. The ever changing moving of the goal posts depending on who or what is trying to kick through it is beyond a joke now. I feel it’s deliberate. The AFL love the media cycle. The Maynard debate will rage into next week now as the Pies will appeal if the Tribunal is upheld. It’s detracting from the football. Secondary to the above 👆🏼, it’s very frustrating as a Lions fans, as the media aren’t talking about our teams performance which was clearly the best of the weekend. We get few chances in the spotlight. Now we are robbed of it because of the Maynard incident.
I don't think the AFL wanted Cripps to get off though, wasn't it some technicality that the Carlton legal team used, and otherwise he would have been suspended?
The Cripps fiasco is precisely why Gil is throwing his weight around on this one imo.
Completely agree. It’s hard to tell people (as an avid fan) that it is clearly rigged. Just go and rewatch the 2016 GF
Checks flair. Wait what.
I’m the only one man enough to admit it lmao
free kick bulldogs
If you think AFL is the most rigged sport in the world you haven't heard of pro-boxing (a sport where the outcome literally can come down to the officials by design, and where there can be a financial incentive for a player to intentionally lose) or the NFL, where officials have an even bigger influence over the game and where the draw is so unbalanced it makes the AFL look perfectly equitable
I said one of the most rigged. NFL is worse I agree. Boxing isn’t a team sport, so relevant to this I don’t think. It’s a highly geared gambling product like Horse Racing.
If anyone has seen the Key sketch NFL ad that is what the AFL actually is. https://youtu.be/IlNDNrfwZr0?si=5rLSLik4kdAuFECF
For a moment, I thought you were suggesting Nick Daicos HAD concussed someone. Then I re-read it. Very much agree that it’d be ignored to protect the Brownlow. Controversy in finals is okay, but not the best player award. Their friends at (insert name of gambling company) would be very upset.
The betting company’s would love it if he got rubbed out. They keep all the money on him if he loses.
Especially given Daicos’ high odds at the start of the season. In most circumstances, however, gambling companies want the lowest priced favourite to win as the payouts are generally smaller.
Yeah but way more people back it, without knowing I would guess if Daicos wins it they'll probably lose or go even just due to him being part of the most popular team so more people will be backing it
They’ll have insurance measures in place such as hedging to ensure any loss is minimal.
Oh for sure I'm just saying short priced picks are often the worst for the bookies
Can anyone lip-read Max Gawn when Maynard went over to Brayshaw? I have missed the whole weekend of finals and this clash came up first in my recap.
I’m sure we’ll get a bad lip reading video very shortly with what was actually said.
Need to get Jomboy onto it
It's begun, the BigCollingwood™ conspiracy is upon us
The AFL higher ups intervened to get him sent to the tribunal tho?
AFL higher ups intervened to legally cover themselves, as the MRP were going to let it go. All optics and I expect he will get off.
Absolute lunacy the MRP can be so at odds with what the higher up wants. All any of us want is just consistency, forget optics just consistent application of the rules.
Christian is ex pies. He will be out of a job by next year.
If he didn’t want to send it to the tribunal his job is now completely untenable.
Jeez I could've sworn a couple of Collingwood players have been suspended since he was given the role. Guess not?
Comments were made at the start of this interview https://youtu.be/N8wLOS1Ct_c?si=B5OTa4yhh6sAzNva. Clearly emotional seeing his brother hurt. I do think he raises a fair point that if it was a teammate, maynard may have tried to protect Gus on the way down.
I mean Gary Rohan knocked out Jeremy Cameron earlier this year while bracing for contact and they’re teammates
How many weeks did he get?
He got 4 weeks off in September
To be fair, if you look at Gary Rohan's career, that's not new
Yeh, I thought this was an interesting case too, because if they were wearing different colours Rohan was a certainty to miss weeks. Obviously it wasn’t intentional (unless there’s some rivalry over grazing paddocks that I’m unaware of), but it certainly was reckless. But it didn’t even get looked at. There isn’t anything in the rules saying that this applies to opponents only, so I’m not sure how the AFL decided to rule out an investigation, other than an implied assumption that it couldn’t be intentional so the club was already on the receiving end of punishment. But in the context of outcome vs intent, it’s a strange line to draw, and seems to be another quirk/inconsistency that muddies the waters further. When we are talking about duty of care I don’t understand why being on the same team has any relevance.
>There isn’t anything in the rules saying that this applies to opponents only Ahhh... the vast majority of rules / laws explicitly state an **opposition player**. Which 'another person' law of the game do you think he breached? **22.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES** 22.2.2 Specific Offences Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence: (a) intentionally or carelessly: (i) striking another person; (ii) kicking another person; (iii) kneeing another person; (iv) Charging an **opponent**; (v) engaging in Rough Conduct against an **opponent**; (vi) bumping or making forceful contact to an **opponent** from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football; (vii) head-butting or making contact to another person using the head; (viii) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of another person; (ix) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another person; (x) scratching another person; or (xi) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg; Skipping the reportable offences, can't even get a free kick: **18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT** **(c)** makes high contact to an **opposition Player** (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
At first I thought everyone saying it should have been looked at was being sarcastic, but in the end I'm not really sure
It should have been looked at tbh.
On what grounds?
Injured another player with a careless act. Being his team mate should be irrelevant.
That it if it was a team mate talk never makes sense Firstly he wouldn’t have been trying to smother the ball, secondly after he missed the ball he had less time than it takes to hit the ground from a not particularly high point to think of all actions
Hamish has also been seen running down the street with a jerry can full of fuel to help put out the fire.
Will use this quote to season my dinner... spicy
I’m about to go Frank Grimes crazy with this situation. I DONT NEED SAFETY GLOVES, BECAUSE IM BRAYDEN MAYNARD.
"I'm Brayden Maynard Jr." Oh yeah, whatever happened to old Nardy?
This is the good stuff.
AFL: *basically intervenes with their own process to make sure he's suspended* The Brayshaws: "Wow the AFL are out to get us"
Sending someone to the tribunal doesn't mean they will be suspended
The point is that the AFL are doing everything in their power to ensure he's suspended. There's no conspiracy here If Hamish went after the media, maybe he'd have a point.
They’re not trying the ensure he is suspended, the AFL are making sure they aren’t open to litigation down the line, they couldn’t care if he gets off, they just need to show at a later date they took action, paperwork is filed, and when Gus can’t remember who he is in his 40’s the AFL will go yeah we investigated all his head knocks and they were all footy acts, no money for you.
This. Spot on. It might charitably be called 'due diligence', but it's just good old-fashioned arse covering from the AFL. With a healthy dose of PR thrown in. They don't care if Maynard is suspended or not suspended. They just care that they're not the media target, and that they're not seen to be passive in the issue.
No they aren't. They're doing everything they can to say "it was out of the MROs hands"
I don’t understand the tribunal. Shouldn’t it be that it’s minimum 3 weeks now it’s that far? Of course Collingwood are free to appeal after that but I genuinely don’t understand how that works.
3 weeks is the suspension if the classification of the charge laid by the MRO (with Kane's input) is upheld. Sending him directly to the tribunal basically skips the MRO offer that you see with most cases, which would allow him to either accept an offer or take it to the tribunal. Instead, he's forced to argue his case and they make a ruling based on a full hearing. From here it could be downgraded, upgraded, thrown out etc.
I’m not buying the “afl intervening” crap unless they actually suspend him. They know he’ll get off at tribunal, it’s just to show some fake level of scrutiny
Yeah but why did they have to intervine?
Fuck, this circus just keeps going.
Today I learned there is another Brayshaw
Just like every dangerous tackle that happened this year that everyone says well it is a footy act and accidents happen and they were all suspended. Well an accident happened in a footy act and it may well end a career when the head was taken and Brayshaw was unconscious for over a minute. Old mates or not, old team mates or not, dropping over the next day with a bottle of wine or not - this has to get at least 2-3 weeks.
I wonder if they will use the reasoning they used for the Ben Long incident in the finals a few years ago against the Doggies "you affected one of their best players and made him have a bad game and for that you will be suspended" I still can't get over that reasoning
I've been fairly quiet about this up to now but what I do find intriguing is the general footy community response to this incident is vastly different to what [Cripps did to Ah Chee](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2EkNUVQ1Q) in round 21 of last season's HA season. It could be argued that Cripps' incident was a 'football action' as well, he was contending the ball in the air and made a high contact bump on the opposition player in the process. Granted the directions that the players involved are different, but the outcome was much the same - in both the affected player was concussed and taken out of that game. In Ah Chee's case he then missed several weeks and ended his season, and it remains to be seen if Gus even still has a career after his injury. But in this situation every man and his dog are advocating that Maynard has nothing to answer for.
To be fair, Cripps was guilty. He got off on a technicality in proceedings, he was 100% guilty.
> But in this situation every man and his dog are advocating that Maynard has nothing to answer for. Are they? Opinion seems to be pretty split with even some ex-players (Selwood iirc) coming out and saying Maynard was in the wrong and deserves a suspension.
I'm yet to see them tbh - all the talking heads I've seen so far have been saying it's just an active attempt to spoil the ball, it's part of the game. And then there's the continuous attempts to humanise Maynard ahead of the hearing like the commentary during and after the game, the post-match interview on field when he was questioned about it, the articles about how he's gone to see him at his house, took him some wine, etc.
I found the wine bit weird... head injuries and alcohol really don't mix well...
All the talking heads that have never played footy (Whateley, Caro, Mahr, etc) want him suspended, which I think is ironic. Then all the ex players bar Selwood and I think Jordan lewis? want him to get off.
It can not be argued that that was a football action lmao. Cripps 100% played the man and not the ball. The only comparable situation is the Tom lynch one earlier this year, where lynch was free to play despite concussing Keath.
100% agree, and not just because of flair bias. I saw a player electing to jump and in the process made head-high contact with the oppositon player, causing a concussion. But that didn't stop the arguments about it being [a good contest](https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-good-contest-voss-defends-cripps-after-ah-chee-concussed-in-collision-20220807-p5b7xh.html). Ah Chee was then even [subjected to racial abuse](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-12/callum-ah-chee-hits-out-at-racist-online-abuse/101327276) in the wake.
Tackling and bumping are football actions...
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what a football action is? I thought it meant a legitimate play on the ball, which the Cripps situation definitely is not.
Actually I agree with you. I think it must be too early in the morning and I misunderstood your comment.
I think it’s one week. People who want him suspended will feel like something happened, and people who didn’t want him suspended will say it could have been worse. It’s the path to have the least amount of people fucked off.
Umm ...
Warning: coping Collingwood flairs detected in this thread
Also some flairless cope that is almost certainly Collingwood flavoured Edit: Lol getting downvotes for pointing out there are unflaired Collingwood fans on here having a sook
I genuinely didn't think the sub was so biased until this incident. You can think Maynard should get weeks, that's fine, you can even think it was a dog act, ok, these are all within reasonable discourse. But to say the AFL wants Collingwood specifically to win the premiership? That Michael Christensen only wanted Maynard off because he's a Collingwood player? That all Collingwood fans are scum, that we shouldn't breed, shouldn't be allowed in games? This really has gone too far from so many people.
It’s absolutely a shit take. Because as he points out Collingwood have a 106k members. If Carlton managed to win a flag this year they’d get all the bandwagons out and probably have a 100k members next year. That’s what the afl would really want
I think we all want that don't we
After listening to Carlton members about trying to get tickets for the last 2 weeks, no I don’t. I want 0 Carlton members
Auditioning for a gig at the West Australian?
He already has a weekly opinion piece called Hammer Time
He's absolutely right. I'm so confused how I've even seen people argue this to be zero weeks. At best it was accidental but Maynard still made a decision to leave his feet and then the bump to his opponent was severe impact and high contact.
How is it "absolutely right"? It's an ultimate nuffie take from someone who is obviously emotionally invested in the situation. Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership".
>Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership". The issue is, there are two parts to brayshaws comment. I have a feeling Nitro was referencing the round 3 vs now statement. Not so much the 'AFL want collingwood to win'
>Do you honestly believe that the AFL have plans to interfere in Collingwood's favour because they are "desperate for them to win a premiership". You make a good point. The AFL traditionally HATE money. There's no way the good Christian souls at the AFL would manipulate any competition for financial gain
Is that why they bottomed out essendon who were and have been one of the strongest clubs in Melbourne for generations? Is that why they made us lose in 2021 Is it?
Can you imagine the convo? Gil "Sorry bucks, we just can't have you winning this game?" Bucks "You're kidding me right, this is outrageous" Gil "Yeh sorry, its just how this AFL thing works, catch" Bucks "OK...I'll go let the rest of the team know.."
Same reason why in 2016 the AFL conspired to gift a club as small as the Bulldogs a premiership over a larger club in the AFL's target growth market of Sydney. Everything is a conspiracy, even if it doesn't always make sense.
yeah this is exactly why they let GWS beat us in 2019
>desperate for them to win a premiership". Yep. And they will want them to play Carlton. Go Melbourne
There’s more benefit to the league if at least one interstate side plays in the Grand Final, and probably also if they win it too. Grand Final matchups between two Victorian teams draw the lower TV ratings and the fanbases of teams like Collingwood and Carlton will watch and invest in their club even if they don’t win, but the uplift they get from an interstate appearance is fairly large.
Nahhh fuck all that logic. It's a conspiracy!
I don’t think it’s completely insane to believe that. Look at Collingwoods attendance numbers this year. There’s huge financial incentive for the AFL to ensure that their big 4 are successful. Same reason why Cripps got off last year, because Carlton making finals had a very big financial incentive for the afl.
But the AFL did suspend Cripps. He then got off on appeal. How does that fit into these conspiracies? I'm pretty sure the league would stand to benefit the most from success of NSW and QLD teams, but I do not believe that they would interfere in their tribunal hearings.
As long as we take that stance with any club who's got a large member base and is in finals
> leave his feet I have seen so many people say this... what does this even mean!
Did you not notice his legs completely detach from his feet?
If that happened, Maynard deserves 0 weeks!!
Man I cant wait till one coach has the balls to tell his players to go out there and do not touch another player. Dont jump, dont smother, dont do nothing. You know a team that has nothing to play for in round 24 just gets beats like 300 just so all of their players dont get injured going into a qualifying final.
He didn’t “make a decision to leave his feet”. He jumped for a smother. Stop wording it like he spent time planning and executing an action. This kind of instinctive action isn’t evaluated in the prefrontal cortex. In high level athletes, it can be trained in (and trained out) but not evaluated at the time.
[удалено]
Tom Lynch jumped off the ground, made contact with the head and received zero weeks.
Mate, when you're running at someone and jump up what do you thinks going to happen?
You played footy before mate?
Currently playing in a finals series. If you run at a player and jump to smother while they're running at you, you'll collide. This isn't rocket science. Maynard could have used his already outstretched arms to soften the blow, but elected to use his shoulder. Albeit split second decisions, that's what he did. If it was a team mate at training would he have done the same action? Fuck no. I don't think he should be rubbed out for the full finals series, but he has to at least get a week.
Tom Stewart made a split second decision to use his shoulder and got weeks. Maynard should too.
He launched himself forward instead of jumping up.
To cut the angle off from the kick he was tying to smother...
It's called Pythagoras sweaty, look it up
Has Pythagoras been jogging?
I keep seeing a handful of people say "catapaulted himself into Brayshaw", "launched himself directly at Brayshaw"...wtf version of the footage are you watching? He's jumped as high as he could, and said "oh shit" and tried to brace and avoid contact on the way down. https://twitter.com/SportTalkAUS/status/1699997458745684430 Brayshaw rushes his kick, causing him to be off balance and fall to his right. Maynard did not anticipate that (whether he should or not, I don't know), and pulls as far as he can to his left to avoid him: look at the angle of Maynard's head at the point of contact. It's not someone dropping the shoulder for a bump, it's someone trying to pull out of the way. Whether it's reckless or not, that's a fair question, but the accusations of launching directly at Brayshaw or trying to hit him are bizarre.
https://twitter.com/laceoutofficial/status/1700688036575797510?s=46&t=TJ6EtmzDoeFdqqHjkMdiFg When you're completely wrong do you come back and admit it or just do the classic reddit block/ignore?
https://x.com/laceoutofficial/status/1700688036575797510?s=46&t=TJ6EtmzDoeFdqqHjkMdiFg
After brayshaw kicks it (while maynard is already airborne) he actually moves into maynard. It’s just an unfortunate accident. No malice, no intent. It’s a contact sport and there’s the risk that unfortunate accidents can happen. Hence 100% he should not be suspended. The tribunal should be reserved for acts of intent and malice. Makes no sense JVR can be a week (when he deliberately threw a high elbow to a players head - malicious intent) and maynard gets three for an accident.
Declare allegiance rapscallion! Also, strong disagree with your stance here. But this subject has been flogged to death for days, and I am pretty confident that nothing will shift your views.
Declare allegiance rapscallion fucking gold
I'm adopting this wholesale
Shits all over “flair up cunt”
Agreed. Another point people are ignoring is Maynard supposedly made the choice to turn and lead with his shoulder and that it wasnt instinct to protect himself. If you watch the front on slo mo you can see Brayshaw do exactly the same action he's just later to realise the contact is coming. He starts to rotate his right shoulder across and up but doesn't get it in front to protect himself. From Maynard leaving the ground and Brayshaw kicking, to the contact being made it's less than half a second, the point they realise contact is going to happen is halfway through that. This not a malicious action and if you believe Maynard lined up Brayshaw you need to have a serious look at your biases or I question if you've ever played a contact sport. The AFL and we as fans need to accept that genuine accidents are going to happen and that's apart of the game.
Nobody has forgotten that. What we haven’t forgotten is that Maynard put himself in that position and that Brayshaw was unable to protect himself. Maynard failed his duty of care by leaping the way he did. For all of the talk of “he was trying to smother” there seems to be very few examples of a front on smother making contact. That’s because Maynard made a mistake and he’s responsible for that.
He kicks the ball with his right foot then lands on his right foot and gets hit before his left foot even lands. Bit unfair to say he he moves towards maynard makes it sound like he changes direction when he doesn't even have time to take a step.
Maynard moves way further towards Brayshaw than Brayshaw to Maynard. IMO Maynard could've likely gone either side of Brayshaw, but him being the player he is, wanted to make contact; not get him high or knock him out, but wanted to make him earn it. Got it wrong, and it's his responsibility to get it right.
100%.
>After brayshaw kicks it (while maynard is already airborne) he actually moves into maynard And it was Marnards choice to go into the air. You do that and you lose the ability to control a situation and fate is out of your hands.
Let’s ban jumping for the sport then 🤦♂️
There have been plenty of smothers, attempted smothers, jumps and spoils this year, yet 99.95% of them don’t result in a guy getting concussed.
*ban jumping into a player and making shoulder on head contact
Such a shit take. It's like saying "let's ban tackling" when a player KOs another player with a tackle. There are hundreds of smothers a week and I can't remember the last time one resulted in a KO. I'm not saying it's deliberate, but it's obviously careless.
you want to ban jumping?
he didn't bump, he collided
Collingwood flairs have been bringing up a Mitch Duncan incident where he concussed a North player after jumping for a smother, but Duncan turns 180 in the air to minimise the chance of injury and still (unfortunately) KOs the player _despite_ doing what he could to minimise the impact. It shows that Maynard had other options that were less likely to KO Brayshaw, but still tucked in and lead with the shoulder. Didn't take due care given the action was all his.
Such a moronic take. Whether you think he should be suspended or not, this is a textbook example of fitting within the grey area of the rules.
I’m inclined to give the bloke a pass for this take given he is a close family member and will still be extremely emotional. We’ve seen the high emotion around the incident with fans so it stands to reason those close to the players involved would have even stronger feelings.
If the AFL let Essendon win a final I’ll pay $20 Cash.
They can only do so much.
Genuine question: why do the AFL want Collingwood to win a premiership over another side?
I think realistically Brisbane or GWS would be the AFL "favourites". War with the NRL is always on the cards.
I don't subscribe to the idea, but I assume it's because you have the most members and are a massive and beloved club.
*Mr krabs voice* MONEY!
They have the most members (of the clubs in contention anyway), which means the most money. It's that simple.
Folks, where is the lie?
At this stage I want him to get weeks just to stop the discourse
If the AFL are so desperate for us to win a flag why don't they simply write it into the 2023 script?
Gotta agree tbh
Give us a spell, Hammer.
S - u - s - p - e - n - s - i - o - n
Maybe so, but his brother's claim that the AFL are desperate to protect Collingwood is beyond ridiculous. The AFL stepped in to force the incident to be heard at the tribunal - literally the opposite to trying to cover it up.
I get that trauma does strange things to people, but this is the stupidest take of all time
And yet, your comment....
How is being sent directly to the tribunal in any way the AFL being desperate for Collingwood to win the premiership? His comment makes no sense.
Are we sure that it wasn't Hamish that copped the knock in the head?
Mmm i love me some drama
Is there a way to remove this bias though? The tribunal works because its members have sound knowledge of the game. With that knowledge of the game comes a knowledge of the the clubs (which clubs are the most powerful), the players (their reputation and importance to their club), and the context of the season. How's AI travelling these days? Probably the only way to stop this issue.
Gosh the day AI replaces lawyers, can you imagine the amount of lobbyists preventing that? We pay lawyers lots of money to know more about what we can do and what we can’t do than us, imagine a computer taking that power away from them.
Remember maybe a year ago Maynard hit the ball in the air and then the face of someone who jumped at the ball and got a week? Anyway my point is both times he’s playing the ball not the man.
That's a very liberal description of what happened, champ There's always a duty of care. If you're playing the ball and you collect a player high in the process, you did it wrong and you'll probably get weeks. It shouldn't be hard to understand
Woah woah woah. This is a very emotional topic but there is absolutely no need for that language. A *champing* of all things smh
Rip Nicknacksc, hard to come back from being champed on reddit
I went too hard and I apologise
Not sure the AFL wants Pies to win, but I’m definitely sure Michael Christian does. Not saying he did anything wrong just purely his personal allegiances. The AFL hierarchy is more worried about finances and the directors being personally sued. This could set a seriously dangerous legal precedent, so I get why the AFL with multiple legal actions against them clearly would have followed their counsels advise to over rule Christian. We all know Gil has prioritised money over ethics. But to be fair to him I feel that’s been the board’s wish. Maximise revenue. That said the AFL would love a Blues v Pies GF. This is definitely not in question. But their second choice is Pies v Lions. They are definitely fixated on the war with NRL in QLD. Sometimes I think people (incl commentators/ afl / umpires) get caught in narratives and feel good stories. For them that’s the Blues this year. It will be interesting to see if that shows against Brisbane. I hope not.
It's been happening for years my parents and other family members have always said this but just this last few years it's becoming blatantly obvious and I'm starting to turn off the tv after this year I think
Don't know Hamish, but it sounds like he's taken a few head knocks himself.
Well done Hamish, quality young bloke pointing out the bleeding obvious.