Maynard incident > Maynard rule > Brayshaw retirement

[uncanny]

No idea what they expect him to do as he didn't choose body contact. Bumping is a choice. He's spoiling and he's supposed to adjust mid air somehow to avoid contact. If he gets suspended you take that all the way to the Supreme Court.

agreed

focus on the intent of the player who caused the injury rather than the outcome. Sometimes players will get hurt in the contest of this tough game.

[eddiesmith]

Can we stop playing the victim? MC graded it as careless. From there it was always going to the tribunal. Laura Kanes grading is irrelevant.

Long way to go now. Reckon we’re ok. Precedence to go on. Clearly a football act. Our damn president is a lawyer. We’ll be ok and Bruzz will be playing.

When will you wake up, Laura Kane intervened because MC didn’t think it was a reportable offence.

Go back through the MRO findings and find any other offence which Laura Kane is listed as the person who has laid the charge, go on, I’ll wait…

Where did it say that is what happened? I can’t find any mention of her swaying or over ruling. All I can see is that she graded it the same way as MC.

It’s the first time you’ll find her providing any grading whatsoever…The only reason for her to intervene is if MC hasn’t graded it to her liking.

Every media outlet is reporting the same thing, plus common sense says it has taken a long, long time to get a report laid for one match and the only reason that would happen is if there is conflict between the MRO and Ms Kane…

[the fuzz]

If we get to the GF and Bruz is not allowed to play, I give up. I say we forfeit.
He's my favourite player.
He's our Heart and Soul.
I can't imagine winning it with him watching on.

[jonmac1954]

The simple fact that the MRO was overridden concerning this incident which clearly has no malice or forethought is an absolute disgrace.

[Haff]

When will you wake up, Laura Kane intervened because MC didn’t think it was a reportable offence.

Go back through the MRO findings and find any other offence which Laura Kane is listed as the person who has laid the charge, go on, I’ll wait…

Where did it say that is what happened? I can’t find any mention of her swaying or over ruling. All I can see is that she graded it the same way as MC.

It’s the first time you’ll find her providing any grading whatsoever…The only reason for her to intervene is if MC hasn’t graded it to her liking.

Every media outlet is reporting the same thing, plus common sense says it has taken a long, long time to get a report laid for one match and the only reason that would happen is if there is conflict between the MRO and Ms Kane…

Ok I’ve read now that they did intervene. It doesn’t change much because if you think this wasn’t going to the tribunal you’ve not been paying attention. AFL has to be seen to be protecting all head trauma. That’s no conspiracy, it’s clear as day. Wouldn’t have mattered if it was Patracca in Bruz position knocking out Daicos.

If you must blame someone blame the money hungry ex players suing the afl for playing that game they loved then realising the real world is harder so jumping on a bandwagon to make some extra cash!

[afisher]

The AFL referral to the tribunal is absolutely driven by legal concerns.
They definitely want to create a clear document ( outcome summary) that is evidence based ( rather than the tribunal decision based on a formula) to protect themselves from litigation. The real threat is from both the accumulatiing general concussion cases and also , more specifically from Brayshaw who could potentially be ruled out of the game at some stage by an independent medical assessment.
Irrespective of the outcome I believe they are legally forced to take this approach in either contentious or serious head incidents.
Whilst I believe Maynard will play , the AFL would only want him playing once they have the process and document from the tribunal clearing him. Clearly the MRO doesn’t create that.
It was, in this current “concussion “ environment, always going to happen

[jonmac1954]

The AFL referral to the tribunal is absolutely driven by legal concerns.
They definitely want to create a clear document ( outcome summary) that is evidence based ( rather than the tribunal decision based on a formula) to protect themselves from litigation. The real threat is from both the accumulatiing general concussion cases and also , more specifically from Brayshaw who could potentially be ruled out of the game at some stage by an independent medical assessment.
Irrespective of the outcome I believe they are legally forced to take this approach in either contentious or serious head incidents.
Whilst I believe Maynard will play , the AFL would only want him playing once they have the process and document from the tribunal clearing him. Clearly the MRO doesn’t create that.
It was, in this current “concussion “ environment, always going to happen

So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

[Haff]

The AFL referral to the tribunal is absolutely driven by legal concerns.
They definitely want to create a clear document ( outcome summary) that is evidence based ( rather than the tribunal decision based on a formula) to protect themselves from litigation. The real threat is from both the accumulatiing general concussion cases and also , more specifically from Brayshaw who could potentially be ruled out of the game at some stage by an independent medical assessment.
Irrespective of the outcome I believe they are legally forced to take this approach in either contentious or serious head incidents.
Whilst I believe Maynard will play , the AFL would only want him playing once they have the process and document from the tribunal clearing him. Clearly the MRO doesn’t create that.
It was, in this current “concussion “ environment, always going to happen

Correct weight.

[Haff]

1. So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

2. Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

3. Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

1. No but that’s been the world we live in for 20 odd years.
2. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most media people (especially ex AFL) supporting Maynard.
3. Not many do, even the MRO/AFL but that’s irrelevant.

[jonmac1954]

1. So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

2. Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

3. Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

1. No but that’s been the world we live in for 20 odd years.
2. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most media people (especially ex AFL) supporting Maynard.
3. Not many do, even the MRO/AFL but that’s irrelevant.

Just plain disagree on all points. . . . . moving on.

[What'sinaname]

1. So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

2. Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

3. Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

1. No but that’s been the world we live in for 20 odd years.
2. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most media people (especially ex AFL) supporting Maynard.
3. Not many do, even the MRO/AFL but that’s irrelevant.

Just plain disagree on all points. . . . . moving on.

Then you're wrong. Point 2 is spot on. The vast majority of the media supported Maynard.

[afisher]

The AFL referral to the tribunal is absolutely driven by legal concerns.
They definitely want to create a clear document ( outcome summary) that is evidence based ( rather than the tribunal decision based on a formula) to protect themselves from litigation. The real threat is from both the accumulatiing general concussion cases and also , more specifically from Brayshaw who could potentially be ruled out of the game at some stage by an independent medical assessment.
Irrespective of the outcome I believe they are legally forced to take this approach in either contentious or serious head incidents.
Whilst I believe Maynard will play , the AFL would only want him playing once they have the process and document from the tribunal clearing him. Clearly the MRO doesn’t create that.
It was, in this current “concussion “ environment, always going to happen

So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

Absolutely not Jonmac1954
Both players are victims here
I was just trying to articulate why we are in this position

For want of an analogy
From an AFL perspective ( and I vehemently disagree with many aspects of their oversight) It’s a little bit like taking out insurance before you have a car crash
And this is a car crash. The AFL can see coming very soon

[jonmac1954]

1. No but that’s been the world we live in for 20 odd years.
2. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most media people (especially ex AFL) supporting Maynard.
3. Not many do, even the MRO/AFL but that’s irrelevant.

Just plain disagree on all points. . . . . moving on.

Then you're wrong. Point 2 is spot on. The vast majority of the media supported Maynard.

Can you read or is it miscomprehension?

I said . . .

Moving on

Or are you one of those who simply has to have their say despite everything?

Last reply to you.

[Mr Miyagi]

1. So you are fine with putting an innocent player through the uncertainty and trauma *** in the middle of a finals series FFS **** so the AFL can cover their sorry rrrssses???

2. Sorry not for me, this is about the media stitching up Collingwood again and the sheep chiming in.

3. Anyone who believes there was malicious intent or carelessness involved please post what exactly you are on and where the fck we can get it.

1. No but that’s been the world we live in for 20 odd years.
2. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Most media people (especially ex AFL) supporting Maynard.
3. Not many do, even the MRO/AFL but that’s irrelevant.

I agree with Haff, the media have overwhelmingly been on Maynard’s side. And I’m the biggest “the media hates us!” person here!

It’ll be interesting how Melbourne plays this. If Brayshaw and Adams had a head clash a few minutes earlier, they’ll be in huge trouble for not following concussion protocols, especially give Brayshaw’s history. I’ve got a feeling they won’t want to help Maynard in any way and will be wanting him suspended.

[matrix10]