Maynard incident > Maynard rule > Brayshaw retirement

[Mr Miyagi]

The AFL will be furious with the MFC tweet about Brayshaw running. Hope we ram it down their throats and watch them squirm.

They deleted the tweet showing him jogging and smiling. AFl was quick!

[jonmac1954]

The AFL will be furious with the MFC tweet about Brayshaw running. Hope we ram it down their throats and watch them squirm.

They deleted the tweet showing him jogging and smiling. AFl was quick!

Not quick enough Swoop retweeted it.

[jonmac1954]

This smacks to me of the time Bux was suspended on the eve of the finals for backtalking to the umpires.

The penalty for dissent was then a fine.

But they simply ignored that and suspended him anyway.

Never underestimate the malice for our club out there.

[choppa]

Check David zita on Twitter for a lot of updates (every few minutes)

AFL stance is that his act was unreasonable….it’s now unreasonable to jump and smother???

[jonmac1954]

Check David zita on Twitter for a lot of updates (every few minutes)

AFL stance is that his act was unreasonable….it’s now unreasonable to jump and smother???

Check my post just above yours.

In or just before the finals if there is a chance of rubbing out a pies player the AFL is always all in.

[David]

This smacks to me of the time Bux was suspended on the eve of the finals for backtalking to the umpires.

The penalty for dissent was then a fine.

But they simply ignored that and suspended him anyway.

Never underestimate the malice for our club out there.

You sure about that? As far as I recall, the only time Buckley was ever suspended was for the famous "blood" incident with Cameron Ling.

He was fined $3000 afterwards for making a fairly innocuous remark about the tribunal case:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/buc ... duetc.html

[jonmac1954]

Yes I'm sure the AFL's excuse was that he was role model for children and had to be held to higher standards.

They simply changed the rules on the run as they always do.

[stoliboy]

[Mr Miyagi]

Via Fox Footy David Zita

“Woods (AFL) says players should ask: Is the thing I'm about to do risking the safety of that other player? If the answer is yes, then you've got to be quick and think about a way to do it that's not going to unreasonably risk the safety of the other player.”

In 0.48 seconds they’re meant to stop and ask themselves this question?!

[jonmac1954]

Anyone who thinks the AFL is going limply into this is very trusting.

The tweets coming out of the hearing room have the AFL counsel claiming Maynard charged at him recklessly.

It's stupid but this isn't a court of law.

[think positive]

how ridiculous

[stoliboy]

Michael Christian = 0 weeks

Laura Kane = 3 weeks

[think positive]

who is this <snip>? how many games has she played?

[slangman]

Via Fox Footy David Zita

“Woods (AFL) says players should ask: Is the thing I'm about to do risking the safety of that other player? If the answer is yes, then you've got to be quick and think about a way to do it that's not going to unreasonably risk the safety of the other player.”

In 0.48 seconds they’re meant to stop and ask themselves this question?!

That is such a stupid question for counsel to ask.
FMD every time you run for the ball that would then have to apply. Woods question/statement is basically outlawing high marks as the risk for injuring other players is significantly greater than most other actions on a football field.

[Ronnie McKeowns boots]

Whateley in his pontification on SEN bangs on about Maynard’s duty of care to Brayshaw.

What about the duty of care of the Melbourne medical team?

Should old mate not have been assessed after stumbling post copping Adam's knee/meaty leg?

I look forward to the Tribunal to see if this issue is raised, if we are going to be discussing duty of care, then perhaps he should of been getting HIA at the time the incident happened.