Maynard incident > Maynard rule > Brayshaw retirement

[scoobydoo]

The real issue here is that even if he is acquitted he will carry the stain of this sht fest for life.

Your kidding right?
Only stain no matter the outcome is on the the most unprofessional organization in sport.

[Ronnie McKeowns boots]

The Pies are showing behind the goals vision of the incident, with a purple coloured lane for Maynard and yellow coloured lane for Brayshaw, arguing Brayshaw veered into the Maynard's lane and not the other way around.

Purple lane. Purple lane.

So this is what it sounds like when the doves cry!

[Damien]

The real issue here is that even if he is acquitted he will carry the stain of this sht fest for life.

Nah disagree. He’ll be remembered as a (multiple) Premiership defender. The caravan moves on quickly. It’s a forgiving football society. If we beat the charges, it’s fair and square.

[stoliboy]

The AFL and Laura Kane are embarrassing themselves here. I assumed there must have been credible argument explaining why Michael Christian was overruled, but it seems there is not.

Like every other business run by professional managers who do not understand the business, the AFL is showing the perils of being run by lawyers who have never played the game and do not really understand it.

Beautifully said.

[Ronnie McKeowns boots]

The AFL and Laura Kane are embarrassing themselves here. I assumed there must have been credible argument explaining why Michael Christian was overruled, but it seems there is not.

Like every other business run by professional managers who do not understand the business, the AFL is showing the perils of being run by lawyers who have never played the game and do not really understand it.

In the wise words of Sri Lanka cricketer Marvan Atapattu:

"A set of muppets headed by a joker"

[think positive]

The real issue here is that even if he is acquitted he will carry the stain of this sht fest for life.

Your kidding right?
Only stain no matter the outcome is on the the most unprofessional organization in sport.

This

[K]

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

Don't let the truth get in the way David!

Nah, IIRC Bucks got a couple for accidental tripping against the Crows in Adelaide...

[jonmac1954]

The real issue here is that even if he is acquitted he will carry the stain of this sht fest for life.

Your kidding right?
Only stain no matter the outcome is on the the most unprofessional organization in sport.

Wrong.

[K]

...
AFL Tribunal

Tribunal Chairs: Jeffrey Gleeson KC, Renee Enbom KC
Tribunal Panel Members: Michelle Dench, Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Shannon McFerran, David Neitz, Paul Williams, Shane Wakelin, Talia Radan, Darren Gaspar, Jordan Bannister, Scott Stevens.

...

Starts in 25 minutes...

The three for tonight are: Jeff Gleeson, Stewart Loewe, Jason Johnson.

They switched to: Gleeson, Scott Stevens, Daren Gaspar.

Were Gillon-Dillon-Kane worried that Loewe and Johnson had been bribed?

[K]

I’m late to the discussion here but since when can greenhorn executive Laura Kane overrule the MRC head? What does it have to do with her? She wouldn’t know a weekly rap sheet from a scone recipe, or does she have experience in this? Or is there underlying politics and influence involved in which case a massive can of worms with ongoing legal action could be the end result.

She had support from Gillon & Dillon.

[woodys_world69]

another hour at least.. they only just started deliberating

[K]

Ben Ihle

https://www.deverslist.com.au/barristers/ben-ihle

Michael Cole

https://www.acu.edu.au/research-and-ent ... chael-cole

[Brown26]

This notion that he jumped and is to blame means that anyone going for a jump and mark is responsible for the outcome. Rayner, sorry mate, good successful mark, 3 weeks for careless conduct.
This might be the end for the afl. In all seriousness.

They won’t think about it in this case, but this is completely the point why Maynard should get off regardless. If you bump, you mean to make contact and if you do it poorly and the player gets hurt, you’re responsible. Same as if you tackle - you mean to make contact and you’re responsible for the outcome. If you execute a smother, no attempt or desire to make contact, and it’s completely accidental you have to be excused. Otherwise the player who kicks the ball, has his kick smothered BUT the defender injures himself, the kicker is liable for the injury. So you can’t kick in football?

This is why he has to get off. He didn’t mean to make contact so the repercussions of said contact are not his responsibility or fault. That is the basic difference between a bump or a tackle. Otherwise Rohan has to go for 4 weeks for concussions Jeremy Cameron. Cause he did it. Full stop. Doesn’t make sense.

- Ben

[Culprit]

The AFL is clearly out to suspend Maynard. Firstly it was unreasonable to spoil followed by a reckless act. Despite the evidence, he will be found guilty.

Will Maynard be the same player after this?

[Skids]

And now we wait...