This is such fantastic news. So good that Bruzza has been completely acquitted of the monstrous crimes Goodwin, Hamish Brayshaw, Lyon and other assorted hyenas have been accusing him of.
I feel elated!
Cards falling our way for once.
Go Pies!!
Maynard incident > Maynard rule > Brayshaw retirement
Moderator: bbmods
-
Magpietothemax
- Posts: 8000
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
- Has liked: 18 times
- Been liked: 26 times
Goodwin mouth hasn’t stopped running since Thursday night and the MFC and AFL had turned it into a circus. I feel for Angus because he is going to miss a chunk of footy and he would have never expected in that moment kicking the footy that he would have been knocked out. However if Maynard went for that then in theory any football act with a head clash would come under scrutiny and before long our game would be unrecognisable.
I think the right decision was made and I would have felt the same had it not been a Collingwood player. Hopefully everybody can move on now.
I think the right decision was made and I would have felt the same had it not been a Collingwood player. Hopefully everybody can move on now.
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy.
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20065
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 23 times
-
lazzadesilva
- Posts: 2244
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 8:01 pm
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 87 times
Very true Stolyboy, but the Coach and players are well versed in their ability to keep the “outside noise” out these days and they also have another week to prepare while the dumb demons haven’t. This will backfire on them I reckon.
Last edited by lazzadesilva on Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm 
-
robevpau1
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:37 am
Please see the below reasons of the Tribunal for its Maynard decision via Jeff Gleeson:
In the first quarter of Thursday's Qualifying Final from a centre bounce Brayshaw gathered the ball beyond the edge of the centre circle.
He ran in a direct line to the Melbourne goals at speed shaping to kick the ball long.
Maynard, who had set up at the centre bounce on the 50 meter line directly in line between the centre circle and the Melbourne goals and seeing Brayshaw running with the ball ran towards him.
He covered the distance of numerous meters at speed.
As Brayshaw shaped the kick and jumped high with both arms outstretched. He was attempting to smother the ball and in fact made contact with the ball.
By the time the ball made contact with Brayshaw’s boot, both of Maynard's feet had already left the ground.
At approximately the highest point of Maynard's elevation, he starts to pull his arms down and prepare for descent.
It’s obvious from the vision, and we find that at that moment it would have been obvious to Maynard, that he was going to collide with Brayshaw.
He turns his body to the right, tucks his right arm in, splays his legs and shapes his left hand in something of a fending motion.
He collides with Brayshaw with considerable impact.
After kicking the ball with his right foot, Brayshaw lands on that right foot. He lands or moves in such a way that his body moves to the right or directly into the path of Maynard.
Maynard’s arm or shoulder make forceful contact with Brayshaw’s head and he's knocked out cold. He suffers a concussion and is stretched from the field.
Maynard is charged with rough conduct, classified as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact.
The charge is advanced in two ways: Under the general rough conduct provision or alternatively under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, we will address them in turn.
First, the rough conduct general provision.
The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.
Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.
As to the decision to smother basis, we find that Maynard's decision was reasonable.
He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.
We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.
We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.
There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.
Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.
We are here discussing the first way in which the general rough conduct charge is pressed; That is, focusing on the decision to commit to the act of smothering.
The still images showing the ‘lanes’ in which the players were located at various relevant times, provide support for Maynard's evidence that he did not expect Brayshaw to be where he ultimately saw him to be after he took his eyes off the ball and look down to see Brayshaw.
As to the second basis of the rough conduct general provision, we accept the evidence of Professor Cole that he did not believe that Maynard’s body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.
Here, we’re addressing the second way in which general rough conduct charge is pressed, namely that it was something that Maynard did or didn't do after he'd decided to smother was careless.
We find that Professor Cole's evidence is consistent with the time intervals that were introduced into evidence and consistent with our repeated viewing of the video evidence from numerous angles at normal speed.
Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw, if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position, we find that he had no such sufficient time.
He would have had to weigh up what his other options were and whether they were more or less likely to cause harm to Brayshaw.
It is not an irrelevant consideration that these other possible methods of landing foreseeably have resulted in harm to Maynard.
The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.
It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.
We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.
This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.
The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.
The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.
We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.
It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.
At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.
In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.
We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.
The charge is dismissed.
In the first quarter of Thursday's Qualifying Final from a centre bounce Brayshaw gathered the ball beyond the edge of the centre circle.
He ran in a direct line to the Melbourne goals at speed shaping to kick the ball long.
Maynard, who had set up at the centre bounce on the 50 meter line directly in line between the centre circle and the Melbourne goals and seeing Brayshaw running with the ball ran towards him.
He covered the distance of numerous meters at speed.
As Brayshaw shaped the kick and jumped high with both arms outstretched. He was attempting to smother the ball and in fact made contact with the ball.
By the time the ball made contact with Brayshaw’s boot, both of Maynard's feet had already left the ground.
At approximately the highest point of Maynard's elevation, he starts to pull his arms down and prepare for descent.
It’s obvious from the vision, and we find that at that moment it would have been obvious to Maynard, that he was going to collide with Brayshaw.
He turns his body to the right, tucks his right arm in, splays his legs and shapes his left hand in something of a fending motion.
He collides with Brayshaw with considerable impact.
After kicking the ball with his right foot, Brayshaw lands on that right foot. He lands or moves in such a way that his body moves to the right or directly into the path of Maynard.
Maynard’s arm or shoulder make forceful contact with Brayshaw’s head and he's knocked out cold. He suffers a concussion and is stretched from the field.
Maynard is charged with rough conduct, classified as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact.
The charge is advanced in two ways: Under the general rough conduct provision or alternatively under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, we will address them in turn.
First, the rough conduct general provision.
The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.
Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.
As to the decision to smother basis, we find that Maynard's decision was reasonable.
He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.
We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.
We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.
There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.
Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.
We are here discussing the first way in which the general rough conduct charge is pressed; That is, focusing on the decision to commit to the act of smothering.
The still images showing the ‘lanes’ in which the players were located at various relevant times, provide support for Maynard's evidence that he did not expect Brayshaw to be where he ultimately saw him to be after he took his eyes off the ball and look down to see Brayshaw.
As to the second basis of the rough conduct general provision, we accept the evidence of Professor Cole that he did not believe that Maynard’s body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.
Here, we’re addressing the second way in which general rough conduct charge is pressed, namely that it was something that Maynard did or didn't do after he'd decided to smother was careless.
We find that Professor Cole's evidence is consistent with the time intervals that were introduced into evidence and consistent with our repeated viewing of the video evidence from numerous angles at normal speed.
Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw, if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position, we find that he had no such sufficient time.
He would have had to weigh up what his other options were and whether they were more or less likely to cause harm to Brayshaw.
It is not an irrelevant consideration that these other possible methods of landing foreseeably have resulted in harm to Maynard.
The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.
It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.
We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.
This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.
The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.
The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.
We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.
It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.
At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.
In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.
We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.
The charge is dismissed.
Unpopular opinion but I don’t mind that the league overruled and sent it up (something I was t aware of in a couple earlier posts back on about page 6 of this thread).
Concussions and head knocks are more scrutinised than ever and the league has an obligation to protect the future of the game. This issue is not going away and as fans we can all expect this kind of drama to increase going forward. Yes it might be subjugating due process to the lawyers, but this is how professional billion dollar businesses are run (rightly or wrongly)
If (or when) they rewrite the rules to say “if a player gets knocked out, someone will be suspended, somehow, someway because we simply cannot afford to have players getting concussed” then Maynard is a goner - but that’s not the rules now (yet…).
Also, just try and imagine for a second that it was Jack Viney hitting Nick Daicos and the league didn’t step in… We would be screaming conspiracy.
Justice has prevailed for Maynard also I hope Brayshaw recovers ok.
Concussions and head knocks are more scrutinised than ever and the league has an obligation to protect the future of the game. This issue is not going away and as fans we can all expect this kind of drama to increase going forward. Yes it might be subjugating due process to the lawyers, but this is how professional billion dollar businesses are run (rightly or wrongly)
If (or when) they rewrite the rules to say “if a player gets knocked out, someone will be suspended, somehow, someway because we simply cannot afford to have players getting concussed” then Maynard is a goner - but that’s not the rules now (yet…).
Also, just try and imagine for a second that it was Jack Viney hitting Nick Daicos and the league didn’t step in… We would be screaming conspiracy.
Justice has prevailed for Maynard also I hope Brayshaw recovers ok.
It's never as good/nor bad as it seems...
-
Damien
- Posts: 5718
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 1999 8:01 pm
- Location: Croydon Vic
- Has liked: 3 times
- Been liked: 11 times
Collingwood life membership nominations for 2024: Ben Ihle - B.O.G
AFL will not appeal. It risks really damaging Laura Kane’s stature. Take your medicine.
Michael Christian (a 1990 premiership hero) vindicated.
Drama over the verdict for a few days til we then focus on this weekend’s games. Then we move on.
Nick Daicos moving freely at training with 9 more days to recover. Life’s good.
The earth is back on its axis. Premiership tilt back on track.
AFL will not appeal. It risks really damaging Laura Kane’s stature. Take your medicine.
Michael Christian (a 1990 premiership hero) vindicated.
Drama over the verdict for a few days til we then focus on this weekend’s games. Then we move on.
Nick Daicos moving freely at training with 9 more days to recover. Life’s good.
The earth is back on its axis. Premiership tilt back on track.
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930
The Herald - 1930
-
Ronnie McKeowns boots
- Posts: 2032
- Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:49 pm
That would be a start!Jezza wrote:Let it go. Stop giving her so much oxygen.Piesnchess wrote:Caro is now in a fetal position, curled up under the doona, sobbing her heart out, weeping tears of blood, wailing WHY WHY WHY !!
"You hate a mean man, a grasping man, a man who wants everything and gives nothing. That’s Collingwood. They are a law unto themselves"
Jack 'Captain Blood' Dyer
Jack 'Captain Blood' Dyer
-
magpieazza
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
-
Brown26
- Posts: 4070
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Been liked: 2 times
I don’t think the AFL will appeal, cause if they appeal they have to be able to find legal fault - ie. the legal process was incorrect. That would be hard to argue to get a conviction, much easier the other way. Plus their case has holes all over it so they would be accused of the same thing. He plays 
- Ben
- Ben
Thanks for posting the transcript.
As others have said - it was a weak case. You can clearly see that the AFL had to find a way to argue it and you can imagine their lawyer not having much to work with.
Glad it has been dealt with and we are not playing this weekend. Will be old news by the time the real lead up starts to prelims.
As I have said - the case has been tested and “justice” (?) prevails.
As others have said - it was a weak case. You can clearly see that the AFL had to find a way to argue it and you can imagine their lawyer not having much to work with.
Glad it has been dealt with and we are not playing this weekend. Will be old news by the time the real lead up starts to prelims.
As I have said - the case has been tested and “justice” (?) prevails.
It's never as good/nor bad as it seems...
-
LaurieHolden
- Posts: 3842
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:04 am
- Location: Victoria Park
- Has liked: 202 times
- Been liked: 185 times
-
doriswilgus
- Posts: 5350
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:02 pm
- Location: the great southern land
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 23 times
Reading the above conclusions from the tribunal,it’s obvious that they had no choice but to find Maynard not guilty of the charge.
The question that needs to be asked,is why did the AFL make such a big show of charging him in the first place,over riding the MRO in the process?They must have seen the same video and photographic evidence that the tribunal saw at the hearing,the fact that Maynard had no time to brace for contact one he was in the air,and that Brayshaw clearly veered off the line and contributed to the collision himself.And yet despite all of the evidence they must have seen,they still went ahead and charged him anyway.Just bizarre.
Well,it’s backfired on them badly,and Melbourne as well.They certainly haven’t covered themselves in glory throughout this whole case.And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
The question that needs to be asked,is why did the AFL make such a big show of charging him in the first place,over riding the MRO in the process?They must have seen the same video and photographic evidence that the tribunal saw at the hearing,the fact that Maynard had no time to brace for contact one he was in the air,and that Brayshaw clearly veered off the line and contributed to the collision himself.And yet despite all of the evidence they must have seen,they still went ahead and charged him anyway.Just bizarre.
Well,it’s backfired on them badly,and Melbourne as well.They certainly haven’t covered themselves in glory throughout this whole case.And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
Last edited by doriswilgus on Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.