This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is a Collingwood Bulletin Board - use this forum for general, Pies-related topics. For other footy topics, use Nick's Other AFL forum, and for non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar. For non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.
piffdog wrote: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.
fair point, but as usual it was handled very clumsily
wooo hooo cmon Pies!
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
doriswilgus wrote: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.Amd yet despite all of that evidence they must have see,they still went ahead and charged him anyway.Just bizarre......
And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
Rightly or wrongly they had to be SEEN to challenge it because a prime time broadcast game of footy to millions of people had a delay while a guy was unconscious for 2 minutes. Imagine in 5 years time when Brayshaw is suing the league their response is “we didn’t even think there was anything in it”. It’s shallow I know, and players must accept some of the risk of this occupation, but the administration/lawyers at that time in the future’s only defence will be “we did everything we could to protect players from getting knocked out” including trying to ban players who knocked other players out as a deterrent.
There will almost certainly be rule changes going forward which mean that incidents like this in future may not turn out the same way (ie let off).
I’m not sure we need to sh1t can Laura Kane specifically, I am positive Chrisso would have been overruled by whoever was in that role (ps - if you think any of this was done without Gillian’s mitts on it you are also naive).
^ Spot on.
No case to answer. There never was any case to answer. But justice not only had to be done, it had to be seen to be done.
pietillidie wrote: Next up, a hearing to determine a penalty for those who showed no duty of care to the game, fairness or rationality. The lack of accountability is damaging society.
Absolutely spot on IMHO. It confounds me that so called journalists are permitted to besmirch a player without being forced to issue an apology at the very least. I wish there was some comeback on them, but I guess all we can do as consumers is boycott their shows.
The problem is that some wanted conditional justice where only Bruz and Collingwood were punished. Many, especially that sooky sooky la la Melbourne coach wouldn’t see this as justice. But who cares what they think? I don’t.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm
doriswilgus wrote: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.Amd yet despite all of that evidence they must have see,they still went ahead and charged him anyway.Just bizarre......
And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
Rightly or wrongly they had to be SEEN to challenge it because a prime time broadcast game of footy to millions of people had a delay while a guy was unconscious for 2 minutes. Imagine in 5 years time when Brayshaw is suing the league their response is “we didn’t even think there was anything in it”. It’s shallow I know, and players must accept some of the risk of this occupation, but the administration/lawyers at that time in the future’s only defence will be “we did everything we could to protect players from getting knocked out” including trying to ban players who knocked other players out as a deterrent.
There will almost certainly be rule changes going forward which mean that incidents like this in future may not turn out the same way (ie let off).
I’m not sure we need to sh1t can Laura Kane specifically, I am positive Chrisso would have been overruled by whoever was in that role (ps - if you think any of this was done without Gillian’s mitts on it you are also naive).
^ Spot on.
No case to answer. There never was any case to answer. But justice not only had to be done, it had to be seen to be done.
Since there was pretty clearly no case to answer, why would AFL overlords overrule the MRO? Does the consequence alone require a tribunal hearing, and in that case, why is this not encoded in the laws for severe impact ?
Why haven an MRO, if the only way justice can be done is by a tribunal hearing ?
The first step of this process was not fair dealing.
pietillidie wrote: Next up, a hearing to determine a penalty for those who showed no duty of care to the game, fairness or rationality. The lack of accountability is damaging society.
Absolutely spot on IMHO. It confounds me that so called journalists are permitted to besmirch a player without being forced to issue an apology at the very least. I wish there was some comeback on them, but I guess all we can do as consumers is boycott their shows.
THIS ^^^^
Spot on I reckon. They can sprout absolute rubbish and then get away with it. It a blight on the whole journo system of rarely ever admitting that they were totally wrong but it is what it is. It’s us that always have to move on.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm
doriswilgus wrote: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.Amd yet despite all of that evidence they must have see,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 thrihghiht this whole case.And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
Rightly or wrongly they had to be SEEN to challenge it because a prime time broadcast game of footy to millions of people had a delay while a guy was unconscious for 2 minutes. Imagine in 5 years time when Brayshaw is suing the league their response is “we didn’t even think there was anything in it”. It’s shallow I know, and players must accept some of the risk of this occupation, but the administration/lawyers at that time in the future’s only defence will be “we did everything we could to protect players from getting knocked out” including trying to ban players who knocked other players out as a deterrent.
There will almost certainly be rule changes going forward which mean that incidents like this in future may not turn out the same way (ie let off).
I’m not sure we need to sh1t can Laura Kane specifically, I am positive Chrisso would have been overruled by whoever was in that role (ps - if you think any of this was done without Gillian’s mitts on it you are also naive).
These are the complexities of administering a billion dollar sports competition. I don’t love the league’s honchos, but anyone who thinks the job would be easy is clearly a simpleton.
Regarding the commentary from the hacks mentioned previously however (Wilson, Lyon, Goodwin etc) I am in complete consensus with Nick’s posters… Suck It!
Well summed up.
The AFL had to act for their own protection (perceived) and they will plug another loophole in the rules. As of next year ANY, repeat ANY action that results in a head knock will incur penalty - no questions asked. This eeks even further into changing the fabric of our game (which I hate) but I understand why they are going in that direction from a legal viewpoint. They are in for a world of pain for future compensation payouts. I’m just glad that Brayden Maynard wasn’t the victim of a test case. The AFL will have to suck this up. They won’t risk further embarrassment. Let Footy now make the headlines, not legal/tribunal stuff.
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930
doriswilgus wrote: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.Amd yet despite all of that evidence they must have see,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 thrihghiht this whole case.And Godwin’s continued attempts to get Maynard suspended were little short of disgraceful.
Rightly or wrongly they had to be SEEN to challenge it because a prime time broadcast game of footy to millions of people had a delay while a guy was unconscious for 2 minutes. Imagine in 5 years time when Brayshaw is suing the league their response is “we didn’t even think there was anything in it”. It’s shallow I know, and players must accept some of the risk of this occupation, but the administration/lawyers at that time in the future’s only defence will be “we did everything we could to protect players from getting knocked out” including trying to ban players who knocked other players out as a deterrent.
There will almost certainly be rule changes going forward which mean that incidents like this in future may not turn out the same way (ie let off).
I’m not sure we need to sh1t can Laura Kane specifically, I am positive Chrisso would have been overruled by whoever was in that role (ps - if you think any of this was done without Gillian’s mitts on it you are also naive).
These are the complexities of administering a billion dollar sports competition. I don’t love the league’s honchos, but anyone who thinks the job would be easy is clearly a simpleton.
Regarding the commentary from the hacks mentioned previously however (Wilson, Lyon, Goodwin etc) I am in complete consensus with Nick’s posters… Suck It!
Well said on all counts.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
This was the right decision. We should be happy about that but this is not something we should be celebrating. A player’s career and health may be in the balance. Let’s just move on and wish AB well.
The only certainty in all this is that at some point in the future we will be on the opposite side of such a case. I hope as a club we respond sensibly. I have no reason to believe we won’t
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
