Maynard incident > Maynard rule > Brayshaw retirement

[Meredith1965]

^ yes, this is the precise implication of changing the rules post-Maynard. That act involves hurt to the other player once in 10,000 events. A knee in a marking contest perhaps 1/20 times. So, it will have to go.

When you put a lawyer who has never played football into the Head of football role, soon the game will be less like football and more like an exercise in legal prudence. As we now see. And who wants to watch a game of legalised dancing ?

[K]

[K]

I think its actually a good thing it went to the Tribunal and was cleared there, otherwise we would be inundated with Chrisso, the MRO, ex-Collingwood player conspiracy theories.
...

For what its worth - if I was Laura Kane I would have done exactly the same thing and referred this to the tribunal.

Having it go to the tribunal means that it gets a very thorough and open hearing. It removes doubt about bias for or against any team or player.

The depth of analysis and arguments is very clear for everyone to see.

In the end I believe the correct decision was made.
...

Yeah, but if so it should have been referred to the Tribunal ungraded. Instead, Laura Kane insisted on grading it.

[K]

[eddiesmith]

Apparently Gawn has come out and refuted the whole home visit sh!tshow saying that he saw the flowers go into the vase and the wine into the wine chiller.

ONYA MAXY well played son.

Can’t wait to read Caro’s retraction and apology. She not only threw Maynard under the bus, but the Melbourne players AND Brayshaw’s mum. Over what she admitted she only overheard at a function.

Has Caro been heard from anywhere since the hearing? I was going to watch footy classified but then saw she wasn’t on so no point.

[piffdog]

I would have thought her not being on was a great reason to actually sit down and watch..

[DT]

The thing that still irritates me about this whole business is the AFL being unhappy with the tribunal’s decision. I get they were upset about the concussion. Everyone was, including Maynard. They should have been rapt that there was such a detailed assessment and a considered and clearly articulated response.
I’m a cynic and although I believe the AFL cares about head injuries they care a lot more about the brand and money and wanted to make a show of all this. I’m sure we all want less head injuries, but how to go about it? I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a significant knee-jerk blanket rule change that bypasses the tribunal along the lines of automatic three week suspension for the player that causes the head injury. Might sound reasonable, but imagine the following: a semi with 30 seconds to go and team A is down 2 points. There’s a high ball to team A’s goal square. The full forward takes a speckie on the shoulders of the full back, who cannons forward into his own team-mates head, knocking him out.
Who is responsible? The FF or the opposition FB? If it’s the FF, then it’s a free against and his team misses the GF. And all he’s done is take a fair mark.
I’m not saying this is what’s planned, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s along these line. Rules without finesse and without recourse to review often end badly.

Yes and the AFL has been involved in knee jerk irrational rule changes almost from the day it took over from the VFL.

On the money. And the new lawyers in charge do not fill me with confidence

[Dark Beanie]

^ yes, this is the precise implication of changing the rules post-Maynard. That act involves hurt to the other player once in 10,000 events. A knee in a marking contest perhaps 1/20 times. So, it will have to go.

When you put a lawyer who has never played football into the Head of football role, soon the game will be less like football and more like an exercise in legal prudence. As we now see. And who wants to watch a game of legalised dancing ?

Laura Kane has played football.

Played as a forward for Melbourne Uni WFC. Is also a former coach, president and life member of the club.

[jonmac1954]

She us also a hard rrrs who is determined to rise to the top over however many bodies it takes.
God have pity on anyone foolish enough to get in her way.

[Meredith1965]

^ yes, this is the precise implication of changing the rules post-Maynard. That act involves hurt to the other player once in 10,000 events. A knee in a marking contest perhaps 1/20 times. So, it will have to go.

When you put a lawyer who has never played football into the Head of football role, soon the game will be less like football and more like an exercise in legal prudence. As we now see. And who wants to watch a game of legalised dancing ?

Laura Kane has played football.

Played as a forward for Melbourne Uni WFC. Is also a former coach, president and life member of the club.

If you like, but though women’s football is great, it’s a completely different game to male AFL football in terms of speed and potential damage. And the point is that someone who sees the game through a legal lens will ruin it quickly.

If a smother which hits the head is illegal, so must a high mark be, in time.

[jonmac1954]

This is and has been for some time a slow motion train crash that can only have one outcome.
The only variable is the timeline.

[Piesnchess]

LAWYERS, guns, and money, seems to have worked fine for Underbelly Caaaaarlton. !!

[PyreneesPie]

This is and has been for some time a slow motion train crash that can only have one outcome.
The only variable is the timeline.

Yep, it does seem that way, doesn't it.

What the game will evolve into is anyone's guess.

[RudeBoy]

My guess is that in 10 yrs, all players will be wearing head protection of some sort.

[jonmac1954]

My guess is that in 10 yrs, all players will be wearing head protection of some sort.

There is a significant chance that the game will not survive it.

Same goes for rugby.