No use asking this old bugger who is unconditionally biased against Collingwood and Melbourne in the first place.
I was stupid enough to believe that 'Front-on contact', 'Hitting someone in the head', and 'Causing any sort of concussion' were all illegal, intent or not, so obviously I won't be having an opinion on it at all.
Besides all of the self-opinionated commentators who still see the Saints as a waste of space, have all given their opinions on it, and at the end of the day the AFL usually follows the general consensus of whatever comes out of their mouths.
Bye bye Maynard
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
The media debate on this sort of incident continues to alienate me, as does some of the commentary on here.
All I can hear is the same old crap that was thrown around when Giascura jumped up and elbowed Kosi in the head back in 2006: after which Kosi was never the same player again.
You know what I mean: "It's a contact sport played by men, if we outlaw that, we might as well stop playing the game, etc, etc."
It is completely ludicrous to suggest that a full-on, forceful contact with a shoulder or elbow directly with another player's head is ever going to be purely accidental, unless the player initiating that contact is totally unaware of where the other player is: which was certainly not the case with Maynard, who clearly lined Brayshaw up.
These sorts of incidents always involve walking a fine line: there is clearly an intent to make forceful body contact, perhaps not specifically with the head, but with a degree of what the US justice system calls "reckless indifference" as to precisely where the blow might land.
Never mind the gaggle of former players who almost seem to derive a homoerotic thrill out of these sorts of incidents. Football fans around the world seem to love them too: the top-rating rugby league commentator in Sydney when I was growing up there was a clown named Peter Peters who used to have apoplexy whenever one player knocked another player semi-unconscious: "He's sent him to Disneyland, he's sent him to Disneyland." (And, of course, in those medieval times, the guy who was hit simply was given a bit of pain relief and was then expected to get up and play on. There have been instances of players on grand final-winning teams having absolutely no memory of what happened during the game. Utterly disgraceful in retrospect.)
AFL needs to decide if it wants to have a future or wants to be sued out of existence. There are going to be plenty of ex-players who, having blown all their money, will think it a good idea sue the AFL for millions for causing them concussion. The AFL needs to start defending its position now, and it won't help itself at all by letting Maynard off on the basis that "he didn't have any other option" (how can someone possibly keep a straight face when they say that?). Or worse still, "it was a football action": ie, "recklessly knocking people unconscious is an intrinsic part of our game." Won't the likes of Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn have fun with that sort of comment?
If the tribunal ends up doing the right thing (50/50 IMO) then someone high up in the AFL adminisration needs to come out afterwards and say something like "just to put the record straight, the player was wrong in describing what happened as a footy action: it was in fact the type of thing that has no place whatsoever in our game." But they''ll be too frightened of what clowns like Dermie would have to say about that.
End of rant.
All I can hear is the same old crap that was thrown around when Giascura jumped up and elbowed Kosi in the head back in 2006: after which Kosi was never the same player again.
You know what I mean: "It's a contact sport played by men, if we outlaw that, we might as well stop playing the game, etc, etc."
It is completely ludicrous to suggest that a full-on, forceful contact with a shoulder or elbow directly with another player's head is ever going to be purely accidental, unless the player initiating that contact is totally unaware of where the other player is: which was certainly not the case with Maynard, who clearly lined Brayshaw up.
These sorts of incidents always involve walking a fine line: there is clearly an intent to make forceful body contact, perhaps not specifically with the head, but with a degree of what the US justice system calls "reckless indifference" as to precisely where the blow might land.
Never mind the gaggle of former players who almost seem to derive a homoerotic thrill out of these sorts of incidents. Football fans around the world seem to love them too: the top-rating rugby league commentator in Sydney when I was growing up there was a clown named Peter Peters who used to have apoplexy whenever one player knocked another player semi-unconscious: "He's sent him to Disneyland, he's sent him to Disneyland." (And, of course, in those medieval times, the guy who was hit simply was given a bit of pain relief and was then expected to get up and play on. There have been instances of players on grand final-winning teams having absolutely no memory of what happened during the game. Utterly disgraceful in retrospect.)
AFL needs to decide if it wants to have a future or wants to be sued out of existence. There are going to be plenty of ex-players who, having blown all their money, will think it a good idea sue the AFL for millions for causing them concussion. The AFL needs to start defending its position now, and it won't help itself at all by letting Maynard off on the basis that "he didn't have any other option" (how can someone possibly keep a straight face when they say that?). Or worse still, "it was a football action": ie, "recklessly knocking people unconscious is an intrinsic part of our game." Won't the likes of Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn have fun with that sort of comment?
If the tribunal ends up doing the right thing (50/50 IMO) then someone high up in the AFL adminisration needs to come out afterwards and say something like "just to put the record straight, the player was wrong in describing what happened as a footy action: it was in fact the type of thing that has no place whatsoever in our game." But they''ll be too frightened of what clowns like Dermie would have to say about that.
End of rant.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 139 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
As has been pointed out if it was Nick Daicos that was hit the offender would have been hung drawn and quartered by now
If it was Ben Long or Toby Greene in the Maynard role they would be hung drawn quartered and guillotined
Riues for some players and rules for others
Rules for some teams and rules for others
If it was Ben Long or Toby Greene in the Maynard role they would be hung drawn quartered and guillotined
Riues for some players and rules for others
Rules for some teams and rules for others
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9054
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
A rant maybe, but argued with logic and consistency. The point that we all need to remember about former footballers who commentate for commercial media, is that it is irrelevant whether they are morons or not. In fact, the more idiotic their behaviour the more subsequent stories that are generated. It's about "personalities" not "content". There are a few exceptions - like Leigh Matthews , Jordan Lewis and Nathan Buckley. The next time Dermie says something that makes any sense will be the first. It's why no-one ever wanted him as coach.meher baba wrote: ↑Sat 09 Sep 2023 8:08am The media debate on this sort of incident continues to alienate me, as does some of the commentary on here.
All I can hear is the same old crap that was thrown around when Giascura jumped up and elbowed Kosi in the head back in 2006: after which Kosi was never the same player again.
You know what I mean: "It's a contact sport played by men, if we outlaw that, we might as well stop playing the game, etc, etc."
It is completely ludicrous to suggest that a full-on, forceful contact with a shoulder or elbow directly with another player's head is ever going to be purely accidental, unless the player initiating that contact is totally unaware of where the other player is: which was certainly not the case with Maynard, who clearly lined Brayshaw up.
These sorts of incidents always involve walking a fine line: there is clearly an intent to make forceful body contact, perhaps not specifically with the head, but with a degree of what the US justice system calls "reckless indifference" as to precisely where the blow might land.
Never mind the gaggle of former players who almost seem to derive a homoerotic thrill out of these sorts of incidents. Football fans around the world seem to love them too: the top-rating rugby league commentator in Sydney when I was growing up there was a clown named Peter Peters who used to have apoplexy whenever one player knocked another player semi-unconscious: "He's sent him to Disneyland, he's sent him to Disneyland." (And, of course, in those medieval times, the guy who was hit simply was given a bit of pain relief and was then expected to get up and play on. There have been instances of players on grand final-winning teams having absolutely no memory of what happened during the game. Utterly disgraceful in retrospect.)
AFL needs to decide if it wants to have a future or wants to be sued out of existence. There are going to be plenty of ex-players who, having blown all their money, will think it a good idea sue the AFL for millions for causing them concussion. The AFL needs to start defending its position now, and it won't help itself at all by letting Maynard off on the basis that "he didn't have any other option" (how can someone possibly keep a straight face when they say that?). Or worse still, "it was a football action": ie, "recklessly knocking people unconscious is an intrinsic part of our game." Won't the likes of Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn have fun with that sort of comment?
If the tribunal ends up doing the right thing (50/50 IMO) then someone high up in the AFL adminisration needs to come out afterwards and say something like "just to put the record straight, the player was wrong in describing what happened as a footy action: it was in fact the type of thing that has no place whatsoever in our game." But they''ll be too frightened of what clowns like Dermie would have to say about that.
End of rant.
-
takeaway
- Club Player
- Posts: 1832
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 383 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
perfectionist wrote: ↑Sat 09 Sep 2023 10:33amA rant maybe, but argued with logic and consistency. The point that we all need to remember about former footballers who commentate for commercial media, is that it is irrelevant whether they are morons or not. In fact, the more idiotic their behaviour the more subsequent stories that are generated. It's about "personalities" not "content". There are a few exceptions - like Leigh Matthews , Jordan Lewis and Nathan Buckley. The next time Dermie says something that makes any sense will be the first. It's why no-one ever wanted him as coach.meher baba wrote: ↑Sat 09 Sep 2023 8:08am The media debate on this sort of incident continues to alienate me, as does some of the commentary on here.
All I can hear is the same old crap that was thrown around when Giascura jumped up and elbowed Kosi in the head back in 2006: after which Kosi was never the same player again.
You know what I mean: "It's a contact sport played by men, if we outlaw that, we might as well stop playing the game, etc, etc."
It is completely ludicrous to suggest that a full-on, forceful contact with a shoulder or elbow directly with another player's head is ever going to be purely accidental, unless the player initiating that contact is totally unaware of where the other player is: which was certainly not the case with Maynard, who clearly lined Brayshaw up.
These sorts of incidents always involve walking a fine line: there is clearly an intent to make forceful body contact, perhaps not specifically with the head, but with a degree of what the US justice system calls "reckless indifference" as to precisely where the blow might land.
Never mind the gaggle of former players who almost seem to derive a homoerotic thrill out of these sorts of incidents. Football fans around the world seem to love them too: the top-rating rugby league commentator in Sydney when I was growing up there was a clown named Peter Peters who used to have apoplexy whenever one player knocked another player semi-unconscious: "He's sent him to Disneyland, he's sent him to Disneyland." (And, of course, in those medieval times, the guy who was hit simply was given a bit of pain relief and was then expected to get up and play on. There have been instances of players on grand final-winning teams having absolutely no memory of what happened during the game. Utterly disgraceful in retrospect.)
AFL needs to decide if it wants to have a future or wants to be sued out of existence. There are going to be plenty of ex-players who, having blown all their money, will think it a good idea sue the AFL for millions for causing them concussion. The AFL needs to start defending its position now, and it won't help itself at all by letting Maynard off on the basis that "he didn't have any other option" (how can someone possibly keep a straight face when they say that?). Or worse still, "it was a football action": ie, "recklessly knocking people unconscious is an intrinsic part of our game." Won't the likes of Slater and Gordon and Maurice Blackburn have fun with that sort of comment?
If the tribunal ends up doing the right thing (50/50 IMO) then someone high up in the AFL adminisration needs to come out afterwards and say something like "just to put the record straight, the player was wrong in describing what happened as a footy action: it was in fact the type of thing that has no place whatsoever in our game." But they''ll be too frightened of what clowns like Dermie would have to say about that.
End of rant.
Two of your exceptions, Jordan Lewis and Nathan Buckley have commented in the article below. Both say it was clearly a football action and Buckley states it was not deliberate.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/unprec ... 68c0d1d9ef
I reckon Buckley sums it up well ...
“I think this absolutely has to go to the Tribunal – the AFL has sort of created this grey area because some head knocks have been OK and some haven’t,” he explained.
“This is probably a landmark case because that clearly was a football action.
“What they come down with will inform the direction that they want to head on going forward.
“Is it deliberate though? No it’s not.”
The outcome will be interesting. I hope he gets off, but in the current climate I don't think he will.
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Buckley is wrong. It was not "clearly" a football action and I reckon, on the balance of probabilities, it was deliberate. Buckley and Lewis and Lyon and all the other tossers seem to believe that Maynard had no control about the way he fell to the ground and that it was mere chance that had Maynard ending up in a sort of kamikaze flying bump position. I call BS on that one. I suspect it could well have been a practiced manoeuvre. I'm sure he wasn't intending to knock Brayshaw out, but I reckon he wanted to clean him up and leave him severely shaken.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
As I was driving home from the game some bonehead who broadcasts on National radio said it would change the fabric of the game if Maynard gets suspended.
"As a footy lover, I'm very fortunate to be able to watch the game and earn a living as a commentator and as a member and supporter, I'd hate to see the game change where a player is rubbed out when he's just going for a smother"
The knucklehead is commentating for MMM for the Brisbane v Port game and he said he hoped that the lady who was just appointed in this new role, would 'take a deep breath' and not try and assert herself or try and make a statement, when she's only been in the role for a day or two.
What a dick! What a Neanderthal.
I understand that people are reluctant to accept change, but we are talking about protecting vulnerable players from reckless and careless acts. We are talking about trying to 'reduce' incidences of brain trauma. We are trying to keep all the great skills of AFL football in the game and trying to eliminate all the thuggery that used to exist in the game.
"As a footy lover, I'm very fortunate to be able to watch the game and earn a living as a commentator and as a member and supporter, I'd hate to see the game change where a player is rubbed out when he's just going for a smother"
The knucklehead is commentating for MMM for the Brisbane v Port game and he said he hoped that the lady who was just appointed in this new role, would 'take a deep breath' and not try and assert herself or try and make a statement, when she's only been in the role for a day or two.
What a dick! What a Neanderthal.
I understand that people are reluctant to accept change, but we are talking about protecting vulnerable players from reckless and careless acts. We are talking about trying to 'reduce' incidences of brain trauma. We are trying to keep all the great skills of AFL football in the game and trying to eliminate all the thuggery that used to exist in the game.
-
SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19154
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1609 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Who was it?
Daisy Williams?
The guy is a first class f***wit.
Daisy Williams?
The guy is a first class f***wit.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
-
Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5786 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Who really cares now? It's only going to be another example / scenario that's ignored or adhered to, given the player or club involved.
-
wally
- Club Player
- Posts: 826
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 8:23am
- Location: brisy
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Maynard is lucky he plays for Collingwood he has the best chance of getting off, the media love him same as Selwood .
Imagine if it was a Saint hardnut who done it ( actually do we have a hardnut?).
Steven Baker 6 weeks
Imagine if it was a Saint hardnut who done it ( actually do we have a hardnut?).
Steven Baker 6 weeks
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
What's being lost here is that if Maynard had time to think about 'bracing' and the ability to brace, then he obviously has time to avoid hitting Brayshaw in the head.
Once the footy has gone past Maynard, his instinct tells him he still needs to 'impact the contest'. While in the air he leans his shoulder and body weight towards Brayshaw's head.
If Maynard was an Olympic diver and he's in the air in the act of diving, is it possible for him to angle his centre of gravity or move his upper torso and shoulders? Of course he can.
Sorry. He is an elite athlete and he is in control of his arms and shoulder and body weight.
If it wasn't deliberate, then it's reckless. Guilty
Once the footy has gone past Maynard, his instinct tells him he still needs to 'impact the contest'. While in the air he leans his shoulder and body weight towards Brayshaw's head.
If Maynard was an Olympic diver and he's in the air in the act of diving, is it possible for him to angle his centre of gravity or move his upper torso and shoulders? Of course he can.
Sorry. He is an elite athlete and he is in control of his arms and shoulder and body weight.
If it wasn't deliberate, then it's reckless. Guilty
Last edited by Scollop on Tue 12 Sep 2023 9:09pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
CURLY
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10504
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1344 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Collingwood Football League has again shown its hand.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
CURLY
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10504
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1344 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Collingwood Football League has again shown its hand.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
Yorkeys
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1457 times
- Been thanked: 1525 times
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
The conversation from the start has been that it's ok to attempt a smother. Yes...BUT
This guy hurt someone after the ball left the scene. It's like a late bump. Simple. What a fvcken joke!!
How many players end up hitting someone in the head from an attempted smother. No one!!
All the AFL players backed him and supported the thug
Every single imbecile who has defended Maynard has ignored the fact that he leaned his body weight into someone's head.
This guy hurt someone after the ball left the scene. It's like a late bump. Simple. What a fvcken joke!!
How many players end up hitting someone in the head from an attempted smother. No one!!
All the AFL players backed him and supported the thug
Every single imbecile who has defended Maynard has ignored the fact that he leaned his body weight into someone's head.
Last edited by Scollop on Tue 12 Sep 2023 9:19pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
CarlD
- Club Player
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Thu 29 Sep 2011 12:24pm
- Location: Central Coast
- Has thanked: 210 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Agreed. Maynard had his hands out in front - he could have pushed Brayshaw but dipped the shoulder into him.Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 9:03pm What's being lost here is that if Maynard had time to think about 'bracing' and the ability to brace, then he obviously has time to avoid hitting Brayshaw in the head.
Once the footy has gone past Maynard, his instinct tells him he still needs to 'impact the contest'. While in the air he leans his shoulder and body weight towards Brayshaw's head.
If Maynard was an Olympic diver and he's in the air in the act of diving, is it possible for him to angle his centre of gravity or move his upper torso and shoulders? Of course he can.
Sorry. He is an elite athlete and he is in control of his arms and shoulder and body weight.
If it wasn't deliberate, then it's reckless. Guilty
-
Yorkeys
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5111
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1457 times
- Been thanked: 1525 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Well he will be hoping a football act doesn't befall him.
May think he is bullet proof now, licence to footy act all over the place. And that wouldn't be an unfair interpretation of the tribunal's decision.
May think he is bullet proof now, licence to footy act all over the place. And that wouldn't be an unfair interpretation of the tribunal's decision.
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
One other thing I'd like to add. Not sure if the tribunal asked this question, because it's a question that doesn't help the defence
Did Maynard do everything possible to avoid forceful contact with Brayshaw's head?
And...thanks to CarlID, who also agrees that Maynard could have easily fended off or pushed away from the collision.
Maynard did the exact opposite of avoiding head high contact..he did everything he could to ensure that forceful and high contact was made.
Maynard was in the air to smother, but once that footy goes past him, his intentions change. This wasn't an unfortunate accident.
This was a final. The stakes are at their highest and if you can hurt the opposition physically and take out a player early, the you do it. There aren't too many ways you can these days. The Patty Cripps incident last year showed that once you're in the air, there's a bit of leeway from the AFL.
Not sure how you legislate against collisions, but I do know a thug when I see one.
Did Maynard do everything possible to avoid forceful contact with Brayshaw's head?
And...thanks to CarlID, who also agrees that Maynard could have easily fended off or pushed away from the collision.
Maynard did the exact opposite of avoiding head high contact..he did everything he could to ensure that forceful and high contact was made.
Maynard was in the air to smother, but once that footy goes past him, his intentions change. This wasn't an unfortunate accident.
This was a final. The stakes are at their highest and if you can hurt the opposition physically and take out a player early, the you do it. There aren't too many ways you can these days. The Patty Cripps incident last year showed that once you're in the air, there's a bit of leeway from the AFL.
Not sure how you legislate against collisions, but I do know a thug when I see one.
Last edited by Scollop on Tue 12 Sep 2023 10:47pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Vortex
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6473
- Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2020 6:51am
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1025 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
The right decision, was a football incident.
Rules could get changed though
Game will be played very differently in the not too distant future.
The next frontier is the speccy and the knees up....had to come in a litigious society
Rules could get changed though
Game will be played very differently in the not too distant future.
The next frontier is the speccy and the knees up....had to come in a litigious society
-
cwrcyn
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4344
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1467 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
Maynard knew exactly what he was doing. As he approached Brayshaw he was slightly to the left of him. He launched at an angle toward Brayshaw and as he came down he didn't just turned sideways, he drove his shoulder downward into Brayshaw. A guy with no intent to harm would have tried to maintain his balance and put his arms out on front of him to avoid hard contact rather than driving forward and downward with his shoulder. He braces himself in exactly the same way a player does when he's trying to shirtfront someone. The way he tenses his body is not about attempting to avoid a hit, it's to provide maximum force.
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
2 blokes pushing and shoving is also a football incident. 1 bloke (the defender) holds and scrags and even punches the forward in the chest to put him off.
The forward tries to basically break free from the holding and is in the act of aggressively shaking off the defender when all of a sudden the forward cops a punch to the chest.
The forward reacts and swings a forearm (it's not a clenched fist to the face) in order to get away. In the act of holding and scragging as forwards and defenders do, one player cops an accidental hit high.
That is an unfortunate footy incident, where a forward needs to do his job and break free from the defender who is instigating the holding and scragging and the bloody defender is the guy who swung the first punch.
The forward is within his rights to try and get free. It was an unfortunate footy accident but the media immediately called it thuggery
The forward tries to basically break free from the holding and is in the act of aggressively shaking off the defender when all of a sudden the forward cops a punch to the chest.
The forward reacts and swings a forearm (it's not a clenched fist to the face) in order to get away. In the act of holding and scragging as forwards and defenders do, one player cops an accidental hit high.
That is an unfortunate footy incident, where a forward needs to do his job and break free from the defender who is instigating the holding and scragging and the bloody defender is the guy who swung the first punch.
The forward is within his rights to try and get free. It was an unfortunate footy accident but the media immediately called it thuggery
-
Scollop
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12098
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3705 times
- Been thanked: 2578 times
Re: Bye bye Maynard
All Maynard needed to do was extend one arm out. Lock his elbow and push away on Brayshaw's shoulder.cwrcyn wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 10:54pm Maynard knew exactly what he was doing. As he approached Brayshaw he was slightly to the left of him. He launched at an angle toward Brayshaw and as he came down he didn't just turned sideways, he drove his shoulder downward into Brayshaw. A guy with no intent to harm would have tried to maintain his balance and put his arms out on front of him to avoid hard contact rather than driving forward and downward with his shoulder. He braces himself in exactly the same way a player does when he's trying to shirtfront someone. The way he tenses his body is not about attempting to avoid a hit, it's to provide maximum force.
He didn't even need to use both hands.
He's a thug and he knows it.