Bye bye Maynard

[CURLY]

No one and I repeat no one seriously believes Maynard is innocent.

He took the oppurtunity to nail a player and has got away with it with the backing of the media.

[saynta]

From the hun.



"A former Melbourne star who was left “totally and permanently disabled” from brain injuries acquired during his playing career has lashed the AFL after Brayden Maynard was set free by the tribunal on Tuesday night.

Shaun Smith – who was awarded a landmark $1.4 million insurance payout in 2020 and whose son, Joel, is teammates with Angus Brayshaw at the Demons – was left seething by the not-guilty verdict as ex-Collingwood president Eddie McGuire openly celebrated that “justice has been done”.

[The G Train Legacy]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

[meher baba]

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending...

Look at the video: any suggestion that Maynard was trying to smother the ball is ridiculous. You can't smother a kick off the boot from way up in the air. He was loping out of his defensive 50 and then jumped vertically with his hands above his head to try to deflect the ball as it passed. But he also deliberately fell forward which, as I have posted before, must have been with the intend of bumping into Brayshaw: there was no other reason for him to fall forward, as smothering was out of the question. I don't think it was an especially malicious action, but knocking Brayshaw over so that he couldn't continue his run into his forward 50 was surely part of what Maynard was intending to do. And, if you try to bump or block, and you end up hitting someone in the head with enough force to knock them unconscious, then you should be suspended.

[Scollop]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

[Devilhead]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

[The G Train Legacy]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

[Scollop]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

I gave as good as I copped dickwad. That was back in the 80's.

I saw a lot of kids getting concussed when I was involved with my sons team in junior footy. It's horrible seeing parents worry when an ambulance comes out in the middle of the field to collect a kid that's been shirt fronted

[The G Train Legacy]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

[happy feet]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.


They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

I gave as good as I copped dickwad. That was back in the 80's.

I saw a lot of kids getting concussed when I was involved with my sons team in junior footy. It's horrible seeing parents worry when an ambulance comes out in the middle of the field to collect a kid that's been shirt fronted

I played local footy in the 80’s and it was pretty rough. I knew one bloke that had almost 6 months off work from a broken jaw and subsequent complications. It’s not worth it, it’s just a game. I’m glad the biffo has been taken out of the game. I’ve just turned 60 and a close mate who is a couple of years older than me is off with the fairies. A hard man on the rugby league field, but I’m sue that he and his family now wish it were different. Remember folks, it’s a game, life is more important and your family.

[The G Train Legacy]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

I gave as good as I copped dickwad. That was back in the 80's.

I saw a lot of kids getting concussed when I was involved with my sons team in junior footy. It's horrible seeing parents worry when an ambulance comes out in the middle of the field to collect a kid that's been shirt fronted

Its a contact sport and it carries risk. If you don't want the risk, don't play.

The AFL is doing plenty to combat head injuries, but sometimes there will be collision of heads when it is no one's fault.

I'd feel more comfortable with my kids playing footy than taking up Car Racing. Should we impose speed limits in Formula 1?

[Scollop]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

You haven't told us what the difference is genius

One guy got suspended. The guy who was supported by the media got off.

[Scollop]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

I gave as good as I copped dickwad. That was back in the 80's.

I saw a lot of kids getting concussed when I was involved with my sons team in junior footy. It's horrible seeing parents worry when an ambulance comes out in the middle of the field to collect a kid that's been shirt fronted

Its a contact sport and it carries risk. If you don't want the risk, don't play.

The AFL is doing plenty to combat head injuries, but sometimes there will be collision of heads when it is no one's fault.

I'd feel more comfortable with my kids playing footy than taking up Car Racing. Should we impose speed limits in Formula 1?

You were arguing just before that Brayshaw was the guy that should have had a duty of care to himself.

That's like arguing that if a driver in F1 is trying to cut in on the inside, that the other driver should make room for him and veer away to avoid a collision.

Ridiculous

[Devilhead]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

Again more bulls*** ..... the only player that has a duty of care is the player launching at the ball carrier

If you going to launch yourself in the air towards someone with the ball whether to tackle smother or bump then you need to be able to control your body so not to hit the player in the head ...... if you can't then don't fkn do it

Brayshaw had every right to expect Maynard not to jump in an uncontrolled fashion and hit him in the head

To put any aspect of blame on Brayshaw for this is sheer braindead lunacy

[Vortex]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

You haven't told us what the difference is genius

One guy got suspended. The guy who was supported by the media got off.

didn't they prove he made contact with the ball mid air, suggests he was hyper focussed on smothering that ball.

[Devilhead]

The mental and despicable thing in all this is that Michael Fkhd Christian (ex Collingwood player) had seemingly made up his mind pretty much straight away ...... the one guy that should be impartial and err on the side of caution cleared Maynard almost immediately without even taking in a scrap of evidence (most of which was contrived bulls*** anyway)

If that isn't complete bias I don't what is

And the AFL can stop with the Duty of Care for the ball carrier hogshit because its clear its only a priority issue when it suits them

The hole just got a hell of a lot deeper

[Devilhead]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

You haven't told us what the difference is genius

One guy got suspended. The guy who was supported by the media got off.

didn't they prove he made contact with the ball mid air, suggests he was hyper focussed on smothering that ball.

What proof??

Maynard inconvincingly said he touched the ball yet the ball ended up deep in the Melbourne forwardline

His line of vision never waivers from Brayshaw

[Scollop]

Maynard collected Brayshaw in the head AFTER his attempt to smother and not during the act of smothering

Once that footy has gone past Maynard and he knows that it has, he has no right to impede a player.

The umpire paid a free kick against Maynard.

What did Maynard do to avoid collecting Brayshaw high?

Was there another option? If you want to go around in circles all day you can say he had NO other option.

[takeaway]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

I haven't seen too many on here bleating too much about rule changes, several of which seem to come in each year. I haven't agreed with a couple of them, or the way they are interpreted, but some have improved the game, ie 666.
Your post is essentially rubbish.

I think the main issue for you is that the incident didn't go the way you thought and that you were wrong and your so called "traditionalists" were right. Maybe their judgement of football is better than yours.
The AFL is not appealing the tribunal decision, they know the decision was correct.

Get rid of that curved TV set, it distorts the angles.

[Scollop]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

I haven't seen too many on here bleating too much about rule changes, several of which seem to come in each year. I haven't agreed with a couple of them, or the way they are interpreted, but some have improved the game, ie 666.
Your post is essentially rubbish.

I think the main issue for you is that the incident didn't go the way you thought and that you were wrong and your so called "traditionalists" were right. Maybe their judgement of football is better than yours.
The AFL is not appealing the tribunal decision, they know the decision was correct.

Get rid of that curved TV set, it distorts the angles.

You seem to think that logic or common sense is behind the decision. That's hilarious

[Vortex]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

You haven't told us what the difference is genius

One guy got suspended. The guy who was supported by the media got off.

didn't they prove he made contact with the ball mid air, suggests he was hyper focussed on smothering that ball.

What proof??

Maynard inconvincingly said he touched the ball yet the ball ended up deep in the Melbourne forwardline

His line of vision never waivers from Brayshaw

You can be certain the rules will be changed to outlaw the act and so whilst this incident couldn't be penalised under current rules, it will be in the future. The rules don't include vague terms such as a player has a duty of care as it is a legislative framework that requires the game to have rules to comply with the duty of care legislation. Hence you can be sure the rules are about to be changed.

[takeaway]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

I haven't seen too many on here bleating too much about rule changes, several of which seem to come in each year. I haven't agreed with a couple of them, or the way they are interpreted, but some have improved the game, ie 666.
Your post is essentially rubbish.

I think the main issue for you is that the incident didn't go the way you thought and that you were wrong and your so called "traditionalists" were right. Maybe their judgement of football is better than yours.
The AFL is not appealing the tribunal decision, they know the decision was correct.

Get rid of that curved TV set, it distorts the angles.

You seem to think that logic or common sense is behind the decision. That's hilarious

Do you know what logic or common sense is?

[takeaway]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

You haven't told us what the difference is genius

One guy got suspended. The guy who was supported by the media got off.

didn't they prove he made contact with the ball mid air, suggests he was hyper focussed on smothering that ball.

What proof??

Maynard inconvincingly said he touched the ball yet the ball ended up deep in the Melbourne forwardline

His line of vision never waivers from Brayshaw

Maynard's line did not vary, but as illustrated at the tribunal, Brayshaw's did, no doubt subconsciously - towards Maynard's line. That helped Maynard's case.

[The G Train Legacy]

I only saw the incident for the first time yesterday, the behind the goal view. The right decision has been made, Michael Christian made the right call, then we get the inevitable AFL Executive Clown Show!

Maynard didn't deliberately line him up, he was trying to smother the kick. Maynard was moving fast, was in mid air and descending and had no real control over what he could do. Maynard was slightly to the right of Brayshaw, Brayshaw's eyes were looking to the left (to where he kicked the ball). It doesn't appear he saw Maynard coming and therefore didn't take any defensive action.

It was an unfortunate accident.

Sorry but bulls*** .... he may not have deliberately lined him up but when you are jumping forward towards an oncoming player whether trying to tackle bump or smother you have a duty of care not to hit that player in the head ...... the AFL tell us this ad nauseum!!!

People saying Maynard would have missed him altogether if Brayshaw hadn't slightly moved off his line are deluded as well

Paddy Ryder got done for 2 weeks for standing in a Day's way and it was clear Day changed direction planting himself into Ryder's shoulder whilst Ryders feet were planted

Tell me what the difference is?

True the player in Maynard's position has a duty of care. However, if the AFL want to talk about duty of care then Brayshaw also had a duty of care to himself. If Brayshaw saw Maynard coming he probably would've easily protected himself. He didn't see Maynard coming, Maynard's options were limited because he was flying through the air and you get an accident. Maynard had every right to attempt the smother.

Again more bulls*** ..... the only player that has a duty of care is the player launching at the ball carrier

If you going to launch yourself in the air towards someone with the ball whether to tackle smother or bump then you need to be able to control your body so not to hit the player in the head ...... if you can't then don't fkn do it

Brayshaw had every right to expect Maynard not to jump in an uncontrolled fashion and hit him in the head

To put any aspect of blame on Brayshaw for this is sheer braindead lunacy

I didn't put blame on Brayshaw, he was unable to exercise any care to himself because he didn't see Maynard coming and Maynard was unable to do much because he was in mid air having failed to reach the ball which was his intent. An accident.

The concept of 'duty of care' goes both ways. In the workplace an employer has a duty of care to an employee and the employee has a duty of care to themselves. That's if you want to compare it to the usual legal concept of 'duty of care' rather than the AFL's make it up as you go along version. At least this time they got it right.

To blame just for the sake of blaming, when no one is really at fault is just vengeful.

Would the people saying that Maynard should've been rubbed out, hold the same view if it were one of our players potentially missing a GF?

[The G Train Legacy]

The vast majority trying to defend what Maynard did, are the same people who have resisted changes to the rules. They fight to keep things the same as the 'good old days'.

For the last 30 years or more, there's been a chorus of ex players calling the players of today soft. They can't stand the fact that all-in brawls and fisticuffs and shirt fronts have been phased out.

I remember Sam Newman and guys like Doug Hawkins and all the tough men from the 70's and 80' coming on the show and saying they hate watching the modern game.

Just like in mediaeval times when a doctor or scientist explained to people why things occur in nature or to human beings, you've got stubborn traditionalists ignoring the medical advice and ignoring all evidence surrounding CTE.

They don't want the fabric of the game changed... which is code for...let there be blood and high impact collisions and leave the gladiatorial aspects the same.

Why am I not surprised by your view? I bet you would have liked footy to be non contact so you could've played.

I gave as good as I copped dickwad. That was back in the 80's.

I saw a lot of kids getting concussed when I was involved with my sons team in junior footy. It's horrible seeing parents worry when an ambulance comes out in the middle of the field to collect a kid that's been shirt fronted

Its a contact sport and it carries risk. If you don't want the risk, don't play.

The AFL is doing plenty to combat head injuries, but sometimes there will be collision of heads when it is no one's fault.

I'd feel more comfortable with my kids playing footy than taking up Car Racing. Should we impose speed limits in Formula 1?

You were arguing just before that Brayshaw was the guy that should have had a duty of care to himself.

That's like arguing that if a driver in F1 is trying to cut in on the inside, that the other driver should make room for him and veer away to avoid a collision.

Ridiculous

You have no grasp on what I actually said in my post. And the Formula 1 reference was in regard to the difference in dangerousness between the 2 sports, yet you twist it into some ridiculous context to suit your vacuous argument. I look at what I wrote and I can't see anything to could be taken to mean I blame Brayshaw.