Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Scollop wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 5:27pm
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?
I know it makes good business sense NOT to alienate 50% of your customers, including you
I know the AFL is all about bringing people along and managing change. I know it’s a sound commercial outcome and I know that some of theses decisions are made before it goes to the tribunal. The tribunal is just public theatre
The G Train Legacy wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 12:19pm
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
His eyes were on the footy when he jumped. After that regardless of his line of vision, its pretty difficult to move sideways in half a second when you're flying through the air at speed.
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.
The G Train Legacy wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 6:42pm
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.
Last edited by Scollop on Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high, or late, that you can't change direction and then land on the player, proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
All Maynard had to do was put his arm or arms out with elbow locked and he would have propelled himself away instead of crashing into Brayshaw.
Ruckman do it all the time. They run directly at each other and they fly through the air. You usually get one guy pushing off someones chest or shoulder. You don’t get a ruckman tucking his body up and projecting his shoulder bone into the other guys head.
This guy missed the vault and slipped as he was trying to jump…
The G Train Legacy wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 12:19pm
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?
So a ball carrier now must always do all that he can to protect himself from being hit in the head by a player coming into tackle, bump or smother
Sorry sir .... I have to admit it was half my fault because I didn't put my arm up to protect my head from an out of control flying Frisbee with arms and legs ...... I could have also tried harder to move my head out of the way from the frisbees pointed shoulder
The G Train Legacy wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 12:19pm
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
His eyes were on the footy when he jumped. After that regardless of his line of vision, its pretty difficult to move sideways in half a second when you're flying through the air at speed.
Then if its pretty hard to move sideways in the air and it's very likely that you could collect the player on your follow through don't do it or at least don't tuck in, point the shoulder and barrel into his head
He was running directly at Brayshaw who had the footy when he launched himself up and forward ...... where did Maynard think he was going to land?
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
Oh. He was trying to mark it. Now we are making more sense.
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Good to actually get an argument. Good point.
The question is, was he reckless? There's an argument that because he jumped high and late, also I would add from a distance. That he was reckless.
Isn't the key to determining whether his actions were reckless or not, to assess whether or not his attempt to smother the footy was realistic?
I would agree that its not a set of circumstances where you would usually see an attempt to smother.
However, Maynard's closing speed was incredible and it was an act of sheer willpower, willpower beyond usual AFL standards. He just about did. It appears that Brayshaw got underneath it a bit and it had more elevation than Maynard anticipated, which may of been the reason he didn't smother.
I think it was a realistic attempt at a smother because Maynard was awfully close to successfully executing it. Furthermore if Maynard had smothered then I doubt there's a dangerous collision. So I don't believe he was reckless.
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
You seriously cant differentiate between flying for a mark when no one has possession and a scenario of protecting someone in possession of the ball?
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Good to actually get an argument. Good point.
The question is, was he reckless? There's an argument that because he jumped high and late, also I would add from a distance. That he was reckless.
Isn't the key to determining whether his actions were reckless or not, to assess whether or not his attempt to smother the footy was realistic?
I would agree that its not a set of circumstances where you would usually see an attempt to smother.
However, Maynard's closing speed was incredible and it was an act of sheer willpower, willpower beyond usual AFL standards. He just about did. It appears that Brayshaw got underneath it a bit and it had more elevation than Maynard anticipated, which may of been the reason he didn't smother.
I think it was a realistic attempt at a smother because Maynard was awfully close to successfully executing it. Furthermore if Maynard had smothered then I doubt there's a dangerous collision. So I don't believe he was reckless.
Maynard closing speed was incredible ....an act of will power beyond comprehension
Nah he launched up and forward to smother a ball which he missed and then landed on top of Brayshaw without duty of care knowing that both were likely on a collision course .... if Maynard couldn't or didnt realise this there was a chance of colliding then he is reckless with the assumption
If you go to tackle don't hit the ball carrier in the head
If you go to bump don't hit the ball carrier in the head
If you go to smother ....... I am sure you can work out the rest
Everyone acknowledges that Maynard flew through the air to attempt to smother. The doubts as to whether he is reckless or carless arise after the ball goes beyond Maynards outstretched fingers. The questions about his intent at this point after the footy is no longer his objective haven’t been answered.
It seems a lot of people here and in the media and at the tribunal (where Collingwood paid a biomechanist to give evidence) believe Maynard had no other option and didn’t have time to take evasive action.
What about a player who jumps to smother and spins his whole body around while in the air? Do you think that’s possible?
I found an incident where Mitch Duncan crashed into Aaron Hall in a game in 2021. Duncan attempted to smother. He does in fact turn his whole torso and his back in mid air!!
It was touch and go whether he’d be suspended. There was no where near the media circus of the Maynard incident. I think the reason this Duncan incident is different to Maynard was because he wasn’t directly facing Hall and he didn’t target Hall with his shoulder like Maynard did
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
Oh. He was trying to mark it. Now we are making more sense.
Leaping high for a mark is usually in a pack and you often crunch/land on players don't you? Nick R leapt plenty of times not knowing where or on who he would land. Reckless?
Let’s say you have a situation where Nick Riewoldt is attempting a high mark and he jumps up and gets airborne. He misses taking the grab and only gets a fingernail on the footy, but now he’s got to think about how he’s going to land after his arse is 6 foot from the ground and his legs are virtually horizontal.
Let’s also assume that in the marking chaos that an opposition player gets caught under the pack and he is lying directly under Roo’s arse and in Roo’s drop zone. That’s 90-100kg about to impact and about to have a collision of some sort. Assume the player on the ground has his body caught and can’t move much.
If Roo has a glance down* and sees the opposition player’s head and he turns his body and shifts his weight so that Roo’s shoulder or forearm connects with the opponents jaw? Is that a footy act?
Is that an elite athlete doing everything he could to avoid injuring an opponent?
*Remember, Maynard is looking directly at Brayshaw. He knows where Brayshaw’s head is. The Brayshaw hit means his velocity and Braywhaw’s velocity combined is going to be like a car crash. I’m not sure why the AFL didn’t employ their own biomechanist, or if they did, he was fvcken useless
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
Oh. He was trying to mark it. Now we are making more sense.
Leaping high for a mark is usually in a pack and you often crunch/land on players don't you? Nick R leapt plenty of times not knowing where or on who he would land. Reckless?
When Maynard leapt into the air, his opponent was about to kick it.
It was a very courageous attempt at spoiling a ball and as it turns out, it was reckless. Whatever you are talking about sounds completely irrelevant to me.
In case you missed it, the 'courageous attempt' bit, was sarcasm.
Scollop wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 9:23pm
Let’s say you have a situation where Nick Riewoldt is attempting a high mark and he jumps up and gets airborne. He misses taking the grab and only gets a fingernail on the footy, but now he’s got to think about how he’s going to land after his arse is 6 foot from the ground and his legs are virtually horizontal.
Let’s also assume that in the marking chaos that an opposition player gets caught under the pack and he is lying directly under Roo’s arse and in Roo’s drop zone. That’s 90-100kg about to impact and about to have a collision of some sort. Assume the player on the ground has his body caught and can’t move much.
If Roo has a glance down* and sees the opposition player’s head and he turns his body and shifts his weight so that Roo’s shoulder or forearm connects with the opponents jaw? Is that a footy act?
Is that an elite athlete doing everything he could to avoid injuring an opponent?
*Remember, Maynard is looking directly at Brayshaw. He knows where Brayshaw’s head is. The Brayshaw hit means his velocity and Braywhaw’s velocity combined is going to be like a car crash. I’m not sure why the AFL didn’t employ their own biomechanist, or if they did, he was fvcken useless
The whole AFL case was useless ..... like they hardly even tried
Pretty much well clearly shows that the AFL and tribunal think that Duty of Care is out the window if an attempt to smother looks and seems legitimate
The G Train Legacy wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 6:42pm
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?
So, Maynard had time to move his hands from an upright position (for the smother) and then tuck in for a hip and shoulder but he didn't have enough time to put his hands out and cushion the blow / push away from him. what a load of frog s***.
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
Oh. He was trying to mark it. Now we are making more sense.
Leaping high for a mark is usually in a pack and you often crunch/land on players don't you? Nick R leapt plenty of times not knowing where or on who he would land. Reckless?
When Maynard leapt into the air, his opponent was about to kick it.
It was a very courageous attempt at spoiling a ball and as it turns out, it was reckless. Whatever you are talking about sounds completely irrelevant to me.
In case you missed it, the 'courageous attempt' bit, was sarcasm.
So you can't leap up to spoil now? What sort of game are we playing? If it was reckless, why was he cleared at the tribunal?
If it all sounds irrelevant to you, I now understand your issue.
CQ SAINT wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:05pm
Taking a massive leap without any consideration of where you are landing is reckless.
Jumping so high or late that you can't change direction and then lands on the player proves how reckless it was. If you don't have the ball and you throw yourself at the ball and can't possibly lay a legal tackle, you're being reckless.
Paul Kelly was never that reckless.
Be a real shame for the leaping high mark to go out of the game. Didn't consider Nick Riewoldt to be reckless, or hundreds of others.
Oh. He was trying to mark it. Now we are making more sense.
Leaping high for a mark is usually in a pack and you often crunch/land on players don't you? Nick R leapt plenty of times not knowing where or on who he would land. Reckless?
When Maynard leapt into the air, his opponent was about to kick it.
It was a very courageous attempt at spoiling a ball and as it turns out, it was reckless. Whatever you are talking about sounds completely irrelevant to me.
In case you missed it, the 'courageous attempt' bit, was sarcasm.
So you can't leap up to spoil now? What sort of game are we playing? If it was reckless, why was he cleared at the tribunal?
If it all sounds irrelevant to you, I now understand your issue.
Good sentence. We can do some numbers and sums in the next chat, cheers.
