Brayshaw - leave thread here as it affects the future of footy in general

[SinCitySainter]

I presume everyone who is saying it was clearly intentional, a thug act and once you leave the ground that you are responsible for what occurs to anyone when you are landing will remember this and repeat it all when a saints player inevitably leave the ground and bump or run into someone?

If you actually believe it wouldn't have been a different result if had been a St Kilda player or North or GWS player you haven't been paying much attention over the last 10 years. The AFL has a history of making an example of the easy targets like us and giving free rein to the power clubs like Collingwood. Just look at Trent Cochin he played for a power club and could basically hit whoever he wanted, they even gave him a. suspended sentence so if he did hit someone again that year he would be in trouble. I would hasten to add that had the situation been reversed and Brayshaw took out Maynard then the result would have been drastically different. Now, before anyone says I am claiming there is some AFL conspiracy against St Kilda I am not, but to paraphrase George Orwell, all clubs are created equal just some are more equal than others.

[meher baba]

Moods, you just brought up another dinosaur defence I forgot to mention in my earlier post: “the guy changed direction suddenly.”

That’s such BS. Maynard’s trajectory was such that, if hadn’t landed on Brayshaw, he may well have broken his arm. He ran straight towards Brayshaw, jumped up, and then fell straight towards Brayshaw. Look at the video and stop listening to the nonsense that there wasn’t enough time.

There was enough time for Maynard to switch from hands in the air to a shoulder charge. What his thought processes exactly were, who knows. But, as Jack McCoy used to say in Law and Order: forget about mental states, if you aim the gun and pull the trigger, you’re a murderer.

[Moods]

Well for a bloke who claims to have watched it in slow motion numerous times, you haven't been paying attention very closely. Brayshaw stumbles slightly after he kicks the ball, losing balance, causing him to veer ever so slightly to the right. There's no point even arguing it if you won't acknowledge it, because it's like saying, see that ball in the picture? And you replying, what ball?

And I'm not 'listening' to anyone. I was at the game when it happened and immediately knew that he should be okay (only 'should' because no one really knows with the MRP and tribunal) The MRP didn't even want it sent upstairs but the evil AFL forced them to because, you know, they wanted to make it look like they weren't favouring Collingwood. All the biased commentators were about 80-90% in agreement that the correct decision was made. Especially the retired footballers.

I understand the rabid Dees supporters but it's the supposed neutrals like on here I'm shocked by. I would have been dead set ropeable if a Saints player had of been found guilty of that act.

[amusingname]

I presume everyone who is saying it was clearly intentional, a thug act and once you leave the ground that you are responsible for what occurs to anyone when you are landing will remember this and repeat it all when a saints player inevitably leave the ground and bump or run into someone?

If you actually believe it wouldn't have been a different result if had been a St Kilda player or North or GWS player you haven't been paying much attention over the last 10 years. The AFL has a history of making an example of the easy targets like us and giving free rein to the power clubs like Collingwood. Just look at Trent Cochin he played for a power club and could basically hit whoever he wanted, they even gave him a. suspended sentence so if he did hit someone again that year he would be in trouble. I would hasten to add that had the situation been reversed and Brayshaw took out Maynard then the result would have been drastically different. Now, before anyone says I am claiming there is some AFL conspiracy against St Kilda I am not, but to paraphrase George Orwell, all clubs are created equal just some are more equal than others.

I actually thought he should have been suspended for a week at the time and probably being a collingwood player and it being a final put more pressure on clearing him.

I am more pointing out that calling Maynard a thug who was intentionally hurt Brayshaw and ended his career, but overlooking anything a saints player may do or justifying it (like people on this forum claiming Caminiti was racially abused when he decked Murphy last year) is a touch hypocritical.

[The_Dud]

I presume everyone who is saying it was clearly intentional, a thug act and once you leave the ground that you are responsible for what occurs to anyone when you are landing will remember this and repeat it all when a saints player inevitably leave the ground and bump or run into someone?

If you actually believe it wouldn't have been a different result if had been a St Kilda player or North or GWS player you haven't been paying much attention over the last 10 years. The AFL has a history of making an example of the easy targets like us and giving free rein to the power clubs like Collingwood. Just look at Trent Cochin he played for a power club and could basically hit whoever he wanted, they even gave him a. suspended sentence so if he did hit someone again that year he would be in trouble. I would hasten to add that had the situation been reversed and Brayshaw took out Maynard then the result would have been drastically different. Now, before anyone says I am claiming there is some AFL conspiracy against St Kilda I am not, but to paraphrase George Orwell, all clubs are created equal just some are more equal than others.

I actually thought he should have been suspended for a week at the time and probably being a collingwood player and it being a final put more pressure on clearing him.

I am more pointing out that calling Maynard a thug who was intentionally hurt Brayshaw and ended his career, but overlooking anything a saints player may do or justifying it (like people on this forum claiming Caminiti was racially abused when he decked Murphy last year) is a touch hypocritical.

Hypocrites? Here?! Surely you jest!

[Scollop]

On the one hand you have people calling for calm because 'if' it was a Saints player we'd all feel different...as well as 'if' this and if that - basically all hypothetical and just deflecting from the evidence.

Then you have Moods who sees the evidence and his interpretation is similar to the ex Collingwood bloke who was the MRO. Moods has total trust in the AFL tribunal, as well as all retired players (most of them claim the game is soft and they hate ANY rule change).

Moods believes the Collingwood lawyers. Moods thinks Brayshaw is partly to blame for not getting out of Brayshaw's way.

So...we're all wrong and according to the people defending Maynard, he had no intention of causing physical harm to Brayshaw

Meanwhile...the AFL has now changed the rules to protect players from thugs pretending to be executing a legal footy act.

[meher baba]

Well for a bloke who claims to have watched it in slow motion numerous times, you haven't been paying attention very closely. Brayshaw stumbles slightly after he kicks the ball, losing balance, causing him to veer ever so slightly to the right. There's no point even arguing it if you won't acknowledge it, because it's like saying, see that ball in the picture? And you replying, what ball?

Brayshaw only got to take half a step after kicking the ball before Maynard barrelled into him. The stumble you're talking about must have occurred on the other side of a time warp, because it sure as hell isn't visible on the video. If anything, the video taken behind the goals shows Maynard veering slightly in Brayshaw's direction.

I maintain my view that Maynard shifted in mid air from having his hands above his head to a shoulder charge leaning into Brayshaw. Why he did this is irrelevant IMO: as we saw in the Ryder incident in 2022, "bracing yourself" isn't justfication for smashing an opponent in the head. The rules have now been changed to make that clear, but the judiciary should have ruled that way on Maynard anyway. It's pretty clear to most football supporters I know, except for Collingwood fans. I'm not a Maynard hater, nor a Collingwood hater, but this was a bad act, and the fact he got away with it is even worse.

[Moods]

On the one hand you have people calling for calm because 'if' it was a Saints player we'd all feel different...as well as 'if' this and if that - basically all hypothetical and just deflecting from the evidence.

Then you have Moods who sees the evidence and his interpretation is similar to the ex Collingwood bloke who was the MRO. Moods has total trust in the AFL tribunal, as well as all retired players (most of them claim the game is soft and they hate ANY rule change).

Moods believes the Collingwood lawyers. Moods thinks Brayshaw is partly to blame for not getting out of Brayshaw's way.

So...we're all wrong and according to the people defending Maynard, he had no intention of causing physical harm to Brayshaw

Meanwhile...the AFL has now changed the rules to protect players from thugs pretending to be executing a legal footy act.

Well clearly I think you’re wrong or I would have agreed with you

The AFL have all sorts of angles they’re looking at, especially aesthetics for fans. No one likes to see any player badly injured. AFL’s job is to limit injuries. They’ve changed tons of rules in the past 10 years to allow for that, most of which I agree with btw.

I just don’t buy he changed his thinking or his trajectory in midair, and I don’t think the AFL tribunal did either, surprisingly 90% of the tribunal and MRP played the game at the highest level

[Yorkeys]

On the one hand you have people calling for calm because 'if' it was a Saints player we'd all feel different...as well as 'if' this and if that - basically all hypothetical and just deflecting from the evidence.

Then you have Moods who sees the evidence and his interpretation is similar to the ex Collingwood bloke who was the MRO. Moods has total trust in the AFL tribunal, as well as all retired players (most of them claim the game is soft and they hate ANY rule change).

Moods believes the Collingwood lawyers. Moods thinks Brayshaw is partly to blame for not getting out of Brayshaw's way.

So...we're all wrong and according to the people defending Maynard, he had no intention of causing physical harm to Brayshaw

Meanwhile...the AFL has now changed the rules to protect players from thugs pretending to be executing a legal footy act.

Well clearly I think you’re wrong or I would have agreed with you

The AFL have all sorts of angles they’re looking at, especially aesthetics for fans. No one likes to see any player badly injured. AFL’s job is to limit injuries. They’ve changed tons of rules in the past 10 years to allow for that, most of which I agree with btw.

I just don’t buy he changed his thinking or his trajectory in midair, and I don’t think the AFL tribunal did either, surprisingly 90% of the tribunal and MRP played the game at the highest level

It was so clear cut the tribunal took 4 hours to deliver the verdict they were given before evidence was even heard. At least their families were released unharmed. Good ol' Collingwood forever....Brayshaw contributed by having won possession and was opposition...football act my sweet fanny Adams...define that as a catch-all excuse for the Pies.

[Scollop]

Smothering or attempting to smother is a footy act. Jumping up in the air to smother is a footy act. Conveniently, the AFL tribunal ignored the fact that Maynard cocked his shoulder and targeted Brayshaw high. He did not attempt to avoid contact or limit the force of the impact.

What I have an issue with was the way Maynard deliberately changed his focus from the ball to the opposition player, once that footy had gone passed him. Positioning your whole body weight towards someone’s head while your in mid air isn’t a footy act.

If you agree with the AFL rule change which makes it clear that this sort of action will not go unpunished from now on, then it makes sense that Maynard was at least guilty of rough conduct. The AFL should have changed the wording or perhaps charged him with something ambiguous or obscure if they really wanted justice and a fair outcome for Maynard’s thuggery

[Moods]

You’re labelling something as thuggery and admitting it’s ambiguous to find a charge. Thuggery shouldn’t be too hard to find a charge because thuggery, to my mind, is obvious and blatant

[Scollop]

Double post

[Scollop]

You’re labelling something as thuggery and admitting it’s ambiguous to find a charge.

I didn't admit that. Again... that's incorrect and your interpretation only.

Just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent.

Was Barry Hall innocent when he punched Matty McGuire in the guts?

Was O.J Simpson innocent?

No mate. They just had good lawyers...like Collingwood did when they put up a great defence for Maynard