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: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 10:58pm
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
Have you got a relevant example?
In 10 pin bowling palance, that one's dribbled into the gutter.
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 10:58pm
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
Have you got a relevant example?
In 10 pin bowling palance, that one's dribbled into the gutter.
Scollop wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 10:58pm
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
Have you got a relevant example?
In 10 pin bowling palance, that one's dribbled into the gutter.
Anthony Caminiti - 3 weeks
Yeah still not relevant.
But as I say expect a rule change in the off season to outlaw the Maynard type smother.
The game has to continue to be modified to a point that all actions capable of concusuon are outlawed..
The Fireman wrote: ↑Fri 08 Sep 2023 4:36pm
Just watched the replay he should get off
Yep
Although it's just another example of good player for big team gets off whereas if he was a no name player for a lesser team , he would have been whacked
The Fireman wrote: ↑Fri 08 Sep 2023 4:36pm
Just watched the replay he should get off
Yep
Although it's just another example of good player for big team gets off whereas if he was a no name player for a lesser team , he would have been whacked
Don't worry -- to "prove" that they do indeed take head contact seriously, the AFL (and its media) will come down savagely on a player of the Saints, or some lesser club, at the earlier opportunity.
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 2:12am
Don't worry -- to "prove" that they do indeed take head contact seriously, the AFL (and its media) will come down savagely on a player of the Saints, or some lesser club, at the earlier opportunity.
And that's exactly what happened with Caminiti.
The sook Murphy fell to the floor and lay motionless. He ran off the ground unassisted. He recovered remarkably well on Monday and played the following week, but all the talk from the media and the Collingwood football club directly after the match, was how brutal a hit he copped to the head.
Anthony was made an example of. The media love to come down hard on the lesser clubs and unknown players. It's like the good old days when you'd go to the town square and watch someone hang or witness the burning of a witch. The mob loves it
It's good for the image of the game and everyone pretends like they're really interested in cleaning up the game and reducing the incidences of concussion.
Meanwhile, guys like Mitch Duncan, Tom Lynch and Brayden Maynard get off scott free.
The Fireman wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 11:34pm
as much as I would have liked to see him go..being a skunk and all..the tribunal got it right.
Well a precedent has now been set that you can run directly at player front on who is carrying the ball and launch yourself at him or her as he or she disposes the ball without actually effecting the smother and cannon into their head without fear of retribution.
Happy Days!!
Seriously what a clusterfk the Tribunal has become
Duty of care for a player carrying the ball my arse
Waltzing St Kilda wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 2:12am
Don't worry -- to "prove" that they do indeed take head contact seriously, the AFL (and its media) will come down savagely on a player of the Saints, or some lesser club, at the earlier opportunity.
And that's exactly what happened with Caminiti.
The sook Murphy fell to the floor and lay motionless. He ran off the ground unassisted. He recovered remarkably well on Monday and played the following week, but all the talk from the media and the Collingwood football club directly after the match, was how brutal a hit he copped to the head.
Anthony was made an example of. The media love to come down hard on the lesser clubs and unknown players. It's like the good old days when you'd go to the town square and watch someone hang or witness the burning of a witch. The mob loves it
It's good for the image of the game and everyone pretends like they're really interested in cleaning up the game and reducing the incidences of concussion.
Meanwhile, guys like Mitch Duncan, Tom Lynch and Brayden Maynard get off scott free.
If it was one of the Daicos boys who got hit the offending player would have got multiple weeks
The Fireman wrote: ↑Tue 12 Sep 2023 11:34pm
as much as I would have liked to see him go..being a skunk and all..the tribunal got it right.
Well a precedent has now been set that you can run directly at player front on who is carrying the ball and launch yourself at him or her as he or she disposes the ball without actually effecting the smother and cannon into their head without fear of retribution.
Happy Days!!
Seriously what a clusterfk the Tribunal has become
Duty of care for a player carrying the ball my arse
It's why you can bet your house on there being a rule chance to cover the specific act, there was no rule of the game for Maynards case, duty of care is a requirement of legislation, it's not a rule of the game and ironically duty of care also is required by the employer to ensure duty of care is managed in accordance with the act, hence expect a "specific" law that deals with Maynard's specific act of jumping off the ground to smother.
I'm guessing the rule will something along the lines of, if you elect to jump of the ground to get airborne to smother a ball and the action results in a head injury then you will be penalised.
Next frontier will be outlawing the speccy with raised knees, has to be.
Well a precedent has now been set that you can run directly at player front on who is carrying the ball and launch yourself at him or her as he or she disposes the ball without actually effecting the smother and cannon into their head without fear of retribution.
...
I've changed my mind. I thought it was a football action, but was it? I mean, say you're running at a brick wall, jump and put your hands up (to smother). Then, what do you do? You don't then tuck your arms in and hip and shoulder the wall. You pull your hands in and try and cushion the blow.
I mean, he had time to move his hands from an upright position and tuck in for a hip and shoulder. That means he also had time to put his hands out and cushion the blow.
I think the AFL should appeal it on the basis that it was, at least, reckless and that Maynard had a second option. It was a dirty act.
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
Yes complete nonsense decision.
Brayshaw could well win damages in a civil case where a person has to take responsibly for their actions.
The conceptual gymnastics and self serving reconstruction of the incident was great theatre.
Jacks Back wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:59am
I've changed my mind. I thought it was a football action, but was it? I mean, say you're running at a brick wall, jump and put your hands up (to smother). Then, what do you do? You don't then tuck your arms in and hip and shoulder the wall. You pull your hands in and try and cushion the blow.
I mean, he had time to move his hands from an upright position and tuck in for a hip and shoulder. That means he also had time to put his hands out and cushion the blow.
I think the AFL should appeal it on the basis that it was, at least, reckless and that Maynard had a second option. It was a dirty act.
The decision suits the AFL, who want Collingwood to win the Grand Final as it’s good for revenue. The discussions that would have gone on behind closed doors would have been like this…..if we rub him out, Collingwood will take it to court, really can’t have that, let’s help them construct a case to prove he is not guilty.
The AFL will not appeal. It’s not in their interest.
Rugby League would have to be the stupidest, most moronic and over rated game of all time.
Jacks Back wrote: ↑Wed 13 Sep 2023 7:59am
I've changed my mind. I thought it was a football action, but was it?
I'm with you on this. On the night I said he should get off.
Over the week, the comment from Ross as to "when do you control your action?" was my thought too.
The biggest problem with the tribunal IMO is that it's punishing the outcome not the action. Working backwards from a head injury to find an appropriate suspension for 'justice' is not the way.
I actually thought the work done early in the year on the sling tackle worked towards this goal a lot better.
They have focused too much on the idea of Maynard changing his intention in mid-air and found, on the basis of expert advice, that there wasn't enough time for this to have happened.
But I reckon that, even before he left the ground, Maynard clearly intended to make some sort of contact with Brayshaw. Defenders attempting to block a kick generally either dive for the boot of the oponent to try to smother the kick off the boot or else jump up and down on the spot to try to deflect the ball in the air. The ball was more or less on Brayshaw's boot when Maynard left the ground, so he wasn't trying to smother the kick. And if he wasn't trying to smother it, then the only other possible explanation for why he was falling forward was to make some sort of contact with Brayshaw: which surely leads automatically to a suspension if it results in contact to the head.
Are we meant to believe that his intent was to block the kick and then face plant onto the turf? Brayshaw was clearly anticipating that Maynard was going to land on his feet, which is why Brayshaw started to move sideways after kicking the ball. But Maynard was trying to knock him over: not necessarily with any great malice, but the result couldn't have been much worse if Maynard's intention had been to knock his head off.
Bad decision, that will come back to haunt the AFL.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
