2023 Finals Series

[liz]

Maynard chose to turn his body and shoulder Brayshaw in the head.....anyone who says he had no other option is deluded. All players are told they have a 'duty of care' towards other players heads/brains. Maynard is obviously stupid....or a thug.

The tribunal decided he didn't. That it was a reflex action, not a choice. I can live with that.

I'm not surprised he got off. I think it reflects what is still the prevailing attitude towards injury risk (even head injury) and "the essence of the sport". I suspected he wouldn't be cited, but I think it was great that he was and had to argue his case.

I thought the AFL's case was surprisingly persuasive and coherent. I think they often miss the mark. I was unconvinced by some of the defence case, but the tribunal disagreed.

Just because he got off that doesn't mean I think we should accept that action is just part of the game. I found the comments of Lyon and Scott on AFL 360 last night to be persuasive - and especially as they are coaches and are prepared to accept their players won't always go hard at every contest. I particularly liked Scott's phrasing - which I will do injustice to by paraphrasing - that shepherding and smothering are footy acts, but if you're going to do them, you damn well better make sure you don't hurt someone in the process.

However, I think the views expressed by Scott and Lyon remain in the minority at the moment amongst players, past players, commentators and commenters. We still need a shift before the game is ready to give up some of the "unconditional" elements of the game. This case will shift a few towards the Scott/Lyon camp, and the AFL may choose to try to nudge opinion further in that direction as a result of this. And from the multiple law suits they are handling.

[liz]

As expected, the Martin decision resulted in a reduction to a one week suspension. Whether you agree with this outcome, or the Maynard one, or not, the whole system has been reduced to farce.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I imagine that one of the strongest factors in Carlton's favour was the difference between the sanctions handed to Van Rooyen and Martin on the very same weekend. It's one of the problems that's inadvertently arisen from accelerating the MRO determinations - doing it after each game rather than waiting until the weekend is done. There seemed to be a view held across the commenters that I read that Martin's was worth two, but so was Van Rooyen's. Maybe the latter was on the borderline, and Christian plumped on the "one" side. But put the two together, decide that Martin's was worth two, and you have to give them both two.

[KTigers]

Tortured doublethink is the only way to describe this. In years gone by was simply as a "charge" and was a very unambiguous way of getting suspended.

Now it is legitimate to take out any player after the act of kicking the ball as long as you were attempting to smother because it is "in the play".

Only lawyers can produce this sort of travesty.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Yes, the exact same folks who will be benefitting from a Concussion Settlement down the track.
We are in the US at the moment and went to an NFL game on Sunday. They wear helmets and
the payout here was north of a billion dollars.

[MattW]

Yes, the exact same folks who will be benefitting from a Concussion Settlement down the track.
We are in the US at the moment and went to an NFL game on Sunday. They wear helmets and
the payout here was north of a billion dollars.

And have done for many years: Football helmet - Wikipedia.

Interesting to read in that article that the NFL now mandate players in some positions wearing a protective cap on top of the helmet.

[Markwebbos]

I think Maynard should have got off. But I suspect they’ll change the rules for next year to outlaw it, I’m reminded of Gary Rohan’s horrific injury caused by a freak “football act”

[Mark26]

I believe we have a duty of care to protect our players from harm. Nobody wants to see Brayshaw retire from the game and live with the horrid repercussions of repeated concussions for the rest of his life.

How Maynard got off, is beyond me. It says the AFL isn't serious about consequences for players' actions.

I consider current penalties for a player who injures another far too lenient. I think the penalty should be commensurate with the player's injury.

Take Blakey on Friday for example. Blakey gets punched in the face. Our medical staff follow protocol and take Blakey off for the best part of the quarter. Meanwhile, Martin is free to continue playing. How is that fair? What's to stop a player from deliberately taking out a key player and giving their team an advantage? Martin should be made to sit off the same time it takes our medical staff to make an informed decision. And if an injured player needs to be subbed out, the perpetrator should be forced out of the game too. I'd take it further as well. If someone has to miss weeks because of a concussion, the penalty should be the same.

If a player has to retire from the game altogether, I'd be in favour of the perpetrator being a forced delist. Whether a club chooses to draft them again is their business.

I realise my view may not be popular, but I love our game and respect the players who sacrifice their bodies so we can enjoy the spectacle. We have to protect them because their playing time is short compared to the rest of their lives.

Only with serious consequences, would players think twice about these cheap footy acts.

[lwjoyner]

it would be interesting to know whoc posters support. maybe we need to incl club supported in system. club bias may come into posters comments. I will declare I anda swns and have been since i was a child.

[Roadrunner]

I believe we have a duty of care to protect our players from harm. Nobody wants to see Brayshaw retire from the game and live with the horrid repercussions of repeated concussions for the rest of his life.

How Maynard got off, is beyond me. It says the AFL isn't serious about consequences for players' actions.

I consider current penalties for a player who injures another far too lenient. I think the penalty should be commensurate with the player's injury.

Take Blakey on Friday for example. Blakey gets punched in the face. Our medical staff follow protocol and take Blakey off for the best part of the quarter. Meanwhile, Martin is free to continue playing. How is that fair? What's to stop a player from deliberately taking out a key player and giving their team an advantage? Martin should be made to sit off the same time it takes our medical staff to make an informed decision. And if an injured player needs to be subbed out, the perpetrator should be forced out of the game too. I'd take it further as well. If someone has to miss weeks because of a concussion, the penalty should be the same.

If a player has to retire from the game altogether, I'd be in favour of the perpetrator being a forced delist. Whether a club chooses to draft them again is their business.

I realise my view may not be popular, but I love our game and respect the players who sacrifice their bodies so we can enjoy the spectacle. We have to protect them because their playing time is short compared to the rest of their lives.

Only with serious consequences, would players think twice about these cheap footy acts.

Agree with most of this Mark, but some are accidental and in some cases split seconds are involved. If a player is not genuinely going for the ball as was the case with Martin, punishment should follow. I didn’t see the Maynard incident but the injury to Bradshaw appears bad and seriously disadvantaged the team.

It seems the appeals Board are hesitant to rub anyone out during the finals which is ridiculous. I know this has also worked in our favour but the point is that the initial Tribunal decision needs more examination by a majority from say 3- 5 ex players and that decision should then be final. They can look at each incident from every angle and there’s no need for advocates or players’ input. In the Martin case for example, he clearly wasn’t attempting to punch the ball so the ump could send him off for as long as the Lizard is off. Neither side is disadvantaged even if the ump gets it wrong. Then the incident is reviewed by the properly constituted Tribunal for a final verdict.

I guess I’m advocating a sending off scenario as in soccer. Worth a try as the current system is a joke and too many players are getting head injuries which have to be reduced to a minimum. Surely we have enough ex players and people with the necessary grey matter to come up with something better than what we have currently.

[Nico]

Maynard's was an old fashioned 'shirt front" and the reason the "down the ground free kick" was introduced. The non suspension takes the game back to the Mathews thuggery era and is now condoned. If Maynard had hit Brayshaw as he kicked it, he would probably have got 4 weeks for a shoulder charge. As they say, "life is all in the timing".

As for Martin; his eyes were firmly on Blakey, never the ball. Blakey was off the ground for 25 minutes of the 2nd term in which time Carlton kicked 4 goals. Blakey came back in the 2nd half and played a ripping half. The incident cost us the game, and that is not drawing a long bow.

[Scottee]

Maynard's was an old fashioned 'shirt front" and the reason the "down the ground free kick" was introduced. The non suspension takes the game back to the Mathews thuggery era and is now condoned. If Maynard had hit Brayshaw as he kicked it, he would probably have got 4 weeks for a shoulder charge. As they say, "life is all in the timing".

As for Martin; his eyes were firmly on Blakey, never the ball. Blakey was off the ground for 25 minutes of the 2nd term in which time Carlton kicked 4 goals. Blakey came back in the 2nd half and played a ripping half. The incident cost us the game, and that is not drawing a long bow.

Nico, you nailed it!

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Kafka's Ghost]

Maynard's was an old fashioned 'shirt front" and the reason the "down the ground free kick" was introduced. The non suspension takes the game back to the Mathews thuggery era and is now condoned. If Maynard had hit Brayshaw as he kicked it, he would probably have got 4 weeks for a shoulder charge. As they say, "life is all in the timing".

As for Martin; his eyes were firmly on Blakey, never the ball. Blakey was off the ground for 25 minutes of the 2nd term in which time Carlton kicked 4 goals. Blakey came back in the 2nd half and played a ripping half. The incident cost us the game, and that is not drawing a long bow.

Spot on. Regarding Martin, how his actions weren’t graded “intentional” is amazing. Or perhaps not. I did read one article which rhapsodised at length about how happy the AFL were Sydney was eliminated.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Mel_C]

...

And I just saw Eddie McGuire's reaction to the decision and I literally feel sick to the stomach. There is no sympathy or feeling for the injured player at all...

I felt the same way when I saw the McGuire footage. He is a horrible horrible man.

[AppleCore]

I agree that Martin's hit was an act of thuggery and that he deserved much more than 1 week, but I don't agree that "Maynard's was an old fashioned 'shirt front" " Please watch the incident again. It is absolutely nothing like a shirt front. Maynard was (perhaps like Rampe) unfortunate in terms of the player he made contact with.

[KSAS]

I felt the same way when I saw the McGuire footage. He is a horrible horrible man.

Eddie on FC tonight said he was just having a "bit of fun" and no way was he trying to be disrespectful to the Brayshaw family. How many times have we heard these hollow excuses/apologies before!!!!

Eddie was at a Footy function when the tribunal verdict came through, who then began shouting to the audience in passionate fervour "Justice has been served!!!"

He certainly looked like a buffoon and may not have realised he was captured being so on someone's phone!

[i'm-uninformed2]

I started the week viewing the Maynard incident as an unfortunate accident, and suspect it has been adjudicated accordingly.

But I did tend to find the discussion with Chris Scott and Ross Lyon on AFL360 persuasive, and pulling me more towards a contrary view. On this issue, unlike others where they will game the system a bit, coaches are pretty balanced. They neither want to see a player suspended unfairly, nor one concussed or injured. From memory it was Chris Scott who effectively said two things that resonated: as the person making the play at the other player and having left his feet, Maynard put himself at risk of carrying the duty of care; and that if that was a training drill, Maynard is not doing that to a teammate.

There’s no doubt this will be where it heads in the off-season as the rule is adjusted.

The one the AFL will find more challenging is the marking contest. Let’s say a player goes for a mark and makes no contact with the ball - what would now be deemed and penalised as an unreasonable attempt. In doing so, he knees a player in the head and concusses him. Is he liable, given his original action is unreasonable?

As for the discussion around the Blakey-Martin type incident, think the better solution is to let teams use their subs whilst a player is undergoing the concussion test. Trying to adjudicate incidents in game to determine if a player caused it is difficult, partly because the player has no right of appeal on it. Martin’s one might have been clear cut, but there will be plenty that aren’t.