2023 Finals Series

[Roadrunner]

I think it might be time to let those go!

Maybe a bit silly on my part, but if (I should say when!) we beat the Carpetbaggers tonight, we will play the Dees again and I feel we can beat them at the G. Even though we had them on toast in the 3rd quarter at home, we ended up losing the game. Of course, at the SCG we have the crowd but psychologically they would have an advantage. Anyway, one step at a time!????

[neilfws]

Trademark big last quarter from Melbourne, but not enough to make up for woeful kicking and poor efficiency inside 50. The latter stat, admittedly against a very good defence. I thought two or three of their players were well off their best and also lacked a bit of physicality at times.

The Maynard one is interesting, I think there's a high chance it will be deemed accidental. Brayshaw an unfortunate loss, he seems quite a key structural component for the Demons.

Pies have that "something to prove" look about them which I think will be quite hard to stop and they'd have to be flag favourites. It's going to be interesting to watch the tactics of their opposition teams.

[Scottee]

Maynard jumped high ( to spoil) but he knew the only place he was going to land was on Bradshaw ( intent to hurt). So it's not accidental.
If this was allowed it would happen every game.

Mason cox taking out petracca's legs was pretty dangerous. Is that reportable?

- - - Updated - - -



I like the thinking. We would be owed a few

It was a disguised shirt front. Cannot be allowed to stand. If I wanted to take out a player , that would be the best way to do it.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Thunder Shaker]

I think it might be time to let those go!

It was not a serious post, but has at its core a kernel of truth: the League has been biased against non-Victorian teams ever since they decided to admit non-Victorian teams by relocation or the granting of licences for new teams. Other examples of bias are free kicks (see other thread) and requiring the Swans to pay licence fees despite being a foundation club. The only foundation club that has been treated worse was Fitzroy.

At least the League got rid of the ridiculous requirement to play at least one final in Melbourne each week without regard for the competing teams.

[stevoswan]

Van Rooyen looks out for a week to me, but I don't think Maynard will be cited by the MRP. Maynard's initial action was wholly reasonable. His protection of himself just at the point of contact was reflexive. Given we had the tribunal accept our McCartin argument, I don't think we can begrude another player's act being deemed to be just a football accident.

I don't agree. He didn't even have to protect himself against an open fronted player but he chose to turn his body and bump Brayshaws head with his shoulder. An extremely dangerous act.....but I suspect the MRP will see it your way and he won't be cited....and they will be wrong.....but the MRP can't be upsetting those Collingwood supporters can they.....what with the Magpies being this years Victorian 'fairytale'.

[lwjoyner]

surely wrong of c7 to do interview with culprit to allow him to defend himself

[KSAS]

FWIW I think Maynard will be sent to the tribunal as a test case due to the severity of the outcome, but will get off. Reckon it will be too difficult to prove that he decided in mid air to shirt front Brayshaw, from what started as a legit spoiling attempt. Both players were moving at pace head on. I can see why some see it as charge, with Maynard turning his body slightly mid air.

Goodwin is in no doubt that it was a shirt front with his comment "Maynard jumped & hit Brayshaw whilst off the ground"

A reporter then asked Goodwin to compare Maynard's hit with Van Rooyen's elbow to McStay's head. Goodwin replied "the difference is McStay stayed on the ground"

[liz]

FWIW I think Maynard will be sent to the tribunal as a test case due to the severity of the outcome, but will get off. Reckon it will be too difficult to prove that he decided in mid air to shirt front Brayshaw, from what started as a legit spoiling attempt. Both players were moving at pace head on. I can see why some see it as charge, with Maynard turning his body slightly mid air.

Goodwin is in no doubt that it was a shirt front with his comment "Maynard jumped & hit Brayshaw whilst off the ground"

A reporter then asked Goodwin to compare Maynard's hit with Van Rooyen's elbow to McStay's head. Goodwin replied "the difference is McStay stayed on the ground"

I had to read that last sentence twice because, in this context, there are two different meanings of "stayed on the ground". I initially thought you meant that Van Rooyen stayed on the ground (as he elbowed McStay) in contrast to Maynard, who launched himself into the air. But then I realised the distinction is that McStay stayed out on the ground.

That Brayshaw was out of the game (and out of next week, at the very least) while McStay kept on playing will manifest in different penalties IF Maynard is deemed to have a case to answer. It's hard to see Van Rooyen getting more than a week, but if Maynard is found guilty of a reportable offence, it's likely he'll get three (at least). But Maynard is only responsible for the severity of the consequences if he is found to have committed a reportable offence. Just as McCartin wasn't deemed accountable for McAdam's fractured cheekbone.

(Wow, what a lot of Macs!)

[Blood Fever]

Van Rooyen deliberately elbowed McStay on the jaw and stunned him. Got to get one week. Maynard case is difficult but could be categorized as careless or reckless. If so, he could easily be rubbed out for rest of year. Can't ignore the serious upshot of what happened.

[Hotpotato]

Maynard : two weeks .

[cherub]

Does anyone else think Fritsch might have had a jab to his sore ankle which affected his kicking? Or the injury to his ankle/foot is still affecting him. I am reminded of Teddy’s glorious shank in the 2012 grand final, which was so obviously a miskick , but deemed deliberate (before “insufficient intent” was a thing).

[liz]

Maynard : two weeks .

Is that a prediction, or have you read the outcome of the MRO's assessment? I struggle with two weeks. If he is guilty of a charge, surely the impact is severe, which would lead to a three week minimum. Sicily received a three week ban for a tackle gone wrong (but not really that wrong). So I'm expecting either zero or 3+.

[barry]

Does anyone else think Fritsch might have had a jab to his sore ankle which affected his kicking? Or the injury to his ankle/foot is still affecting him. I am reminded of Teddy’s glorious shank in the 2012 grand final, which was so obviously a miskick , but deemed deliberate (before “insufficient intent” was a thing).

Yes. Was thinking the same thing. Demons getting injuries at wrong time.

[Hotpotato]

Is that a prediction, or have you read the outcome of the MRO's assessment? I struggle with two weeks. If he is guilty of a charge, surely the impact is severe, which would lead to a three week minimum. Sicily received a three week ban for a tackle gone wrong (but not really that wrong). So I'm expecting either zero or 3+.

Apols: should have added ‘prediction’.
Can’t see how he’s not suspended.

[stevoswan]

Maynard sent straight to the tribunal. That's a start....