Herkes tarafından bilinerek sevilen site olan 1xbet canlı adresi sizlere büyük avantajlar ile farklı bahis imkanları sunmaktadır. Bilindik bir firma olması nedeni ile her defasında yeni bir 1xbet güncel adrese taşınıyor. Paylaşılan adreslerden sizlere en uygun 1xbet türkiye giriş güncel adresine kolaylıkla hemen ulaşabilirsiniz. Sizlerde kolaylıkla her cihazınızda aktif olan 1xbet mobile ile bahis yaparak, üyelik oluşumunu halledebilirsiniz. Büyük promosyonlardan yararlanarak üyelik açmak için 1xbet live adresini kullana bilirsiniz. Üyelik oluşturduktan sonra kolaylıkla yatırım yapmak için mobil ödeme bahis kabul gördüğünü anlayabilirsiniz. Hiç bir yerde olmayan canlı bahis özelliklerini sizlerde hemen kullanın. Aktif bir şekilde işlem yapan canlı bahis sitesi editörler tarafından özenle araştırılarak seçilmiştir. Ülkemizde resmi yayın yapmayan sitelerin çoğu kaçak bahis adı altında görev yapmaktadır. İnternetten yayın yapan kaçak bahis siteleri kullanıcılarına yüksek oranlar sunan bir adrestir. Hemen sizlerde casino oyunun farkına ve eğlencesine varmak için kayıt oluşturun.

TOPIC: Collingwood v Melbourne

jas Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #71

jas
Seems to me we are now in a position where head contact occurs from actions that are directed at a player (bumping, tackling) is subject to sanction, and head contact that occurs from actions that are directed at getting the ball (marking) are deemed accidental consequences of 'football' acts. This leaves actions that are not directed at a player, but also not focused on gaining possession of the ball (i.e. spoiling and smothering) are now somewhere in the middle, and as a result opinions are divided over it. My guess is that the decision that is made in this case will effectively decide which side it falls, which is why it was sent straight to the tribunal. I still don't know which side I'm on, and no idea which way it will go.
Login to reply,

cletus Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #72

cletus
So....i agree with Morgans summation. If that is demed careless, then, surely it opens up 'carlessness' as a consideration when someone gets a head knock in a high flying mark situation.?

(..ie how many times do you see knees contacting heads, when someone is taking a speccy...?)

Do we want that??.

Aerial stuff is one of the unique facets off the game...and nowhere - that i can see - is it written that you arent allowed to jump in an attempt to smother. I'd expect our guys to make that sort of effort...(....ie every attempt to prevent forward progree of the ball....)

Yeah, ban Maynard....but where does this end??...
Login to reply,

hypen Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #73

hypen
But careless can get you ten weeks out of the game.

If that act ended up with Brayshaw getting straight up its a free kick and play on. But he didn't. He's in hospital and I don't think he'll play again. So careless x consequence = deep do do in this case. Your basic matrix. People on this site apply likelihood to consequence all day and get an overall score ranking; they should know how it works.
Login to reply,

Noddy Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #74

Noddy
‘how many times do you see knees contacting heads, when someone is taking a speccy...?’

You see this often. If you’ve played it’s been part of the game since it started.. A knee to the back of the head must equate to being hit by a piece of 4x 2 wrapped in a tea towel.

It’s 2023 not 1923, we know so much more. Protect the head of all players and fine, suspend to limit and deter the amount of brain damage being done. I shudder to think of a visual of the brain wobbling around in a skull after being impacted.

Even football (soccer) will eventually have to get rid of heading the ball. The lawyers will see to that.
Login to reply,

Dropkick Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #75

Dropkick
Yeah but in the end don't we all wish Maynard had shown the same commitment to crashing through players to get to Sheed in 2018. I want an retrospective 8 week ban.
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt said You Beaut

Mushroom Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #76

Mushroom
I don't want to see a Freo player do that in that way, cletus, or anybody for that matter.

I agree there's not much good can come of this case. There's bad - which is where we stand at the moment with a hospitalised player - and there's worse and I think an endorsement that what Maynard did and the way he did it as being OK by no sanction would be worse.
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt, freo00 said You Beaut

Tragic Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #77

Tragic
I think Hypen is on the money with his interpretation.
The AFP has released a Strategic Plan for Sport-Related Concussion in Australian Football 2022-2026here
it includes as a "Strategic Objective", "PREVENT Reduce the incidence of avoidable forceful head contact and SRC with interventions at each stage and level of participation in the game.
I was listening to David Mundy last night who opined that if it was a player like Scott Pendulbury attempting the smother, he would have used a different technique following the failed attempt that would have been much less likely to cause injury to Brayshaw than what occurred. Essentially Maynard could have put his hands out to protect himself and with much less risk of injury to Brayshaw.
Essentially Maynard used a more dangerous technique than was necessary. I think that is enough to satisfy that he was careless in his action. I don't think anybody is arguing the high contact, high outcome components of the charge.
There are plenty of sources available that promoting all sporting codes on educating players to use appropriate techniques when playing sport that mimimise the risk of causing the precise scenario that played out in the incident in question. Maynard's technique was one of self-preservation without regard to the risk it exposed others too. I think he has to wear the penalty.
Login to reply,
jezzaargh, Raglan Matt said You Beaut

hypen Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #78

hypen
And the it's a "football act" is a beauty too.

Like tackling, bumping, punching the ball are all football acts. Sometimes you are careless, malicious even reckless in their execution. When you leave the ground, when you jump, by design you have less control over your body than when your feet are planted. That's a choice you make to leave the ground and you could have taken more care if head high contact is made by you.

The he's "bracing for contact he has a right to protect himself" argument is a cracker too. Maynard instigates contact and at the point of collision puts his shoulder into him. I think we call it a bump.

Look at the player in Royal Melbourne who is messed up, then work backwards. Ask yourself one question, accident (unavoidable) or careless. Stop conflating initial intent with penalty.
Login to reply,
Blue1red1, DocDocker, Bizkit, rogerrocks, Raglan Matt said You Beaut

Raglan Matt Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #79

Raglan Matt
And, the knee in the head while marking argument is pretty spurious too. We see some intent in most of those, remember NN on Sandi, I know it was ribs not head, but same intent. Players quite easily managed to stop accidently hitting the head while trying to spoil, didn't they?
Login to reply,

rogerrocks Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #80

rogerrocks
Here's a question. How many times did David Mundy badly injure an opponent? I'm guessing the answer is "none". And there is a reason for that - Mundy took care not to put himself in a position where he might injure another player. And Maynard didn't worry so much about the possible consequences of his actions - he was careless.

If players like Mundy, Pendlebury, and many many others can play hundreds of games without ever putting themselves in the position to really hurt someone, that suggests that it is actually possible to play football at the top level in such a way that concussing other players is a very rare event. Provided you take care.
Login to reply,
Gumnut, themagoos said You Beaut

Mushroom Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #81

Mushroom
If you read all of Maynard’s evidence, there’s barely an inkling of thought that Bradshaw even existed.

I was doing stuff, it was all about the ball, oh s#*+ he’s there!!

If we’re on the duty of care point, I don’t think Maynard knows what it is, much less that he has one.

www.afl.com.au/news/1030973
Login to reply,

Mushroom Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #82

Mushroom
If you read all of Maynard’s evidence, there’s barely an inkling of thought that Bradshaw even existed.

I was doing stuff, it was all about the ball, oh s#*+ he’s there!!

If we’re on the duty of care point, I don’t think Maynard knows what it is, much less that he has one.

www.afl.com.au/news/1030973
Login to reply,
Tricolour said You Beaut

Gumnut Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #83

Gumnut
Maynard making no sense at all, he keeps saying he jumped straight up which is categorically not what happened as he jumped forward at Brayshaw and not straught up. This whole scenario is a lot like when Gaff hit Andy Brayshaw and many in the footy media tried to paint Gaff as the victim. All we've been hearing the last couple of days is how sorry Maynard is feeling, he shouldn't miss the GF, he took flowers and plonk to Angus's house, he used to play footy with Angus, how much he loves Angus, he thought he had no choice but to knock Angus senseless and it was just a plain old run of the mill footy action that any AFL footballer would have done. And I've heard at least one footy scribe declare that it was partly Brayshaw's fault because he didn't brace for impact and defend himself better. What a crock!
Message to the footy world, Angus may never play the game again and there ARE many footballers who would not have knocked out an opponent in this manner.
Login to reply,
Bizkit, Raglan Matt, Tricolour said You Beaut

Noddy Collingwood v Melbourne 8 months 1 week ago #84

Noddy
Mr Ihle, Maynard’s defence lawyer, is quoted by the AFLs Michael Whiting as stating:

‘He says Maynard's centre of mass goes straight up with just his arms going to the right to attempt to smother.
He says when Brayshaw kicks, it is not inevitable, in fact it's "not even likely" a collision would occur if both players continued in a straight line.
"It changed because of what Mr Brayshaw did," Ihle said.
"I'm not critical of him. It's important to acknowledge Mr Maynard followed the ball and was surprised to see Brayshaw in the position he was in."

Is he seriously suggesting after Brayshaw kicked he changed his line and caused the collision? I’d be getting another lawyer.
Login to reply,