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.
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
Collingwood v Melbourne

TOPIC: Collingwood v Melbourne

Tricolour Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #85

Tricolour
If the tribunal accepts Maynard’s lawyers argument and he gets off, money has changed hands. It’s an absurd argument. When Brayshaw’s kicking foot lands Maynard is already a split second from his face. He had no time whatsoever to change direction, he was running straight. The responsibility for the collision is all on Maynard, shame he’s not man enough to admit it.
Brayshaw also has no time to brace for impact once he’s followed through on his kicking action.
This was not two players going up for a ball and one coming off worst. This was one player running with the ball in a straight line and kicking, the other choosing to leave the ground in front of him ensuring a high collision, and then choosing to lead with the bone of his shoulder, ensuring that 100% of the force of the collision would be on his opponent. His opponent who was in a vulnerable position just after kicking and had no time to change direction or even brace himself.
Maynard initiated the collision. I don’t believe him for one second when he says he was surprised to see Brayshaw there on his way down. If that’s true, he needs to stop playing footy and enter a care home.
He made choices, which at best were reckless and at worst carried intent (but we’ll never know that and have to give him the benefit of the doubt).
The AFL have to send a message here.
Login to reply,
Bizkit, Dockermus said You Beaut

hypen Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #86

hypen
For those of you still playing - when a player jumps in the air hurtling towards you, it's incumbent on you to protect yourself.

Cause the guy who chose to propel himself throughout the air sure can't do anything. He's flying at the speed of sound and can't change direction. And given he broke the sound barrier he's every right to drop his shoulder into your head. He might get hurt otherwise. A man's got to be careful in these situations.
Login to reply,
Bizkit, rogerrocks, Dockermus, Tricolour, themagoos said You Beaut

Tricolour Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #87

Tricolour
That’s right, Hypen. It’s a bit slack of Brayshaw not to tuck and roll into a ball in the microseconds between his kicking foot landing and his face getting sent to the back of his head. He could’ve really hurt Maynard’s shoulder.
Login to reply,
purple_tez, hypen, Dockermus said You Beaut

hypen Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #88

hypen
It's an act of football. Read the constitution, its an inalieable right.
Login to reply,
Mushroom, Dockermus, Tricolour said You Beaut

Quasimodo Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #89

Quasimodo
Justice

Common sense prevails.

Charge thrown out.

Tribunal got it right this time.
Login to reply,
DS said You Beaut

fradonjan Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #90

fradonjan
Chairman's decision and reasons why.
Chair Gleeson goes through the incident, then goes through the AFL's two arguments.

AFL says he breached duty of care by choosing to jump and then having chosen to jump he did not choose to open arms.

"We find that Maynard's decision was reasonable. He committed to the action several metres away.

"We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would see that the impact or outcome (injuries) that resulted were inevitable.

"As to the second element, we accept Professor Cole's evidence that Maynard's body position did not impact. The alternative methods of landing as put by the AFL may have made a difference.

"He would have had to weight up what his other options were.

"The AFL's position was to accept that other modes of landing could have resulted in a reportable offence.

"We find that he was not careless either in his decision to jump or in the falling.

"We are clearly satisfied that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent.

The charge is dismissed.
Login to reply,

Davo Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #91

Davo
Apparently you can get 3 weeks for tackling someone and knocking them out, but get off scot free of you jump on them and knock them out.

As if life wasn't subjective enough.
Login to reply,
Bizkit, Raglan Matt, Tricolour said You Beaut

Walter the baker Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #92

Walter the baker
Wow. I didn’t see that coming!

Should make for interesting viewing if the two terms meet up again in the GF!
Login to reply,

Dockermus Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #93

Dockermus
Outrageous decision. Unbelievable. The AFL have to appeal.
Login to reply,
Bizkit, Tricolour said You Beaut

mac Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #94

mac
The amount of players doing a football act and get rubbed out by careless, accidents,
Fyfe bumping heads with another player bending over the ball to pick it up and because the other player needs attention off the ground he got two weeks.
What's the difference?
Adelaide should be playing finals. If that was Collingwood being robbed of a goal to play finals it would be made right by Victoria HQ for Collingwood.
Login to reply,

Tricolour Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #95

Tricolour
“We are clearly satisfied that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent” - is that a typo? They accept that he meant to bump, and jumped into Brayshaw’s head to do it, but no case to answer?
I have to be honest I’m staggered by this. Not entirely surprised because it’s finals time and the AFL hates to suspend a player at finals time (be honest, what do you think the result would have been if it had happened mid season and Maynard played for Freo…)
But this is cowardly. They had a chance to send a message to players that they have a duty of care to their opponents, and instead they’ve sent the message that getting your technique or timing all wrong and leaving another player with a brain injury is fine because you meant to get the ball. You can run headlong towards a player about to kick the ball and launch yourself at his head and you have no cases to answer as long as you throw your arms up.
The AFL is still not taking concussions seriously.
Login to reply,
mac, purple_tez, Bizkit, CaptSnooze, Noddy said You Beaut

Noddy Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #96

Noddy
So that’s the precedent for attempting to smother a kick from an oncoming opponent, interesting times ahead.

The inconsistency in decisions and messaging that comes out of AFL HQ in overall umpiring and tribunal decisions is mind boggling.
Login to reply,

jas Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #97

jas
So presumably this now establishes the precedent - engaging in an act targeting the ball (spoil, smother, mark) and making contact with the head in the process constitutes accidental contact, and therefore does not lead to a suspension. Having previously wondered what my view was, now that the decision is made it doesn't sit that well. I wonder if it will lead to a rewrite of whatever rule governs this that basically says if you engage in/initiate any act other than aiming to gain possession of the football, and this act results in a hit to the head, you are liable for the outcome. I'm sure someone like Morgan can legal up the language, but I can imagine that the AFL will want to legislate this out of the game somehow. And if people think that it will lead to players not attempting to smother or spoil, given the rarity of what we saw last week (except when spoils really meant punches in the head) I wouldn't be too concerned.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt Collingwood v Melbourne 10 months 2 weeks ago #98

Raglan Matt
Jas, I thought that was the rule used to give Fyfe a suspension as mentioned above, and to suspend Serong and many others over the last couple of years. No need to make a new rule, use the bloody rules you have already got you gutless pack of sycophants.
Login to reply,
hypen, CaptSnooze, Noddy said You Beaut
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
Collingwood v Melbourne