Is it time for Michael Christian to go

[BuildEmUp]

You don't protect yourself by lowering your shoulder into an opponents head, you are both nieve little kids if you honestly think his intent was to protect himself. There were mutliple better options in regards to protecting himself and he chose to ignore those in favour for one that would inflict damage on his opponent.

If you are going to accuse people of being something and try to personally belittle, dont prove your ignorance by mispelling words, at least learn to spell .. apart from that, multiple options in 0.3 seconds ( from the expert biomechanists mouth) LMFAO ?? It was , and has been PROVEN tobe natural instinct.

 

[VinnieB]

I'm not saying the hit was the same, I'm saying the intent was the same. That is, to apply some physicality to a player who had just disposed of the ball.

The Collingwood legal team basically said that Maynard didn't have time to adjust his body which begs the question, why was he turned side on in a bumping position in the first place? I thought he was trying to smother which you know, involves your hands being up...

The issue is precedent had already been set this year by the Mansell case for his "bump" on Aish. Mansell's intent was to win the ball but due to the ball bouncing sideways, contact was made between him and Aish who got concussed. I didn't think Mansell should've been suspended as the Tigers legal team used similar arguments (pretty much no time to react to the ball which had deviated off its line). Tribunal threw this out and gave him 3 weeks. By precedent, Maynard should've gotten the same punishment.

Neale Balme has already been on radio asking for a please explain between the 2 incidents. Make no mistake, the MRO/tribunal have severely ****ed up and clubs are well aware of it.

You have conveniently left out the part of Brayshaw veering to the right after disposing of the ball. The tribunal took that into consideration as well in yet another adjustment you are expecting the player to make.

 

[VinnieB]

He should have not jumped at a player's head who was in the process of kicking the ball. It's just that simple.

The fact he dropped the shoulder into an unprotected player's head to "make him earn it" shows what a coward he is, but as soon as he choose to jump high close to a player kicking the ball there was only ever going to be one outcome. It was a reckless act that has caused a brain injury.

The prick should be given at least 6 weeks. And the Boys Club commentators automatically trying to get the Collingwood player off while the Melbourne player was unconscious should be ashamed of themselves.

You’re funny.

 

[Skull Face]

If you are going to accuse people of being something and try to personally belittle, dont prove your ignorance by mispelling words, at least learn to spell .. apart from that, multiple options in 0.3 seconds ( from the expert biomechanists mouth) LMFAO ?? It was , and has been PROVEN tobe natural instinct.

Imagine calling someone out for something and doing the exact same thing in response, may as well have just responded with yes I am a flog

 

[No SPIN]

There a very few incidents exactly the same, however there are many incidents that deliver the same outcome i.e. concussion.
This incident clearly had to go before the Tribunal and Christian should have referred immediately (a bad optic that he didn’t).

At the tribunal the decision involved much debate regarding trajectory, biomechanics, duty of care, reckless, football act etc and was eventually decided ‘no case to answer’.

I for one aren't happy with the outcome, not because it’s Collingwood, not because it’s Maynard, not because of the evidence presented ………. It’s because I believe this ‘entire’ incident could of been avoided, and I’m not blaming Maynard.

Concussion in sport is horrendous and the impact to participants and families is tragic. The AFL and by extension the rules committee MUST make this game safer and all players must be conscious when playing of the potential for damage, I blame the AFL more than Maynard, given he should have been educated and subsequently known years ago this ‘football act’ delivered in this fashion is likely to cause serious injury.

More needs to be done, I’m no expert and have no solution to what’s going on in AFL footy, but no-one wants to see anyone concussed on the footy field and the more done to reduce it, is required urgently.

Do you believe AFL is risk free?
Obviously the answer is no.
The question then becomes, how much risk can be taken out of it before the fabric of the game is destroyed.

Clearly the tribunal created a line in the sand on this issue - namely, that accidents will happen and the game is not risk free.

Had this not happened, then they would then have been forced to treat all accidental contact eg concussion from a knee in a marking contest as reportable.
Which would just cause further outcry from supporters.

Last night was a victory for common sense, but I agree that Brayshaw is the one we should all be concerned about.

 

[VinnieB]

‘If’ Melbourne beats Carlton this weekend, should Melbourne allow Brayshaw to play against Brisbane?

I would love to know what Melbourne fans think.

 

[Do the Dew]

Lol wot?

The two incidents are nothing alike. One ran past the ball and shouldered a guy straight to the head, the other executed a legitimate smother.

What a ridiculous comparison.

He missed the ball.

The similarity with Stewart was they were both trying to put some physicality into the game but got it wrong. Both players have form doing this and it should've been taken into consideration.

 

[Do the Dew]

You have conveniently left out the part of Brayshaw veering to the right after disposing of the ball. The tribunal took that into consideration as well in yet another adjustment you are expecting the player to make.

But they've completely disregarded this in the past (round 13 this year) with the Mansell/Aish contact. Both players running in just about opposite directions to the ball, each with a 50/50 shot of winning it, at the last second the ball bounces sideways which causes contact.

Basically, the tribunal heard the same argument, but reached a completely different conclusion. That's my main issue with the MRO/tribunal, there's absolutely no consistency season to season, or even within the same season. There's been a ton of examples with this (sling tackle anyone).

 

[VinnieB]

But they've completely disregarded this in the past (round 13 this year) with the Mansell/Aish contact. Both players running in just about opposite directions to the ball, each with a 50/50 shot of winning it, at the last second the ball bounces sideways which causes contact.

Basically, the tribunal heard the same argument, but reached a completely different conclusion. That's my main issue with the MRO/tribunal, there's absolutely no consistency season to season, or even within the same season. There's been a ton of examples with this (sling tackle anyone).

Well I suppose it’s what and how an incident is argued. The ‘Car A and Car B’ analogy was clear. Maynard was in the air coming down (and he actually got a finger on the ball). A player coming forward in the opposite direction veering into you while you are in the air leaves you with no option.

The ‘righteous one’ in Gerard Whately was wanting to hang Maynard and then post tribunal was comfortable with the tribunal result once the arguments were put forward.

This is simply a Collingwood/Maynard thing. No doubt about that. Pretty much every footballer (past and present) that has been asked for an opinion, agrees with the decision.

I still can’t believe Martin and Van Rooyen only copped 1 match each. They both intentially went out to cause harm, however, because both players only had concussion tests, and continued to play, it wasn’t deemed serious. Well, the intention should have as much, or even more, weighting towards the penalty. If the afl thinks these head knocks have no impact on long term health, they are kidding themselves. If it was Brayshaw that copped those hits, he would have been completely knocked out. Both players can count themselves very fortunate they didn’t attempt that action against a player with a history of concussion.

 

[VinnieB]

He missed the ball.

The similarity with Stewart was they were both trying to put some physicality into the game but got it wrong. Both players have form doing this and it should've been taken into consideration.

He touched the ball. It was said in the tribunal, which I assume was verified.

 

[rado]

Its impossible without making it not the same game though.

Eg. the hanger/high mark I referenced above. Its practically the defining feature of our game - and is absolutely something that would have to go were the AFL to go ultra hard on negating concussion. I just don't see how it can be done while retaining the essence of the game.

Mandatory head gear will probably be brought in at some stage (which admittedly is a better solution than banning football actions).

Agree, it’s impossible for a player in todays game to avoid concussion in some form.
I’m not sure of a solution to eradicate significant concussion and this is a real dilemma in all contact sports.
Your right, with high marking and landing, players backing into packs with force coming the other way etc
However, smart minds need to pursue in earnest a way to reduce significant head knocks and it may well end up changing the fabric of the game.

 

[rado]

Do you believe AFL is risk free?
Obviously the answer is no.
The question then becomes, how much risk can be taken out of it before the fabric of the game is destroyed.

Clearly the tribunal created a line in the sand on this issue - namely, that accidents will happen and the game is not risk free.

Had this not happened, then they would then have been forced to treat all accidental contact eg concussion from a knee in a marking contest as reportable.
Which would just cause further outcry from supporters.

Last night was a victory for common sense, but I agree that Brayshaw is the one we should all be concerned about.

You raise some good points and no, I don’t believe the game is risk free or can be made to be risk free.
For me I get accidents do happen and I think footy lovers accept a level of danger to players welfare.
I don’t believe the AFL remain idle on attempting to interrogate the reasons for injuries, including concussion.
But whatever can be done to reduce concussion is paramount and let’s hope a balance between keeping the game relevant and player welfare can be found.

 

[JackFlash]

The MRO is on a hiding to nowhere and i don't think people realise that the game is about to undergo the biggest change of rules in its history by the time Tassie enters the competition. The past 20 years have seen a dramatic change in the way the game is played and adjudicated. If you don't believe that to be true find a game pre-2000 game and watch it throughout, you will find similarities to today's game only. We are getting closer by the week to International rules (Australia V Ireland) or Gaelic football.
One of the only concessions in International Rules was the tackling components carried over from the Australian Rules which allows players to tackle between the shoulders and thighs. The AFL will be looking closely at the Maynard incident and will do everything in its power to prevent it from happening again.
Tackling will be the biggest issue this game has ever seen in coming years, What else they include will be is anyone's guess and we'll probably see the banning of front-on contact. The high mark will also be in danger, i doubt they can allow another player to crash into the back of the head of another causing injury and allow the mark to stand. One of the greatest things we love in our game will most certainly come under scrutiny. Get ready as the football rollercoaster has just left on its journey and we don't know where it will end.
The AFL was insistent on having a game that was a high octane, super speed, don't blink or you'll miss it game. The problem with that is we have 36 players on the field along with 10 umpires (4 field) (4 Boundary) and 2 Goal Umpires). At some point, collisions are going to occur. The reign of Laura Kane is going to be an interesting one. All I know is the game I grew up with is a distant memory. The AFL doesn't care about that. The finals will break attendance records and the Gather Round in 2024 is sold out. They will change the rules to suit fans of the 21st century, not anyone like me who was a nipper in the 70s and loved the 80s and 90s as I got older. I guess I will put my Pterodactyl hat on and fly off into the sunset like all good dinosaurs should. What can Michael Christian do? He will have to wait on what rules they come up with also.

 

[SuperSub17]

He missed the ball.

The similarity with Stewart was they were both trying to put some physicality into the game but got it wrong. Both players have form doing this and it should've been taken into consideration.

No, he did not miss the ball. The vision clearly shows him touching it and it is mentioned in the verdict.

And the comparison is still ridiculous. Stewart had no play on the ball whatsoever.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

It clearly shows him touching the ball??

Errrr ...... sorry but it doesn't .... the ball ends up deep in the Melbourne forwardline .... 40 meters downfield

Maynard claims he did ..... but not very convincingly

 

[Roby]

It clearly shows him touching the ball??

Errrr ...... sorry but it doesn't .... the ball ends up deep in the Melbourne forwardline .... 40 meters downfield

Maynard claims he did ..... but not very convincingly

He did touch it. You've been sprouting crap for a week now in regards to this.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

He did touch it. You've been sprouting crap for a week now in regards to this.

Show me?

If it went to ARC the consensus would be that he very likely didn't touch it considering the ball end up 40m down the field

The consensus also says that it was a failed attempt to smother

Back on Christian ..... as Head MRO he should be the most impartial person in the room and should always be the one to make sure all sides of the argument are heard and considered before a proper and hopefully correct ruling can be made ..... this was a very serious incident where a player was knocked out cold .... intentional or unintentional ..... the field umpire even reported Maynard and the fact that Christian pulled the trigger so quickly and ruled "nothing to see here" reeks of total incompetence and duty of care in his role .... Kane was absolutely right to over rule him ..... then for him to throw his toys out of his pram and threaten to quit is laughable in the extreme ..... the ole don't you ever question me I am always right ...... what a complete plonker!!

Think its definitely time for a change given the inconsistent nature of tribunal rulings and also whether we agree or disagree with the final ruling what is clear is that Christian failed in his duty by dismissing this serious incident initially without launching (pardon the pun) a proper investigation from the get go.

 

[Roby]

That's just a long post, Sarcoidevo, to something very simple.

I'm not sure why you're doubling down, when the footage is available. You can go watch the replay yourself and see that Maynard touched the ball. The fact that your say the ball travelled 40m, therefore how could it have been touched, is a strange argument.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

That's just a long post, Sarcoidevo, to something very simple.

I'm not sure why you're doubling down, when the footage is available. You can go watch the replay yourself and see that Maynard touched the ball. The fact that your say the ball travelled 40m, therefore how could it have been touched, is a strange argument.

Sorry Roby the footage does not show it was clearly touched ..... what it does clearly show is Maynard dropping his shoulder into Brayshaw head and the ball ending up 40m downfield and a downfield free being awarded.

Do you agree that Christian was breathtakingly spectacular in his dereliction of duty by initially disregarding and pushing aside one of the worst on-field collisions we have thus far witnessed this season and perhaps the last few years? ..... not even wanting to investigate it even after Maynard had been reported by the onfield umpire

 

[Roby]

Sorry Roby the footage does not show it was clearly touched ..... what it does clearly show is Maynard dropping his shoulder into Brayshaw head and the ball ending up 40m downfield and a downfield free being awarded.

Do you agree that Christian was breathtakingly spectacular in his dereliction of duty by initially disregarding and pushing aside one of the worst on-field collisions we have thus far witnessed this season and perhaps the last few years? ..... not even wanting to investigate it even after Maynard had been reported by the onfield umpire

Go get new glasses

 

[sherb]

Back on Christian ..... as Head MRO he should be the most impartial person in the room and should always be the one to make sure all sides of the argument are heard and considered before a proper and hopefully correct ruling can be made ..... this was a very serious incident where a player was knocked out cold .... intentional or unintentional ..... the field umpire even reported Maynard and the fact that Christian pulled the trigger so quickly and ruled "nothing to see here" reeks of total incompetence and duty of care in his role .... Kane was absolutely right to over rule him ..... then for him to throw his toys out of his pram and threaten to quit is laughable in the extreme ..... the ole don't you ever question me I am always right ...... what a complete plonker!!

Think its definitely time for a change given the inconsistent nature of tribunal rulings and also whether we agree or disagree with the final ruling what is clear is that Christian failed in his duty by dismissing this serious incident initially without launching (pardon the pun) a proper investigation from the get go.

I agree, the incident was serious enough and in such a grey area that it warranted testing at the tribunal. I don't understand why Christian didn't do that and I also understand why Kane overrode his decision.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Go get new glasses

No comment on Christian?

 

[Roby]

No comment on Christian?

I don't think the incident should've been cited. Maynard did nothing wrong. He jumped up and tried to attempt a smother, in which he touched the ball.

Here I had the footage the whole time:

View attachment Touched .mp4

 

[mcgrath_truther]

Back on Christian ..... as Head MRO he should be the most impartial person in the room and should always be the one to make sure all sides of the argument are heard and considered before a proper and hopefully correct ruling can be made ..... this was a very serious incident where a player was knocked out cold .... intentional or unintentional ..... the field umpire even reported Maynard and the fact that Christian pulled the trigger so quickly and ruled "nothing to see here" reeks of total incompetence and duty of care in his role .... Kane was absolutely right to over rule him ..... then for him to throw his toys out of his pram and threaten to quit is laughable in the extreme ..... the ole don't you ever question me I am always right ...... what a complete plonker!!

Think its definitely time for a change given the inconsistent nature of tribunal rulings and also whether we agree or disagree with the final ruling what is clear is that Christian failed in his duty by dismissing this serious incident initially without launching (pardon the pun) a proper investigation from the get go.

hard agree with the bold. i think that having a solitary goon be the only decided as to who gets charged with weeks/fines/sent to the tribunal is very, very stupid. of course it's a thankless job to do it but there needs to be more than one person who's willing to actually have the tough discussion about things like what happened. anyone who's having a crack at kane for stepping in is blinded by their club support. it was the right decision to go to the tribunal and i think that (within reason) the right decision came out at the tribunal.

it's indicative of his nature as a person that the moment his decision was called into question by another AFL official that he wants to step away from the role.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I don't think the incident should've been cited. Maynard did nothing wrong. He jumped up and tried to attempt a smother, in which he touched the ball.

Here I had the footage the whole time:

View attachment 1802964

So from that footage it's clear Maynard doesn't touch ball with his hands .... could be that it barely brushes his tricep as there is a slight ripple effect .... though lets face it ... ultimately its an average attempt to smother and its more like the ball touched him

As for your Christian verdict ... looks like your on your lonesome there