Wedgie wrote:Surely he didn't get wine for someone suffering from concussion who had been knocked out a few days ago?
"I know I killed a heap of your brain cells, here, kill some more!"
You're taking the piss, right?
by tigerpie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 4:31 pm
Wedgie wrote:Surely he didn't get wine for someone suffering from concussion who had been knocked out a few days ago?
"I know I killed a heap of your brain cells, here, kill some more!"
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:08 pm
tigerpie wrote:Wedgie wrote:Surely he didn't get wine for someone suffering from concussion who had been knocked out a few days ago?
"I know I killed a heap of your brain cells, here, kill some more!"
You're taking the piss, right?
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:12 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:13 pm
by MW » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:21 pm
Wedgie wrote:LOL, they must be taking the piss now:
Woods (AFL) says players should ask: Is the thing I'm about to do risking the safety of that other player? If the answer is yes, then you've got to be quick and think about a way to do it that's not going to unreasonably risk the safety of the other player.
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:23 pm
MW wrote:Wedgie wrote:LOL, they must be taking the piss now:
Woods (AFL) says players should ask: Is the thing I'm about to do risking the safety of that other player? If the answer is yes, then you've got to be quick and think about a way to do it that's not going to unreasonably risk the safety of the other player.
This part is not unreasonable. You can't bump, tackle or spoil if you get them high. If you get them fair, play on, but if you choose to take the risk and get them high, you take the consequences. This is no different.
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:27 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:46 pm
by mots02 » Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:00 pm
Wedgie wrote:Wish I'd gone to uni:
Biomechanist: Once airbone, Maynard had no opportunity to avoid the collision.
by mots02 » Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:07 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:08 pm
by DOC » Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:08 pm
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:19 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:07 pm
DOC wrote:It is quite obvious.
Given Maynard was in the air, Brayshaw having already kicked the ball had a duty of care to "catch" Maynard.
by Vamos » Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:20 pm
Wedgie wrote:LOL, next update:
The biomechanist has arrived four minutes early. She is officially better than any medical professional I have ever visited.
Despite arriving early, the biomechanist has been put on hold. This would be deeply frustrating for the biomechanist, unless the hold music is good in the Tribunal-verse.
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:26 pm
6:19PM: BRAYSHAW VEERED INTO MAYNARD’S PATH
Collingwood has pointed to still images from behind the goals to show that Maynard was not on track to hit Brayshaw until the Demon veered into his path.
One of the Magpie arguments has been that Maynard was not in line with Brayshaw when he left the ground and it was Brayshaw, who stepped to the right after kicking, that contributed to contact.
In his evidence, Maynard said he didn’t expect to collect Brayshaw and he moved his arms to the right to smother the ball because he was on a different track to the Melbourne player.
“May I suggest a collision is not inevitable, it is not even likely,” Ihle said.
One of the AFL’s leading arguments was that Maynard was careless in jumping because he was sure to clean up Brayshaw.
by Wedgie » Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:33 pm
by mighty_tiger_79 » Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:36 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |