The Sunday Footy Show panel reacts to Collingwood’s qualifying final win over Melbourne and the AFL’s call to send Brayden Maynard to the tribunal.
Subscribe here 👉https://bit.ly/2mS8v5S
AFL News 👉 https://wwos.nine.com.au/afl
See Nine’s turbo charged coverage of Australian Rules football with the signing of some big new names, the launch of exciting new programs and the return of familiar favourites.
Our beefed-up footy slate will see previews, reviews and analysis of the AFL with fan favourites like Footy Classified, Sunday Footy Show and more.
Facebook: facebook.com/FootyonNine/
Twitter: twitter.com/FootyonNine
Instagram: instagram.com/footyonnine/
TikTok: tiktok.com/@footyonnine
#9WWOS #AFL #FootyOnNine
27 Comments
Angus Brayshaw was not keeping his eye on what and where he was running, it was not a free kick, he was not running towards a man on the mark. Angus is partly to blame. IMO
I often disagree with Kane but on this he a absolutely right anyone who thinks different either goes for Melbourne or hates Collingwood
The thing is if he doesn't get off it doesn't only affect Collingwood and Maynard it affects the whole competition
If you watch the incident Maynard is not directly in line with Brayshaw, his right shoulder is actually in line in Brayshaws head and what do you know, Maynard turns his right shoulder into Brayshaws head.
NBA players are able to run at a jump shooter, jump to contest the shot and contort their body in mid air to avoid contact and subsequently avoid fouling the shooter numerous times a game, thousands of times a season. Maynard could have turned his body the other way and at least tried to avoid contact. If it was Pendlebury kicking it, im sure he would have at least tried to avoid head contact and shown a duty of care to the opponent. Which is what it comes down to these days.
Oy vey, these flogs
Please everyone just let Laura Kane have her own Anheuser-Busch Dylan Mulvaney moment!
Brayshaw was already concussed from a previous incident where he hit his head on Adams knee, not one medical staff from melbourne went to investigate to see if he was ok or take him down for a simple concussion test. That's the reason he was knocked out and the reason he did not try tro protect himself as did Maynard, probably did not know what end they were going other than the fact where Gawns knocked the ball. You see as he kicked the footy his eyes aren't there and he's already in La La Land and that's the reason he did not protect himself which is an automatic. And yes I've been concussed, many many times.
If a player gets 3+ matches for an accident in a footballing act and another (van Rooyen) gets 1 match for intentionally hitting a player in the head, then the AFL has truly lost the plot, which we know they have.
Its a sport accident sad he might not be able to play football again.
Not that tribunal has agreed with Christian view, Laura Kane should resign for her incompetence and stepping in when she has no idea.
Nathan Brown is on the money here. He asks "if there was a teammate underneath him would he have landed the same way?" I think the answer is no. It is possible, is it not, to turn your body in mid-air. My feeling is that Maynard turned his body towards Brayshaw. That said, when I first saw the incident I didn't think there was much in it. It's a tough one.
While Maynard is in the air Brayshaw changes direction to his right where is Maynard supposed to go he can not change direction while in the air.
Browny is spot on, if theres a teammate underneath him no way he tucks his shoulder like that
The cornado corn kanes is right for once
Shirt fronts are legal again, as long as you leave the ground before you drive your shoulder into the head…when Melbourne practice the action and wipe out one of the Daicos boys or Butters or Rozee for the season using the jumping shirt front, I’ll be back here to see what you and the rest of the Collingwood machine say then, Kane
You guys on the panel are full of it ,- Maynard did not really try to tackle or smother the ball ,- his intent was to clean the Melbourne player up,- and he was successful ,- one man down the whole game .
all players have a duty of care to others not to expose each other to potentially serious harm… Maynard is a thug and always has been… he knew heavy frontal contact was imminent and chose to shoulder up at neck/head height… don't care what team, he should've been kicked back to VFA level until he learns his place… AFL doesn't need a thug like him.
A player can't make a legitimate attempt to smother the football these days as that commitment and physical momentum needed could result in physical contact.
This exact circumstance in collision is a risk in every ball sport where opposition teams compete for possession/intercept/smothers/spoils. When two players have momentum and their intent is the ball or the play there is always the chance for collisions and injuries.
The AFL can't avoid these liabilities as intrinsic risks in the game but villainizing a player committed to smothering a forward 50 entry is not a balanced perspective.
Brayshaw is a highly skilled decision maker in traffic. It wouldn't have been unusual to see him baulk Maynard into jumping to smother and then side stepping him for a cleaner forward 50 entry.
Had Brayshaw baulked Maynards commitment in such fashion it would have been a gotchya highlight reel moment and the risk of micro-second good/bad decisions go completely unnoticed and unmentioned yet were still ever present non the less.
Every contest that ever existed in the history of forever in every sport was a micro-second away from someone making a risky late/early decision that could have resulted in collision.
We can't discourage a player like Maynard not to commit to a smother and it would be an embarrassment to say to Brayshaw not to have an opposition player overcommit in moments he could exploit.
The facts remain that the collision was secondary to Maynard's commitment to spoil a forward 50 entry. If he had the clarity to calculate a collision was impending and pulled out he would've been a laughing stock.
Unfortunate timing of two competing players doesn't equal malice. We see friendly fire of team mates colliding multiple times in a season yet they are deemed as unfortunate collisions. Everyone shrugs and they talk about the next play.
Imagine trying to villainize a team mates commitment to the contest that results in friendly fire collision. Equally as unfortunate to the opposition players colliding but ignored because the debate of malice doesn't fit the mould in narrative.
Nick Riewoldt or Jonathan Browns acts of courage ignoring their own personal safety and that of their opposition in the pursuit of the ball under the same metric should be frowned upon if Maynard has received such criticism.
Slippery slope for an intrinsic risk in every contact sport. Collisions as a result of commitment and are ubiquitous in sport.
On sen radio on Monday a Perth lady said if he gets off mothers will run away from the game 👋 bye
Well the right decision was reached in the end by the tribunal and is confirmed by the AFL not wanting to appeal. Right now by the laws of the game, this is the correct decision. Next year could be a different story. I agree that the head should be protected but you will NEVER EVER be able to eradicate accidental head contact. I do not want to see players having to don helmets and padding. This is a tough and unique game. Let's not ruin it!!
Does it matter what context it's in? He's off the ground and makes contact to Bradshaw's head. Simple. 2-3 weeks. The Lynch one is very different, so it's unfair to compare.
The tribunal or the MRO or whatever it is a laughing stock and has been for at least 20 years.
Pendlebury kicking it, im sure he would have at least tried to avoid head contact and shown a duty of care to the opponent. Which is what it comes down to these days.
Holden barina 2006 manual
If it was the other way around Collingwood would be out for blood
shoulder into Brayshaws head. NBA players are able to run at a jump shooter, jump to contest the shot and contort their body in mid air to avoid contact and subsequently avoid
Businesses and managers are obliged to take proactive measures to prevent workplace injuries since they have a legal duty of care for their employees.