The Roar
The Roar

Pravin Manivannan

Roar Rookie

Joined August 2022

81.2k

Views

22

Published

2.1k

Comments

Published

Comments

Tribunal also found that Maynard did not actually ‘brace’ – in the terms of making a conscious decision to protect himself at the expense of Brayshaw’s safety – but as a result of making a legal attempt on a free ball, then found himself in a position with no time to make any sort of conscious decision at all and rather just had an involuntary human reaction to ‘flinch’ and tense up. Adding to why they decided the shoulder to head impact was not Maynard’s culpability.
Also just for everyone trying to distinguish why impact here is acceptable when accidental but not in actions like a bump, it’s because of intention. In a bump or tackle, you fully intended and made a conscious choice to make some contact with the other player so now it is on you to make sure the contact is legal and doesn’t collect the head.
Smothers, spoils (without swinging arms), high marks, ground ball contests, bouncing ball contests etc. are not in the same vein as the intention of players in that scenario is to play the ball and any contact with a player is not intended in the first place, so a player’s ability to reasonably deduce ahead of time what contact may be made and where and how isn’t at anywhere close to the same level as the other actions.

COMMENT: The Tribunal are right - Brayden Maynard's act wasn't illegal... but from now on, it should be

I’m fully aware that Cripps was initially cited and suspended for his actions, I was merely questioning whether the subsequent overturning on procedural standpoints would’ve occurred if let’s say the roles had been reversed between Ah Chee and Cripps? How much did Cripps’ status as a front runner for the Brownlow incentivise the AFL to bring up something so irrelevant in order to supercede what everyone including themselves admitted was an aggregious action?

And I agree that the issue stems around the punishment procedures and how open to interpretation the system currently is, and how it’s all down to one man’s interpretation; but that’s part of the AFL and what they’ve done regarding the issue not separate from the AFL. They’re the ones who have created the entire system and certain positions and limitations around punishments.

Why isn’t there a separate standard for non-football acts? Why hasn’t the AFL made that delineation and tried to stamp out such acts with larger deterrents, personally I think non-football acts that make contact with a players head and carry the risk of injury should start at 4 weeks and go up from there by how severe the action was and how high the risk of injury was. But regardless of my solution, why has the AFL who every year grandstand about doing something serious, simply not done anything? Where is the equal treatment of players, and the severe treatment of non-football acts that endanger a players health and safety irresponsibly?

There can be no doubt: Round 1 proves the AFL is simply not serious about player safety

Lots of talk in the aftermath is no doubt going to mention the overturned suspension. With that aside however, Cripps’ personal season was powerful, impactful and nearly got a Carlton that only had 8 wins last year into the finals. Well deserved overall for a player who has persevered through many seasons of mediocrity – to put it kindly – and has established himself as an absolute star regardless.

'Don't know whether to laugh or cry': Cruel irony as Cripps claims Brownlow thanks to Blues' worst nightmare

close