Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[Visions]

Brayshaw being possibly concussed by Adams prior to the Maynard smother incident is just speculation. He showed no signs of having been concussed or impaired, and wasn’t assessed for a concussion at the time. I don’t see how it can be relied upon in any way in Maynard’s defence.

Therein lies the defence that can be used. Brayshaw wasn't assessed for concussion at the time so how does one know he wasn't impaired? From the vision, it is evident he copped a knock to the head. That in itself should have led to some sort of doctors check. There is also the part where for a split second Brayshaw looks to wobble once he is up on his feet (at least that's what it looks like to me).

If they have neglected to check on him after a head knock, then thats a real worry, especially for someone with his history. While he may have been ok, it does leave an element of doubt and that is all that may be needed to help with Maynards case as it might be argued he shouldn't have been on the ground in the first place.

 

[Kirby]

Yep. It will become like the bump, you can still do do it but be prepared to cop a ban if you hit someone high.

Wow.

Do you still have a dummy in your mouth?

Unreal.

 

[Kirby]

Logic? Reason knowledge of the game.

It;s was it reasonable and was the result foreseeable is the whole nub of the issue.

Is that English?

 

[FromTheBoundaryLine]

Player Watch - Brayden Maynard

Neither player has a duty. Both are engaging in legal football acts, that occur 1000s of times and no resonable person expects the other to be concussed. If Maynard get suspended then marking contests are next. Ditto McKay… Not true mate. The reality is that every player has a duty of care to...

www.bigfooty.com

Thanks for your analysis and for detailing the tribunal guidelines. I think the AFL will go with Forceful Front On Contact rather than Rough Conduct under the Classifiable Type though which would make easier to argue that Bruz could possibly have foreseen forceful front on contact as a consequence of his actions and was therefor careless.
Interestingly the Classifiable Type was not detailed on the AFL website‘s summary of the charge.

 

[Bianconeri]

Wow.

Do you still have a dummy in your mouth?

Unreal.

Do you think the people that referred this to the tribunal have dummies in their mouth?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Therein lies the defence that can be used. Brayshaw wasn't assessed for concussion at the time so how does one know he wasn't impaired?

How do we know he wasn’t influenced by invisible rays from the dark side of the moon?

If that’s our defense, we’re ****ed. It’s baseless speculation.

Our defense should simply be that Maynard was contesting the ball and in a reasonable manner, and that he couldn’t not have reasonably foreseen the collision. A lot happened while he was powerless in mid-air to cause the contact.

 

[sr36]

Turkish oil wrestling. You know it's right.

It's an interesting ottoman fact that what is referred to as wrestling in Turkey is known as sodomy in a lot of other countries.

 

[Ctracks]

How the F did he get the free for high contact when he’s taken out the legs of Adams. No one tackled him. He went head first into Adams legs. Taylor Adams should have received the free and been having a shot on goal.

I’m thinking the umpire has seen Brayshaw on/low to the ground moving towards the loose ball. Adams has clumsily let the ball pass across him and ran into Brayshaw.

 

[12kilos]

Hi everyone, just my thoughts on Maynard.
With the latest developments I am quietly confident our boy will get off why?
Obviously they are not all on the same page in AFL hq.
Christian wanted to let him go. they new afl lady forgot her name overuled him
In the tribunal we are going to have 3 ex afl players.
Most ex afl player commentators are saying he shouldn't get suspended.
Stay tuned!

 

[sr36]

Yep. It will become like the bump, you can still do do it but be prepared to cop a ban if you hit someone high.

The Bruzzy rule. How are you going to word it: If you elect to smother and knock someone out it's automatically treated as careless? It will be applied once every three decades.

 

[Kirby]

Do you think the people that referred this to the tribunal have dummies in their mouth?

No, just you.

I know why they have done it.

 

[Bianconeri]

The Bruzzy rule. How are you going to word it: If you choose to smother and knock someone out it's automatically treated as careless? It will be applied once every three decades.

If that’s what you believe why are you vehemently arguing against it?

 

[Bianconeri]

No, just you.

I know why they have done it.

I’ve explained my reasoning. If you don’t know why I have this position that’s on you.

 

[swoop42]

Don’t want to blow smoke up your arse but what rub are you using

Dry rub or marinade?

Out of respect to Maynard I'm thinking a marinade of liniment oil followed by a generous sprinkling of smelling salts in the hope I can form a nice crust on the bum cheeks.

 

[Kirby]

I’ve explained my reasoning. If you don’t know why I have this position that’s on you.

Your reasoning is at best hard to follow and at worst illogical.

I’m gathering that you are saying that Maynard should never have launched for the smother as he should have thought that he might land on Brayshaw and injure him?

 

[sr36]

If that’s what you believe why are you vehemently arguing against it?

I'm not vehemently arguing against it. I just think it's ridiculous that you think there's going to be a separate rule for dangerous smothers. Or maybe you'd make it dangerous jumping?

What is your rule change that targets this going to look like? Give us an example rule.

 

[Visions]

How do we know he wasn’t influenced by invisible rays from the dark side of the moon?

If that’s our defense, we’re ****ed. It’s baseless speculation.

Our defense should simply be that Maynard was contesting the ball and in a reasonable manner, and that he couldn’t not have reasonably foreseen the collision. A lot happened while he was powerless in mid-air to cause the contact.

I'm not saying that it should be the absolute defence, but a part of the whole. Hell, its not even the incident itself so would be ludicrous to solely focus on it.

But brigning it up as an element of doubt installed in the full argument gives the presiding decision makers another thing to think about when coming up with a verdict.

 

[sr36]

I'm not saying that it should be the absolute defence, but a part of the whole. Hell, its not even the incident itself so would be ludicrous to solely focus on it.

But brigning it up as an element of doubt installed in the full argument gives the presiding decision makers another thing to think about when coming up with a verdict.

If you got charged with culpable driving, would you use the pre-existing health of the victim as part of the defence?

 

[sam_e]

Thanks for your analysis and for detailing the tribunal guidelines. I think the AFL will go with Forceful Front On Contact rather than Rough Conduct under the Classifiable Type though which would make easier to argue that Bruz could possibly have foreseen forceful front on contact as a consequence of his actions and was therefor careless.
Interestingly the Classifiable Type was not detailed on the AFL website‘s summary of the charge.

Not so sure

-he jumps at the ball not the man
-wonder if there’s any evidence of him making even slight contact with the ball
-when Maynard jumps & leaves the ground he is (quite) some distance (x metres) from Brayshaw
-this is evidenced by the two colliding once Maynard is on the way down again ie. he’s certainly not at the start of his jump arc, is past the peak point of his arc and is coming down and nearly when he’s touching the ground again
-all this to say, there’s way less likelihood that he could reasonably foresee that he’d land on Brayshaw
-there’s also behind the goals footage which (I think) shows Maynard’s path, at point of jump and mid-air, is not central but skewed towards Brayshaw’s right leg and maybe slightly further - subject to camera angles - (which makes sense cos that’s Brayshaw’s kicking leg)
-unfortunately for Brayshaw and further mitigating Maynard’s inability to foresee the collision, Brayshaw veers slightly to his right and onto an oncoming Maynard, just as he looks up and before point of impact
-think it’s also relevant that whilst Maynard turns his shoulder slightly to brace, he doesn’t coil or stiffen to impart maximum force
-in fact, his body shape seems to absorb some of Brayshaw’s force.

For mine:
-reasonable ‘prudent’ football act in the circumstance
-targeted at the ball as his main point of focus which dictates & necessitates that he leaves the ground
-jumps some distance away from the oncoming player, is in mid-air for some time, which negates his ability to reasonably foresee a collision
-even so, he does whatever is reasonably possible given gravity, biomechanics and Brayshaw’s slight change of direction, to avoid (or at least not worsen) the impact

 

[Visions]

If you got charged with culpable driving, would you use the pre-existing health of the victim as part of the defence?

It wouldn't matter if you tried, nor would it matter in Maynard's case either if he caused the death of Brayshaw through a reckless or negligent act while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Fortunately he didn't and its a different set of circumstances.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

King and Cornes assess Maynard-Brayshaw incident

How will it all play out?

www.sen.com.au

I'm sincerely hoping this is why the AFL were so keen to send this to the Tribunal.. to clear up as much grey area as possible for incidents when contact is made in a football act.

And mostly I'm hoping it goes in Maynard's favour

 

[Kappa]

Therein lies the defence that can be used. Brayshaw wasn't assessed for concussion at the time so how does one know he wasn't impaired? From the vision, it is evident he copped a knock to the head. That in itself should have led to some sort of doctors check. There is also the part where for a split second Brayshaw looks to wobble once he is up on his feet (at least that's what it looks like to me).

If they have neglected to check on him after a head knock, then thats a real worry, especially for someone with his history. While he may have been ok, it does leave an element of doubt and that is all that may be needed to help with Maynards case as it might be argued he shouldn't have been on the ground in the first place.

"he shouldnt have been on the ground in the first place" is no defence to Maynard hitting him in the head...

 

[jmac70]

My wife thinks Maynard will get off and she’s always right.

 

[Hugg]

My wife thinks Maynard will get off and she’s always right.

Hope so

 

[Doc1763]

My wife thinks Maynard will get off and she’s always right.

She must be related to my missus.