Player Watch Brayden Maynard

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
sideswipe said:
The appeals process at that time had the appeal as a re-hearing of the case - a hearing de novo. These days the appeal is a true “appeal” in that the appellant needs to prive an error of law, no reasonable jury could come to the decision etc.

This is intended to take further action off the table.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Thanks that makes it more clear, can Collingwood opt to bypass the tribunal and go straight to court in this case.

Clearly bias given the new AFL boss has overruled the initial decision of the MRO.
 
sideswipe said:
Taking the impact from severe to high still takes Bruz out of the GF.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd probably aim for medium impact.

I honestly didn't think there was much in it at all, but given you state that we can't use medical history (which seems stupid in cases where medical history plays a part to prove lack of severity of impact leading to injury but I digress) it muddies the waters.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sideswipe said:
Maybe argue reverse bias? Kane and the General Counsel are both Pies supporters!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Play footage of the commentary Box who all agreed he had no other option and no case to answer except for BT who is a ex pies player with an axe to grind.
Bring them in as expert witnesses.
 
OEP MKII said:
How about they just play the footage of Cripps knocking out a player last year doing something similar, and the fact he played the next week.
Click to expand...

We need a thread to put all the posts saying Cripps bump on Ah Chee is in any way helpful to Maynard.

It was overturned on appeal because of an error in law. Nothing to do with Cripps’ action being ticked off as ok.
 
Pie eyed said:
If Maynard is suspended we should pickett AFL house.
Click to expand...

Pickett would have gotten off based on his heat-seeking missile hit being green-lit.
 
Kes1984 said:
Disciplinary action for this against Maynard then surely opens a massive can of worms that would see any and all incidents of concussions up on charges. That would mean a teammate causing concussion like Gary Rohan on Jeremy Cameron, or marking contests where a knee goes into the head of a player and causes a concussion.

It will be a sad day for our sport.
Click to expand...

This is right in my view. If we don't put a stop to this, then teammates could be suspended for causing concussion of another team mate. Also agree on the marking contest bit.
 
Was it careless of Maynard to try and smother the ball?
No. That’s what defenders are supposed to do.

Was it careless of Maynard to brace for impact?
No. He was caring for his own safety whilst trying to ensure his head or elbow did not smash into Brayshaw.

Once airborne, could Maynard have avoided contact?
No. He does not have wings or a propeller.

Will Maynard be suspended?
Who the hell knows, anything could happen!
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Has the MRO +/- cronies decided to split Maynard’s action in two?

If you look at the entire action, then when faced with the questions;

Was he contesting the ball? -> Clearly yes.
Was it reasonable for him to contest the ball in this way? -> Also clearly yes, it was a textbook attempted smother from range, making the ball his sole objective, jumping and reaching to maximum height just as the AFL would like to showcase “finals level desperation” to overseas viewers and sponsors.

So on that basis, no case to answer.

However in sending Maynard to the tribunal, they’re splitting the action in two.

“Okay, so the ball’s past you and you’re in mid-air, flying forward. You’re no longer contesting the ball, and you’re about to have a collision with another player. Why did you do what you did?”

Has anyone ever been suspended for an action which began when a player was airborne, i.e. the decision to make contact could not have been made before leaving the ground?

Furthermore, if split into two actions and the ball is now out of the area, why is Brayshaw’s responsibility in avoiding contact any less than Maynard’s? There isn’t a player in possession any more in this hypothetical scenario the AFL seems to be cooking up, and Brayshaw is the only one with feet on the ground, able to change direction.
Click to expand...
Foreseeable at point of take-off and, if so, reasonable care to avoid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jmac70 said:
Was it careless of Maynard to try and smother the ball?
No. That’s what defenders are supposed to do.

Was it careless of Maynard to brace for impact?
No. He was caring for his own safety whilst trying to ensure his head or elbow did not smash into Brayshaw.

Once airborne, could Maynard have avoided contact?
No. He does not have wings or a propeller.

Will Maynard be suspended?
Who the hell knows, anything could happen!
Click to expand...
This should be the cornerstone of the defence. A perfectly reasonable and justifiable footy act with no malice just unfortunate unintended consequences. It’s a contact sport and occasionally bad outcomes occur purely through normal play. Unavoidable and unfortunate and Maynard should not be suspended for performing a regulation defensive action that resulted in an unavoidable collision
 
sam_e said:
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
Click to expand...
Here’s hoping👍
 
The more I look at the down the ground view, the more I think that all Maynard did was get his own head out of the way to the left. Otherwise it would have been a clash of heads.

This head movement to the left brought his right hip forward, but you can see from how his number 4 is completely visible throughout, he never turned his right shoulder towards Brayshaw. His shoulders were relatively square and he contacted him with the front of his shoulder rather than the point.
fe16433aaffdb1f29a9adfe0d0f910b6.png

7c2a15af614c3253afaf870ecf3f69e6.png

f7b833f5270298c3e802d94f7948cbbd.png

b61243400e17493938e1a9c3ed2f6d67.png
 
sam_e said:
Foreseeable at point of take-off and, if so, reasonable care to avoid.
Click to expand...
The law is “reasonably” forseeable.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
The more I look at the down the ground view, the more I think that all Maynard did was get his own head out of the way to the left. Otherwise it would have been a clash of heads.

This head movement to the left brought his right hip forward, but you can see from how his number 4 is completely visible throughout, he never turned his right shoulder towards Brayshaw. His shoulders were relatively square and he contacted him with the front of his shoulder rather than the point.
fe16433aaffdb1f29a9adfe0d0f910b6.png

7c2a15af614c3253afaf870ecf3f69e6.png

f7b833f5270298c3e802d94f7948cbbd.png

b61243400e17493938e1a9c3ed2f6d67.png
Click to expand...
The only one deviating off their line is Brayshaw who is sliding to his right.
 
eyeroller said:
It's freaking me out that Cornes isn't going against us on principle lol
Click to expand...

All the media talking heads are saying this shouldn’t be a suspension, it’s mainly the m opposition fans that are saying Bruz should be suspended (and it comes from the typical “Collingwood bad/Maynard grub thing)

I’ve also seen a really stupid theory that Christian didn’t want Bruz suspended becuase he was a former Pies player. So in that case, JDG, Beau and Tay wouldn’t have been suspended? Such a stupid theory, like if it was plausible I’d accept it but I get slightly annoyed when it’s blatantly untrue
 
Im having real issue w the narrative around this incident - regardless of the whether it is a suspendible act or not.
Listening to Caro et al this morning, it's as if it is impossible to have an accident - if a player is concussed, there must be a price to pay.
They brought up John Platten as if this justifies suspending Maynard (or all players who cause a concussion) - we all understand how terrible concussions are, but unless we make the sport non-contact, incidents will always occur.
I understand the anger and sadness the Brayshaws must be feeling - but a result doesn't always mean a guilty verdict -- see any of the court decision in which terrible events have occurred...but are deemed accidents - sometimes that the way it is.
It seems because Maynard was charging at Brayshaw (is he meant to wait?) getting ready to tackle him, then sees him kick, leaps in the air (I would guess a natural reaction to smother) then sees he will hit the oncoming player and braces himself (one of the other guys on the show stated that because he turned and hit him w his shoulder it must be suspended...is Maynard meant to remain body open to slam into oncoming player.)

Straight after discussing Maynard, they discuss Jack Martin, a guy who throws an intentional fist at another guy's head...and next story. No addressing the horror of violence in our society?

It just seems that all ability to work through an incident is impossible once a concussion is involved.
Not saying this is the case or not here - just that there is little ability to consider the possibility.
 
jimmy35 said:
The only one deviating off their line is Brayshaw who is sliding to his right.
Click to expand...

And that speaks to how “reasonably forseeable” the contact was before takeoff.

I’m here to set in concrete the narrative that Maynard was contesting the ball, and then in mid-air took measures only to avoid a head clash. Any rotation was the consequence of that head movement to the left. In mid-air, if you turn your head to the left, your body follows.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Brayden Maynard

Similar threads

WalterBlaknWhte
  • Locked
Game Day Collingwood v North, Sunday 1pm, Marvel: Maynard Lovefest
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
22K
Dead Eye Didak
Dead Eye Didak

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top