Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

[Corn Cobbers]

THE AFL has opted against appealing the Tribunal's decision in the Brayden Maynard case, meaning the Collingwood defender is in the clear to play in the Magpies' preliminary final.

AFL ponders rule change after Maynard Tribunal call

The Brayden Maynard saga is officially over after the AFL opted not to appeal the Tribunal's decision

www.afl.com.au

The AFL, having brought the charge against Maynard, said on Wednesday that it would not challenge the Tribunal's ruling, but would comment further later in the day.

"The AFL has confirmed that after careful consideration and review of the Tribunal's decision and reasons following last night's hearing into the incident involving Collingwood's Brayden Maynard and Melbourne's Angus Brayshaw, the AFL has decided not to appeal the Tribunal's decision," a statement read.

"Per the Tribunal Guidelines the AFL had to make this decision by 12:00pm AEST today.

"The AFL will release a further statement later today."

Finally some sanity

 

[Soggy2112]

The tackling is a poor example. Just have a look at that Sicily got three weeks for

It demonstrates the point that players in possession of the ball are free to legally dispose of the ball in what they feel is the most advantageous position. They are not obligated to protect themselves in doing so.

The player attempting to get the ball off them is obligated to avoid head contact, whether they be bumping, tackling or smothering.

I understand people suggesting that this is more like a marking contest, where players are free to jump at the ball, however I disagree.

Ultimately though, the tribunal needs to decide if this is in the same category as a tackle or bump (in which case it’s careless and he’s gone), or if it fits into the same category as a mark or a spoil (in which case he’s free to play).

 

[Spectore]

Brayshaw is running towards the goals with the ball, as is to be expected. Although he slightly deviates from a straight line this is very minimal and part of a natural kicking action. Maynard chooses to jump into his path, and then cleans him up.

Obviously his intent was to smother the ball, however he is still the one who causes the contact to occur. I struggle to see how choosing to jump at full speed in the direction of an oncoming player is not a careless act.

What the tribunal needs to decide is how do they view this sort of “contest”. If this were a marking contest then Maynard is of course free to run and jump at the ball to win it, and if he hits someone on the way through then so be it.

However in this instance Brayshaw has possession of the ball and is legally disposing of it, I think Maynard does have the responsibility to not hit him in the head in his attempts to win it back.

I understand the argument that once he was in the air there wasn’t a lot he could do (I’d argue he potentially could have put his hands out and shoved him, but I also accept that this was a protective, and not aggressive movement), however Maynard is the one who chooses to put himself in that position in the first place. Remember, the question isn’t was it intentional, it’s was is careless. I definitely think it was.

Careless conduct, head high contact made, player is concussed. Has to be 1-2 weeks.

I don't think Brayshaw's deviation being part of a natural kicking action is relevant, as there is no suggestion of Brayshaw doing anything wrong. I agree the deviation is not substantial; however, without it I don't believe Maynard would have made contact with Brayshaw's head. You suggest Maynard chooses to jump into his path, but it should be noted that Brayshaw's deviation occurs after Maynard leaves the ground.

 

[Soggy2112]

No thats not what i am saying. He did not choose to bump he chose to smother.
So should you be suspended if you accidently knock out your own team mate? And if no then why not? It's just an accident with an outcome.
Do you believe there is no accidents no more?

I’m saying that Maynard initiated the contact. Brayshaw was legally disposing of the ball when Maynard jumped into him.

The tribunal needs to decide whether this fits into the same category as a marking contest/ball in dispute, or if it belongs in the same category as a bump or tackle on a player with the ball.

Personally I think the latter, in which case it’s careless and a suspension.

 

[demondavey]

I reckon there's people here that would still struggle

Look out. Tough guy mouthing off on BF.

 

[Maddo11]

I’m saying that Maynard initiated the contact. Brayshaw was legally disposing of the ball when Maynard jumped into him.

The tribunal needs to decide whether this fits into the same category as a marking contest/ball in dispute, or if it belongs in the same category as a bump or tackle on a player with the ball.

Personally I think the latter, in which case it’s careless and a suspension.

yep seems a fair assessment

 

[VicBased]

I think some of you are being far too generous with what you think Maynard can compute in 0.2 seconds

He can't, his mind was made up from. The get go

 

[Elixuh]

I wanted to blame Lachie Neale for all of this. Falling over in tackles and holding his head trying to get blokes rubbed out. Now when a bloke actually gets properly injured people are siding with the perpetrator.

 

[Outtatym]

Apologies if this has been posted in the other 100 pages but this was 2 weeks (3 for a poor record) 10 years ago.

1-2 seems fair to me for Maynard

 

[VicBased]

Perfection is hard to come by, because that is what you are demanding. No more missed goals, no more missed targets, no more dropped marks, perfection. Get your timing right, no mistakes or pay the penalty.
That is just not reality and accidents occur and they should be treated as such.

That's a long bow your drawing GWS . You can't lump all that into one category . Accidents and perfection are not hand in hand.

 

[Pistol Night]

He can't, his mind was made up from. The get go

So he thought "Ill pretend im going to smother this kick but really i want to iron out one of my better mates playing for the opposition so i miss the rest of the year?"

 

[zhoung]

he is allowed to jump and smother, but not in a reckless/careless manner it is really that simple. If it wasn't uncommon then you'd have people knocked out every game. Trying to smother does not remove your duty of care.

Contact was unavoidable, the type of contact was up to Maynard. He could have taken the Mitch Duncan approach, instead, he drove his shoulder into his face. pretty simple.

the fact the original assessment from Christian was no case to answer tells me he needs to be sacked at the end of the year.

What a load of horse shit, you’re allowed to mark, spoil or smother.
What happens afterwards is incidental it’s a contact sport and contact is inevitable.
If it’s legal to jump and to smother then it’s legal to do both, it’s a legitimate football act.

FWIW I seriously wonder about all the flogs banging on in this thread if they have carefully considered their contributions to this thread. Be careful what you wish for because it undermines what little is left of remaining fabric of the game.

People that love footy don’t post the dribble that’s been posted and posted rehashed and regurgitated here.

 

[sr36]

Ultimately though, the tribunal needs to decide if this is in the same category as a tackle or bump (in which case it’s careless and he’s gone), or if it fits into the same category as a mark or a spoil (in which case he’s free to play).

Where it differs is a sling tackle and bump you are intending the contact. If you intend the contact, you've got to make sure it doesn't involve the head.

 

[Maddo11]

Apologies if this has been posted in the other 100 pages but this was 2 weeks (3 for a poor record) 10 years ago.

1-2 seems fair to me for Maynard

Pretty similar except Maynard jumps before the kick and Ziebell jumps after. Good point of comparison though

 

[VicBased]

No thats not what i am saying. He did not choose to bump he chose to smother.
So should you be suspended if you accidently knock out your own team mate? And if no then why not? It's just an accident with an outcome.
Do you believe there is no accidents no more?

We do not know what he chose . Have you mind melded with Maynard?.His intention might have been to bump the whole time.

 

[Pistol Night]

We do not know what he chose . Have you mind melded with Maynard?

Far out you'd be doing some heavy lifting if you did

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

What a load of horse s**t, you’re allowed to mark, spoil or smother.
What happens afterwards is incidental it’s a contact sport and contact is inevitable.
If it’s legal to jump and to smother then it’s legal to do both, it’s a legitimate football act.

FWIW I seriously wonder about all the flogs banging on in this thread if they have carefully considered their contributions to this thread. Be careful what you wish for because it undermines what little is left of remaining fabric of the game.

People that love footy don’t post the dribble that’s been posted and posted rehashed and regurgitated here.

Not exactly contributing lots yourself with this.

 

[demondavey]

lol it's still Brayshaw's fault, he didn't protect himself enough.

Roby gonna Roby.

You can see here that he does react and extend his arm to protect himself. I think he even possibly makes the first contact with his hand.



He doesn't get as much reaction time as Drop Bear Maynard though.

Brayshaw definitely pushes his arms out to try and protect himself. This shot is actually worse for Maynard. He ran forwards, left the ground, tucked himself together and bang. That’s a shirtfront every day of the week.

 

[Go the Guts]

Apologies if this has been posted in the other 100 pages but this was 2 weeks (3 for a poor record) 10 years ago.

1-2 seems fair to me for Maynard

2 weeks 10 years ago = more weeks now. (ie 3 to 4)
AFL is supposedly FAR heavier on penalties around head contact now.

 

[demondavey]

What a load of horse s**t, you’re allowed to mark, spoil or smother.
What happens afterwards is incidental it’s a contact sport and contact is inevitable.
If it’s legal to jump and to smother then it’s legal to do both, it’s a legitimate football act.

FWIW I seriously wonder about all the flogs banging on in this thread if they have carefully considered their contributions to this thread. Be careful what you wish for because it undermines what little is left of remaining fabric of the game.

People that love footy don’t post the dribble that’s been posted and posted rehashed and regurgitated here.

Well no, it’s not incidental, it’s actually really important.

 

[zhoung]

Not exactly contributing lots yourself with this.

& you derp?

 

[Stealth69]

Apologies if this has been posted in the other 100 pages but this was 2 weeks (3 for a poor record) 10 years ago.

1-2 seems fair to me for Maynard

Wasn't really a smother attempt, 90% a bump
Different executions

Maynard 100% went the smother then braced for contact

A more similar scenario is...

Dangerfield went the "ball punch" then the elbow

He got off as he was allowed to "protect himself"

Maynard should get off, else a can of worms scenario

If I'm going for a mark then notice incoming traffic from front on, am I allowed to brace myself for contact to protect myself? Marking action is legit, sheppard action is legit... They are both an allowed football act and so is the ability to protect oneself in the same motion/play, ie the act to brace for contact as part of the play

It was a free at best... Concussion was unfortunate

 

[sherb]

What happens afterwards is incidental it’s a contact sport and contact is inevitable.
If it’s legal to jump and to smother then it’s legal to do both, it’s a legitimate football act.

FWIW I seriously wonder about all the flogs banging on in this thread if they have carefully considered their contributions to this thread. Be careful what you wish for because it undermines what little is left of remaining fabric of the game.

People that love footy don’t post the dribble that’s been posted and posted rehashed and regurgitated here.

Of course it's legal to jump & smother. What isn't legal is hitting your opponent high and late as a result of those actions.

Or did you miss the free kick downfield?

 

[demondavey]

Wasn't really a smother attempt, 90% a bump

Different executions


Maynard 100% went the smother then braced for contact


A more similar scenario is...

Dangerfield went the "ball punch" then the elbow

He got off as he was allowed to "protect himself"

Very good post.

We haven’t even covered that yet.

You sir, are a smart man.

 

[demondavey]

 

[VicBased]

So he thought "Ill pretend im going to smother this kick but really i want to iron out one of my better mates playing for the opposition so i miss the rest of the year?"

Ask yourself how long has Maynard been playing as a professional footballer?
Now tell me he can't judge distance and timing and what the outcomes will be when he goes full frontal on a player with his head down kicking a ball.
An ultimate brain fade and stupid.