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]

It was a smother. There is no law against a smother.

There is a law against making late and high contact.

What is Maynard expected to do after elected to try to smother the ball?

He is expected to not make careless contact to the head in his attempts to smother the ball.

What did he do that is regarded as careless?

He jumped at high speed into the path of an oncoming player who is also moving at high speed.

 

[Mr Lizard]

What did he do that is regarded as careless?
What did he do to breach duty of care?

He knocked Brayshaw out.

 

[Roby]

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).

You really didn't address what I said. Have a look at what Sicily was cited for

 

[Roby]

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.

If it happened to their player, they'd be saying it was an accident.

 

[Roby]

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... Concusion was unfortunate

What Ziebell did was very different to Maynard.

I'm not sure how they think a shirtfront is the same as a smother.

 

[Maddo11]

If it happened to their player, they'd be saying it was an accident.

Like Sicilys dangerous tackle?

 

[Pistol Night]

Home grown

A man of the land. Respect

 

[Roby]

In 0.2 seconds after the hit he was able to put his hands out and reduce his impact with the ground.

That's why we should expect him to be able to do the same thing before the impact.

I already showed the vision he used his hands to brace

 

[10571z]

If Maynard jumped vertically and Brayshaw ran into him head on and was shirt fronted should Maynard be suspended?

 

[ClintEastwood]

EXACTLY. He did NOT have to shoulder his face. He just had to put his hands out to lessen the impact, but he chose his action.

He's 100% bloody guilty, and I for one hope he gets the full force of the tribunal.

He has ended Brayshaw's season, and going on reports, probably his career.

Kane Cornes and co. are sickening saying he's got no liability.

They're f****n delusional.

 

[btdg]

This is a weird one because the more I've heard the defence of Maynard and the more it gets talked about, the more convinced I am that he has to be suspended. There's a reason we have basically never seen an identical incident before this.

For all the nitpicking over 0.2 second reaction times, there's almost no discussion about what he was doing in the first place. He had no realistic chance of smothering the kick, was going utterly full pelt directly at an opponent, lept through the air and made high, late contact that has flattened the bloke, put him out for the year (likely) and possibly ended his career (small but possible chance).

This wasn't a football play, because footballers don't normally go flailing through the air like a madman directly at their opponent like this. Maynard was amped because of the final and crowd, went for a play that he normally wouldn't in a dangerous manner and took out his opponent. A suspension is warranted.

I don't know the exact grading but even Careless-High-High contact = 2 weeks, while Careless-High-Severe would be 2+

If Maynard jumped vertically and Brayshaw ran into him head on and was shirt fronted should Maynard be suspended?

But he didn't? As above, he ran at him full pelt, jumped at a ball he had basically zero chance of smothering, and made late, high contact.

Had Maynard jumped straight in the air rather than forwards, Brayshaw wouldn't have been hit and/or the momentum would have been less, and the damage and impact would have been negligible.

 

[Roby]

There is a law against making late and high contact.

So?

He is expected to not make careless contact to the head in his attempts to smother the ball.

Players like Brayshaw should have more awareness

He jumped at high speed into the path of an oncoming player who is also moving at high speed.

Maynard didn't jump in Brayshaw's path from the onset, Brayshaw kicked and went leaned to him just as much Maynard did.

Did you actually watch it again or do you just have the devil Maynard on replay in your head?

 

[Roby]

If Maynard jumped vertically and Brayshaw ran into him head on and was shirt fronted should Maynard be suspended?

Obviously

 

[10571z]

This is a weird one because the more I've heard the defence of Maynard and the more it gets talked about, the more convinced I am that he has to be suspended. There's a reason we have basically never seen an identical incident before this.

For all the nitpicking over 0.2 second reaction times, there's almost no discussion about what he was doing in the first place. He had no realistic chance of smothering the kick, was going utterly full pelt directly at an opponent, lept through the air and made high, late contact that has flattened the bloke, put him out for the year (likely) and possibly ended his career (small but possible chance).




But he didn't? As above, he ran at him full pelt, jumped at a ball he had basically zero chance of smothering, and made late, high contact.

Had Maynard jumped straight in the air rather than forwards, Brayshaw wouldn't have been hit and/or the momentum would have been less, and the damage and impact would have been negligible.

How did he have zero chance to smoother? He nearly touched the ball

 

[Fabab]

Hoping Brayshaw makes a good recovery.
When do the tribunal sit?

 

[Pistol Night]

How did he have zero chance to smoother? He nearly touched the ball

Thats where we've got to now.

 

[10571z]

Obviously

Is it? Why?

Maynard still left the ground and Brayshaw KOed

 

[hawkman]

Hoping Brayshaw makes a good recovery.
When do the tribunal sit?

4pm tomorrow

 

[btdg]

How did he have zero chance to smoother? He nearly touched the ball

Nearly... while going at a crazy pace and in a dangerous manner = zero chance in a 'normal' football action. He was perhaps 10m off Brayshaw when he jumped and at the wrong angle. TBH if he was going to touch the ball his angle should have been more across the ground anyway.

 

[Maddo11]

If Maynard jumped vertically and Brayshaw ran into him head on and was shirt fronted should Maynard be suspended?

I'd say probably not, because that's a reasonable way to contest a ball

His choice to jump, coupled with his forward momentum and instinct to tuck up is the problem. Turns himself into a cannonball.

Hoping Brayshaw makes a good recovery.
When do the tribunal sit?

4pm tomorrow

 

[Pistol Night]

Nearly... while going at a crazy pace and in a dangerous manner = zero chance in a 'normal' football action.

So "normal" is make a half arsed attempt to smother so the coach at least thinks you're trying

 

[Pistol Night]

I'd say probably not, because that's a reasonable way to contest a ball

His choice to jump, coupled with his forward momentum and instinct to tuck up is the problem. Turns himself into a cannonball.

4pm tomorrow

 

[hawkman]

So "normal" is make a half arsed attempt to smother so the coach at least thinks you're trying

Normal would be to make an attempt to smother that doesn’t cost a downfield free

 

[btdg]

So "normal" is make a half arsed attempt to smother so the coach at least thinks you're trying

Yeah, sort of.

I actually think 'normal' in this instance means running less directly at Brayshaw and more 'diagonally' anyway. The ball was pretty clearly going past, so for a defender coming off the back of the square in that spot, surely the play is to rush the kick, but also stay in the contest. That kick is goign straight down the guts and if there is a defensive punch, Maynard needs to be able to contest against Brayshaw, which means not letting him go past (ie: stay on your feet and go with him).

One possible interpretatino is that Maynard made the choice to continue straight at Brayshaw to deliberately initiate contact, preventing Brayshaw from running past. That's sort of how the umpire called it too, paying a down-field free kick for late, high contact

I actually don't think it was intentional - my read at the time was always that Maynard was desperately trying to smother, really just a rush of blood in a big spot, and he jumped rather than make the 'normal' play in that mindset.

But again, running full pelt at the ball carrier and launching yourself at them is an unusual thing to do, one Brayshaw probably wasn't exepcting, and was the direct cause of the collision. Hence: Careless - High - High = 2 weeks.

 

[BEEG]

Brawshaw family pushing for a suspension and now getting Danny Frawley mentions.

That's all fine by the way, I hope the AFL don't take any of this into consideration when coming up with a decision.