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

 

[Spectore]

Careless, high impact, high contact = two matches.

View attachment 1796531

That's the best case you can make for him.

The fact that Brayshaw was KOd means you could argue for severe impact.

 

[quotemokc]

The way I see it is that a kicker is defenceless during their kicking action therefore Maynard has a duty of care.

Have never seen a player attempt a front on smother in what way. Maynard has gone the man and done a good job disguising it but the bracing action has done him in.

 

[Mattttty]

View attachment 1796813

Maynard is one of my least favourite players. But I'm not sure it'll be seen as rough conduct. Agree that if it is, your logic holds in terms of the categories listed. But (without having rewatched it) it seemed to me he went for the ball, then realised he was going to make unavoidable contact and then braced. Again, he's one of my least favourite players - I think he plays dirty and I don't see him as an honourable opponent. But I would not be surprised if he's cleared. We'll see!

 

[Spectore]

Maynard is one of my least favourite players. But I'm not sure it'll be seen as rough conduct. Agree that if it is, your logic holds in terms of the categories listed. But (without having rewatched it) it seemed to me he went for the ball, then realised he was going to make unavoidable contact and then braced. Again, he's one of my least favourite players - I think he plays dirty and I don't see him as an honourable opponent. But I would not be surprised if he's cleared. We'll see!

I'm arguing the same as you. I think you meant to reply to the post I quoted.

 

[perplexed]

Very similar to the Duncan hit on Hall a few years ago. He got off. He shouldn't have.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

View attachment 1796813

The attempted smother is a red herring here. You are just simply not allowed to make any forceful contact after a player has disposed of the ball. So he is already outside the laws of the game before you even consider he struck Brayshaw high and concussed him. You are entitled to try to smother, but not that way. If he made forceful contact but missed the head it is a free downfield. If he gets the head but Brayshaw carries on playing without discomfort then it might be careless conduct, high contact and either low, medium or high impact, meaning a fine, 1 or 2 weeks. But the severe impact to the head and not taking any steps whatsoever to avoid or reduce impact, he should be gonzo here.

The other thing of interest here is a former Collingwood player is the MRO. So Christian should be absent from this process and another suitable person conduct the investigation and make any decisions in Christian's place. That won't happen of course because in the AFL world, we just pretend conflicts of interest do not exist.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Very similar to the Duncan hit on Hall a few years ago. He got off. He shouldn't have.

That is correct. I think there was one Jamaine Jones on Marlion Pickett as well, also not cited. Both of those decisions were wrong imo, but it must be said those precedents do favour Maynard. The only thing is they cannot be relied upon because they did not occur this season - another unsatisfactory issue with the Tribunal and MRO rules imo.

 

[Plugger35]

No problem with someone jumping up and trying to smother but Maynard turned his shoulder to collect Brayshaw in the head.

He was trying to be a tough campaigner but he was a reckless campaigner and a reckless campaigner should cop weeks, simple as that.

No doubt he will get off though, Eddie and his media mates will go into overdrive to get him off, just an unfortunate accident your honour.

He knew what he was doing, it was a smother with an intent to injure.

 

[Plugger35]

If what Maynard did was OK why was Viney going after him? He knew it was a cheap shot and it was a cheap shot.

Just a pity Jack's old man Todd Viney and Rod Grinter weren't out there to hand out some natural justice to Maynard old school VFL style.

 

[Number37]

Player attempts to make a play on the ball and in the process accidentally takes out opposition player.
Oldest trick in the book.
Happens a hundred times a game.
Only problem for Maynard is that he makes direct contact with Brayshaw's head. As a direct result of that contact Brayshaw is concussed and takes no further part in the game.
That's 4-6 weeks minimum.

 

[Fadge]

I love how everyone is saying he should get weeks but he won't because Collingwood/Eddie/victory bias.

When have the tribunal ever done Collingwood any favours in finals?

He'll get off simply because there was nothing in it due to it being an accidental in-play incident.

If Maynard goes for this, Cripps should still be suspended for his hit in round 21 last year.

 

[hawkman]

I love how everyone is saying he should get weeks but he won't because Collingwood/Eddie/victory bias.

When have the tribunal ever done Collingwood any favours in finals?

He'll get off simply because there was nothing in it due to it being an accidental in-play incident.

If Maynard goes for this, Cripps should still be suspended for his hit in round 21 last year.

Cripps would have but he got off on a technicality which was closed at the end of last season. The same incident would have been suspended if it was this year

 

[OnTheRocks]

If Maynard plays again in 2023 then the AFL are not serious about head injuries.

People arguing that the fact he was in midair reduces culpability is an absolute joke. He put himself in that position and he 'braces' for contact which is the EXACT same action as a bump.

If the AFL want to set a precedent that being in midair allows you to take a bloke out in the name of protecting yourself ( NOTE: Player in midair is NOT the vulnerable player in that instance) then all we will see is players exploiting that to jump off the ground and turn themselves into a torpedo.

The fact he had time to make the decision in midair is easily enough to argue he had options. He chose to protect himself but crucially did NOT protect the other player to whom he owes a duty of care.

This was not 2 people coming from an equal position with equal velocity.

The game is in serious trouble when people think this shite take ^^^ is how it should be.

 

[amazingjoshy]

I think he'll get off because it was a "footy act" which I do agree with and don't think it was at all intentional

Just not sure how players that have been suspended all year for tackles weren't considered "footy acts" also

 

[Fadge]

Here's how it goes...

He gets cited by the MRO because 'think of the children'...

He either gets off at the tribunal (most likely), or worst case on appeal.

Will sell a few papers and he'll be there on Preliminary Final day.

 

[Jibroni]

Here's how it goes...

He gets cited by the MRO because 'think of the children'...

He either gets off at the tribunal (most likely), or worst case on appeal.

Will sell a few papers and he'll be there on Preliminary Final day.

I agree the MRO is fubared but if Toby Bedford gets a week for his action how the hell do you expect Maynard to get off for this?

I'm sure if Steven May did the same thing to Pendlebury your opinion would be the same?

 

[Fadge]

I agree the MRO is fubared but if Toby Bedford gets a week for his action how the hell do you expect Maynard to get off for this?

I'm sure if Steven May did the same thing to Pendlebury your opinion would be the same?

I think you'll find based on prior posts about prior incidents, I'm one of the few people on BigFooty who can assess incidents without wearing their team's rose coloured glasses.

 

[Number37]

I love how everyone is saying he should get weeks but he won't because Collingwood/Eddie/victory bias.

When have the tribunal ever done Collingwood any favours in finals?

He'll get off simply because there was nothing in it due to it being an accidental in-play incident.

If Maynard goes for this, Cripps should still be suspended for his hit in round 21 last year.

What could he have done differently to avoid Brayshaw getting concussed?
If the answer is nothing, then it is an accidental in-play incident.
Otherwise, he has a duty of care to do something to avoid injuring Brayshaw.
Clearly turns his shoulder to make contact.
If you are flying through the air and an object is coming directly at you, if you have time to turn your body towards the object you would have time to turn your body away from the object's trajectory.
Perhaps you wouldn't completely avoid contact, but at least you would have made an effort.

What happened in a totally unrelated incident in a game last year has got nothing to do with it.
Maynard is goneski. 6 weeks down to 4.

 

[Fadge]

What could he have done differently to avoid Brayshaw getting concussed?
If the answer is nothing, then it is an accidental in-play incident.
Otherwise, he has a duty of care to do something to avoid injuring Brayshaw.
Clearly turns his shoulder to make contact.
If you are flying through the air and an object is coming directly at you, if you have time to turn your body towards the object you would have time to turn your body away from the object's trajectory.
Perhaps you wouldn't completely avoid contact, but at least you would have made an effort.

What happened in a totally unrelated incident in a game last year has got nothing to do with it.
Maynard is goneski. 6 weeks down to 4.

Dreamin'

 

[beside the seaside]

He has to be gone for that.

 

[The Plowking]

There's some utter rubbish in this thread.

 

[The Plowking]

Watch it in regular time from every angle, rinse repeat.
Take the clown glasses off.
Unfortunate football incident.
Might get a week because lotto

 

[PowerBaz]

Just remember Rioli got 2 weeks for a piss weak slap of the face….. but this is an ex Collingwood player about to dish out the punishment and it’s the VFL and it’s a finals series… all of that will be in Maynard’s favour.

However,

If this was round 3 does he get off? Absolutely no way anybody gets off footy accident or not with then head contact stuff that’s going on.

Let’s see if this needs to be moved into the VIC bias thread…

 

[Number37]

Watch it in regular time from every angle, rinse repeat.
Take the clown glasses off.
Unfortunate football incident.
Might get a week because lotto

Unfortunate doesn't get you off, unfortunately.
Duty
Of
Care

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

It's not errant. Maynard's shoulder hit Brayshaw's head. You don't smother with your shoulder.

Maynard will say he was bracing for impact - but why? Brayshaw doesn't have the ball. You can't make forceful contact with someone after they've disposed of the ball.

It's late, high, severe impact. A suspension on every level.

The main thing for me is no one in that position would instinctively brace themselves with their shoulder tucked. You’d put your hands out in front of you and try to avoid contact completely.

He lined him up.