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

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Doesn’t get the good bloke discount but does get the finals discount which evens it out. Will get a week so the AFL look like they care, then Collingwood will appeal and he will get off. And we will be back to where we started again about head contact issues.

 

[SpiritOfCarlton]

Milburn got three weeks for this.

 

[smit_is]

I’m pretty excited to see the same supporters who were condemning and calling for Cripps to be suspended last year, now defending Maynard’s actions.

Accident, intent, braced for impact, protecting himself, no other option…

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

Cripps got 0 weeks for this

Carlton got him off on a technicalitie after 2 appeals . He was originally suspended for 2 weeks i think .
Afl closed that loophole are said he should have been suspended and not won the brownlow

 

[XhazzafootyX]

It was not a footy act

 

[Rich01]

Football act. Just like Mansell on Aish earlier this year.
Expect a similar tribunal outcome.

 

[10571z]

Milburn got three weeks for this.

Surely you are trolling if comparing these incidents

 

[10571z]

I’m pretty excited to see the same supporters who were condemning and calling for Cripps to be suspended last year, now defending Maynard’s actions.

Accident, intent, braced for impact, protecting himself, no other option…

I said all along Cripps should have got off and so should Maynard.

 

[BomberManU]

This is a simple one - Careless/High contact/High impact = 2 weeks. Could argue it's 'severe'?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I’m pretty excited to see the same supporters who were condemning and calling for Cripps to be suspended last year, now defending Maynard’s actions.

Accident, intent, braced for impact, protecting himself, no other option…

And Cripps only got off on a stupid technicality that our lawyers hammered home.

He was initially given two weeks, which is what Maynard will get. Or should get without the Collingwood/finals tax.

I do agree the hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

[Rich01]

“Unavoidable contact” and “braced”…. Sound great together and possibly a great defence for anyone who has never run into someone before… but really there are many other options here for Maynard, all of which would cause less injury to Brayshaw.

This is the crux of it.
In committing to the act he pretty much had no choice.
But he had the choice to commit to the act.
He initiated contact.
It was late. It was high.
It concussed his opponent.

He may not have been able to control his actions once he left the ground. But what was in his control was his choice to run at the player and jump at him. There was no deviation from Brayshaw and the incident should be assessed as such.

Whether we like what the tribunal has become is moot. This is the way that they have adjudicated this year and for consistency they need to do so here. If they find him not guilty, they will be seen to have a real lack of clarity. I saying that he’s just as likely to be let off as get two weeks. Particularly in finals.

 

[Maddo11]

What the hell is Goodwin doing!
Commenting on an opposition player but ignores his own with a dog act elbow?
I’ve been shirtfronted inna football collision and also elbowed in the face by a coward.
The coward act resulted in surgery.
That’s what we should be talking about

We can talk about both if you'd like. But don't act pious when 90000 pies fans spent the night cheering any time the bloke who ko'd someone with a shoulder to the face went near the ball.

 

[Maddo11]

Cripps got 0 weeks for this

No, he got two weeks and then got off on legal mumbo jumbo about tribunal procedure, not arguing the actual bump. If that happened again this year it would be two weeks again.

 

[GoPies1]

Like the crowd cheered in Sydney last year at an injured Ginnivan?
Glass houses mate

 

[Mattttty]

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

Cool. Sorry about that! It'll certainly be interesting to see which way it goes..

 

[Nikita Blue]

Would have been nice if the commentary team had cared as much about Brayshaw's welfare as they did about clearing Maynard.

 

[The Plowking]

The Cripps one was far worse and got zero weeks.

I don’t think Maynard should get suspended but am open to the point of view that once in the air he could have done more to not hit Brayshaw with such force.

This is the most reasonable post in this thread.

 

[The Plowking]

Typically from you and your supporters. If the AFL is serious about head injuries he gets 3. He knocked him out. Totally avoidable. Will he get anything? No. Because it’s *en Collingwood.

Untypical from me actually.
Dumb post in every regard

 

[Elixuh]

If we go by degenerate goodie's presser then Bruz should be executed.

I didn't have a problem with it and Bruz should be free to play, not even cited.

 

[10571z]

And Cripps only got off on a stupid technicality that our lawyers hammered home.

He was initially given two weeks, which is what Maynard will get. Or should get without the Collingwood/finals tax.

I do agree the hypocrisy is hilarious.

What’s the technically you speak of?

 

[Hinkley29]

Well for a start it wasn't forceful front on contact so shows how little you know when you didn't even bother to read the actual document



So yea thats only for contesting ground balls.

And every single offense contains this little exception



So idiots going "UH DUR STRETCHER" can go learn to read, and realise how none of the matrix has any relevance since it was thrown out before it reached it.

uH dUR he wasn’t contesting the ball.

The ball was long gone by the time he got to Brayshaw and his jump was purely of his choice. At no stage did he get anywhere close to contesting the ball. It was a cheap shot from a player who let his adrenaline get the better of him. That can’t be an excuse for putting a defenceless player in a very dangerous situation.

If that was a football action then he is playing a very different game of footy to everyone else.

 

[kickazz]

Chrisso will see he gets off

 

[Maddo11]

Chrisso will see he gets off

Would not be surprised if he just palms it off to the tribunal and let's them sort it out, what with the AFLs penchant for accountability....

 

[The Plowking]

uH dUR he wasn’t contesting the ball.

The ball was long gone by the time he got to Brayshaw and his jump was purely of his choice. At no stage did he get anywhere close to contesting the ball. It was a cheap shot from a player who let his adrenaline get the better of him. That can’t be an excuse for putting a defenceless player in a very dangerous situation.

If that was a football action then he is playing a very different game of footy to everyone else.

Utter, complete nonsense.

 

[sherb]

If he gets off, then this type of incident is being legitimised.

So that naturally means that Collingwood supporters will be all peachy with an opposition player doing the same thing to one of their players (with the same outcome).

Maybe in the Prelim?