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]

I think the rule change that is coming from this will be about players not contesting the ball in a manner that creates a situation where they cannot adjust to avoid dangerous contact (or words to that effect).

Regards

S. Pete

I think it's already there with the 'reasonably foresee' aspect of careless.

 

[ashep]

According to the biomechanist if I raise an elbow and collect someone in the head while bumping it's an unconscious decision and I get off, right?

 

[ashep]

And your education background in biomechanics and neuromuscular science?

Oh, none?

So shut the * up you ignorant antivaxxer.

Imagine getting this pathetically worked up

 

[Roby]

But that's always been the case, if I run at full speed into a pack to pick up the ball and a player gets there first, and you instinctively do what Maynard says is reflex and instinctive and unavoidable, you get a 5 match suspension. You cant use the excuse that you were in a football act attacking the ball and because of a late change in front of you, you instinctively hip and shoulder a player to the head.

So you don't attack like that. Same with Maynard in this occasion.

So he should run off the field rather than play AFL

 

[kickazz]

Looks like he will get off I think. The discussion has been framed completely around actions after he left the ground (not before), where clearly he has little control of his body. Any guilt through negligence would factor in the lead up, the fact he was running front on at a player, etc.

 

[Roby]

According to the biomechanist if I raise an elbow and collect someone in the head while bumping it's an unconscious decision and I get off, right?

Where you thrown off a bookcase?

 

[RAPPA]

AFL must’ve deliberately chosen Woods to ensure Maynard gets off.

 

[kickazz]

The AFL are tanking this.

Yep.

Look I genuinely think the best outcome is that he gets off (or maybe susp sentence or something) but the AFL cite an inadequacy in the rules to protect players in such situations and thus make those changes to the rules

 

[Maddo11]

So he should run off the field rather than play AFL

Only if you want to be a bitch about it.

Otherwise you short step, lay a tackle then carry on with the game

 

[windyhill]

Podcasts, tv grabs, how much more can the brayshaw brother appear on ?

 

[_Mike_]

AFL wraps up its evidence​

Woods says Maynard does not simply flinch, as he said earlier, but it was a conscious decision to turn his body to impact.

He then says even if it isn't a bump, it's a careless offence.

The AFL is now done and it's over to Maynard's defence.

- Michael Whiting

 

[Checksider]

If the appeals board had backed him in then yes. But they didn’t so no, they overturned his decision - he should learn from the body with the higher authority.

Regards

S. Pete

I misunderstood, fair enough

 

[Pistol Night]

Only if you want to be a bitch about it.

Otherwise you short step, lay a tackle then carry on with the game

Every single time? Makes sense

 

[hawkman]

Only 1 or 2 metres. It is much more than that

 

[Roby]

AFL must’ve deliberately chosen Woods to ensure Maynard gets off.

I don't think he's out if the Woods yet.

Who will the Tribunal favour? Who cares, were going to have an appeal regardless of the outcome

 

[_Cerberus_]

According to the biomechanist if I raise an elbow and collect someone in the head while bumping it's an unconscious decision and I get off, right?

Clearly you haven't played contact sport. I've played contact sports at a high level all my life. Anytime you're about to collide with someone, your body reacts as a defensive mechanism. There is no time to "think", or make decisions in a moment of milliseconds. Your body reacts to protect itself. I'd dropped shoulders, raised arms, tucked self in that I am almost like a cannonball, turned my body around. It is never the same reaction each time.

Maynard isn't thinking, I am going to go for the ball, and then decide I am going to flatten the F out of Brayshaw only milliseconds later. He went for the ball, got some skin on it, and body braced for impact a split second later. Wasn't targeting Brayshaw from the go. Van Rooyens elbow was more deliberate and avoidable. If he was targeting him, he'd have eyes on him the whole time, never made a move for the ball, and wouldn't have jumped high as he did. People bumping someone on purpose either run though them, or take feet slightly off the ground like Pickett did with Weightman, but not a full on aerial jump.

The AFL are just making their cases about whether a player is injured or not. If Brayshaw got up and walked away, there is a good chance this wouldn't even be at the tribunal now. The AFL contradicts itself in these cases all the time. Two incidents exactly the same, one is okay if the opponent is not hurt, and the other is not okay if the player is hurt. The AFL muddies the water on these cases that no one knows what is or is not allowed no more.

 

[Maze]

No it's not.

If you havent seen someone, that is how you react.

Maynard never lost vision of Brayshaw whereas Brayshaw did not have eyes on Maynard.

What Maynard done was not a late reaction, it was a post-missed-smother action that he executed. There's nothing that seems natural in that action. A surprised person would be leaning back, pushing their head away from contact like you'd avoid a jab. The reaction would be the head going back out of harms way.

To twist the body, push the shoulder forward and tuck up is a planned action.

Your correct. I found the serviette he wrote this devious plan on prior to the game...
I'm not sure why people pretend what they write is fact when it nothing more than loose subjective opinion.....

 

[demondavey]

Unfortunately Maynard will get off

 

[RAPPA]

Woods stunk it up.

I don't think he's out if the Woods yet.

Who will the Tribunal favour? Who cares, were going to have an appeal regardless of the outcome

If he has stunk it up to the point of. Not guilty on both charges then I’m not sure the AFL will appeal, Reckon they’ll instead amend the rules to account for this somehow.

 

[Maze]

According to the biomechanist if I raise an elbow and collect someone in the head while bumping it's an unconscious decision and I get off, right?

Both Dangerfield and Lynch did...so yes

 

[Vindicater]

What an interesting afternoon.

Maynard came in looking like an unreliable witness and instead of just letting it go there the prosecution decide to shoot themselves in the face.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Woods stunk it up.


If he has stunk it up to the point of. Not guilty on both charges then I’m not sure the AFL will appeal, Reckon they’ll instead amend the rules to account for this somehow.

Just borrow the Carlton lawyers for the appeal

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Looks like he will get off I think. The discussion has been framed completely around actions after he left the ground (not before), where clearly he has little control of his body. Any guilt through negligence would factor in the lead up, the fact he was running front on at a player, etc.

Yes. It was careless conduct leaving the ground in the first place where the likely result would be a late bump and concussion.

Flinching, bumping, bracing, whatever you want to call it is not exactly the reportable offence.

It is not careless to protect yourself from a hit, it is careless to hurl yourself at a player or a contest in the way Maynard did. That wasn’t really argued.

 

[Elixuh]

If they say football act enough times, it might get him off

 

[wce4premiership]

Your correct. I found the serviette he wrote this devious plan on prior to the game...
I'm not sure why people pretend what they write is fact when it nothing more than loose subjective opinion.....

It's fact because it's human nature.

I have no issue with him leaving the ground, nor the fact that he came forward.

But he didn't brace for impact, he turned to bump in mid air and he knew full well what he was doing.