Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

What should happen with Maynard?

  • 1-2 match suspension for careless, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 247 27.9%
  • 3-4 match suspension for intentional, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 203 23.0%
  • 5+ match suspension, intentional or careless with severe impact, straight to tribunal

    Votes: 68 7.7%
  • Charges downgraded to a fine

    Votes: 52 5.9%
  • No charge/no penalty

    Votes: 314 35.5%

  • Total voters
    884
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

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.


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 👍
 
Still makes no sense to me that he turned his body instead of putting his hands out in front like a normal person who is about to hit something.

Does he turn his body and use his when he's about to hit the out of bounds fence or stop with his hands?

You'd have to understand biomechanics and neurology to understand this I guess. Although all the information is readily available for you online
 
[I don't believe Bruz's conduct in isolation is worth more than a 1-week suspension]

My main gripe with this decision is the double standard, & knowing the verdict would've been different had it been H & A.

AFL House seems inherently lacking in credibility; adherence to its own regulations is often compromised by the emotion spun up by the Melbourne fishbowl.

In what was essentially a dead-rubber for Hawthorn, Sicily was rubbed out for 3 weeks for what was a pretty innocuous tackle. If McCluggage isn't knocked out in that contest, I doubt the MRP even gives it a second glance.

Brayshaw was out cold for 2 minutes. And Maynard was the sole instigator of the resulting injury. In Sicily's case, he had a teammate's subsequent contact directly affect the motion in question.

Pardon my cynicism, but Gil/Dil taking Laura Kane's side seems a matter of removing potential legal exposure. I just wonder how far this matter gets if her appointment was ratified in the off-season.

Also,

972-Christian_Michael.jpg
.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Sigh, this is like wwe

1. Ex Coll MRO finds nothing wrong
2. Gets referred to tribunal by his boss.
3. Leaked reports about him quitting then he doesnt
4. Numerous Coll blokes vocalising Maynard should get off.
5. Interesting prosecution moves described as being messed up by a Coll Supporter.
6. Maynard gets off

Maynard just happens to be a best 22 player in a big vic club who finished on top.

Contrived outcome much?

Pretty funny this is the incident Christian apparently wanted to.make a stand on given some of the garbage citings he has overseen
 
Can you imagine if say Viney knocked out Pendles the same way Maynard did to Brayshaw. Pies supporters would be saying the exact opposite to what they are all saying now
A pies player was knocked out and concussed by a knee in a marking contest 2 weeks ago and nobody said a thing. Accidents happen.
 
One small subplot should GWS beat Port Adelaide, is that Daniel Lloyd might just seek payback on Maynard with a “smother“ once Collingwood get the inevitable umpire leg up to win through to a GF.
I sincerely hope he doesn’t, I wouldn’t want Maynard to miss a GF through concussion protocols, no matter how accidental.
 
I've actually got no real issue with Maynard, but the tribunal have basically accepted the evidence that once a player leaves his feet he's not in control of his body or responsible for the results of his actions.

It's an interesting precedent.

Are you sure this is what was said? Maybe revisit the arguments again
 
Thank you AFL for the clear clarifixation that players can now miss an attempt to smother .... not even touch the ball .... and continue through with their action and knock someone out ..... got it 👍🏼
Get a grip mate. You're just salty that the Saints got exposed as the soft pretenders we all knew they were all season long.
 
Vindication for Michael Christian.

Nah, the fact that Maynard got off cant be construed as Piebias, because it was the correct decision.Wasnt clear cut and was worthy of being tested.

The fact that Chirstian didnt even want it tested is Piebias, considering all the shithouse decisions hes handed down onto players from every other team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Watch Martin roll out the “it was a split second decision” argument. Because you know, players have minutes to work and think through to the execution of a cheap shot.
 
I still can’t work out how Sicily gets 3 under these “duty of care” guidelines but this gets off because some bloke used ms paint to draw some tram lines.

Regardless of what you think of the incident, in 2023 that’s careless conduct and the AFL are playing favourites here. Finals discount with an added big Vic club paper bag.
Pfffttt......your shoulder chip is causing your brain to malfunction.
 
Hey! I'm after some career advice. What do you enjoy the most about working in biomechanics?
When the whole comp goes down the drain there’s not going to be a whole lot of people laughing. The AFL are digging themselves a huge hole here by not being consistent in their decisions.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

Back
Top