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

_Mike_ said:
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."
Click to expand...
Finally some sanity 👍
 
Of all the misunderstood buzz words substituting for rational arguments in this thread, 'left the ground', which was kicked off by Bomber Thompson's protege Simon Goodwin, is probably my favourite.

The AFL's argument centred on Maynard deciding in mid-air to bump - a ridiculous, specious argument that was completely dismantled by the tribunal.

They were in fact arguing that it was on the 'descent to ground' where the offence occurred, they never questioned Maynard's right to leave the ground to attempt to spoil.

Whatever the outcome of any potential appeal, this factor is not in question, and it's hilarious how many of you halfwits can't even understand basic distinctions in different actions.
 
Ando727 said:
I don't really have a problem with Maynard's act on the field. What I have a problem with is Maynard doing the "good bloke" routine and turning up at Brayshaw's recovery bed on the day before his tribunal hearing. He should have just left it alone until after the tribunal decision before going to see him. It just reeks of optics, and when you add to that the fact that there were Melbourne teammates in the room when he arrived who didn't want him there, one of which had to remove himself because he didn't want to cause an incident, but he insists on doing the visit. Once Maynard saw the room was occupied, he should have walked away and come back after the hearing. Sure, he might feel sorry for what happened, but if his conscience is as clear as he says it is about the incident itself - and he has every right to feel that way - he should just wait until the appropriate time. The fact that he didn't makes me feel like he was there to influence the tribunal and influence public opinion, because they always hear the rumours before they sit. Even if it didn't affect the decision, it just looks average.

Maynard was thinking of himself first and foremost. If he just waited it out and contacted Brayshaw later, I wouldn't have anything against him because I do think it was a football incident. But making a guy you knocked out listen to you when he's feeling very crook and has his actual friends there - it's very selfish.
Click to expand...
The Melbourne player who had to leave the room needs to get his head checked.
What about Melbourne's optics throughout this case? Goodwin's hypocrisy from Van Rooyen/Ballard to the events since Thursday?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

btdg said:
How is this not charging?

From the rules of the game "the act of colliding with an opposition player where the amount of physical force is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the player is in possession of the football..."

Brayshaw ended up unconscious for 2 minutes after a late, high hit. Seems a pretty clearcut example of unreasonable force to me.
Click to expand...
Maynard's chosen and intended action was not to collide with an opposition player, but to attempt to smother the ball.

That is why he charged with 'rough conduct' rather than with 'charging'.

The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.

Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.
 
Linda Lovelace said:
They were in fact arguing that it was on the 'descent to ground' where the offence occurred, they never questioned Maynard's right to leave the ground to attempt to spoil.

Whatever the outcome of any potential appeal, this factor is not in question, and it's hilarious how many of you halfwits can't even understand basic distinctions in different actions.
Click to expand...

I doubt there will be any follow up appeal on the decision however let’s remain civilised in the discussion thanks.

In Maynard’s defence they (Collingwood) were able to raise enough doubt that the limited reaction time couldn’t give grounds to argue the collision was avoidable.

Case closed
 
Imagine if the roles of the incident were reversed and it was Nick Daicos getting knocked out for 2 minutes, and Jack Viney with the attempted "smother".

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the same Collingwood fans currently windmilling their dicks over Braynard getting off, wouldn't be screaming that Viney is a dirty dog, sniper, etc and demanding a suspension.. chins McGuire would be absolutely apoplectic with rage.
 
fnerd said:


100 % this….

Why is smothering all of sudden a footy act not possibly open for suspension but bumping/tackling/spoiling are ?

Finally and most importantly, for 1000 th time Maynard COULD’VE chose to put his hands out to brace for contact like most people do when running into something but he chose NOT TO and instead turned and tucked the shoulder as if to bump.

I’m not sure where the confusion comes into it?
Click to expand...

Not my problem, mate.
 
ChristianBoy said:
The tribunal had a very bad night last night. Both acts were deliberate
Click to expand...
You do realise Maynard’s act was to attempt to smother?
He actually touched the ball.
He was never charged with a bump, as that’s not what he did, (no-one bumps with their arms extended upward).
Didn’t breach any rules, hence them having to change the reporting methodology.
Try to be impartial when judging which initial act, (first movement/intent, not the outcome) looks worse, Maynard’s or these…

Debate rages on AFL bump amid growing brain injury awareness

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.
www.abc.net.au
 
sobrave said:
Imagine if the roles of the incident were reversed and it was Nick Daicos getting knocked out for 2 minutes, and Jack Viney with the attempted "smother".

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the same Collingwood fans currently windmilling their dicks over Braynard getting off, wouldn't be screaming that Viney is a dirty dog, sniper, etc and demanding a suspension.. chins McGuire would be absolutely apoplectic with rage.
Click to expand...
About the 7th time we've heard this shit. All you dickheads who were taking the moral highground seem pretty keen for a 20yo kid to get KOd now. ****n piss weak hypocrisy
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

raskolnikov said:
Collingwood player exonerated. Colour me shocked.
Click to expand...
You mean like Cloke in 2002 and Rocca in 2003 before the Grannys?

Difference here is that Cloke and Rocca were guilty of discernible footy crime. Maynard on the other hand was guilty of an epic spoiling attempt.
 
Half the people on this thread still carrying on have to genuine trolls, Bay 13 tier stuff

Exemplified best by Ihle using Maynard veering off his line as part of the defence. You realise the other person can contribute to the incident without being blamed for said incident? Happens all the time on the road - not as an attack on Brayshaw's actions but rather a defence of Maynard total contribution to what happened. If you can't see past that then you cannot be helped and you're on the wrong side of this case for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Pistol Night said:
About the 7th time we've heard this s**t. All you dickheads who were taking the moral highground seem pretty keen for a 20yo kid to get KOd now. *n piss weak hypocrisy
Click to expand...

No one is keen for that to happen you peanut. All isee is Collingwood fans laughing and dancing in the street that Maynard got away with flatlining a bloke and possibly ending his career.

You still didn't actually refute the statement. You know if the roles were reversed the "Collingwood army" would be absolutely baying for blood.
 
Anzacday said:
You do realise Maynard’s act was to attempt to smother?
He actually touched the ball.
He was never charged with a bump, as that’s not what he did, (no-one bumps with their arms extended upward).
Didn’t breach any rules, hence them having to change the reporting methodology.
Try to be impartial when judging which initial act, (first movement/intent, not the outcome) looks worse, Maynard’s or these…

Debate rages on AFL bump amid growing brain injury awareness

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.
www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

I guarantee he mean't to take Brayshaw out. Maybe not his first thought but he saw the chance and took it.
 
There is a lot of back and forth about this but it may be time to be realistic.

Maynard did not break any rules of the game, the way they are written.
He didn't delibritly try and hurt Brayshaw, as why would he want to miss a GF.

It had to go to the tribunal, I understand that, even though I didn't expect him to be found guilty.

At the end of the season the AFL will change the rules to prevent this from hopefully happening and fair enough by them.

At the end of the day, I am glad justice was served but lets not forget there is a player who is not well, so that is where our thoughts should be.

It is finals time, how about we place our energy into the great games we have coming up.
 
Suspense said:
Maynard's chosen and intended action was not to collide with an opposition player, but to attempt to smother the ball.

That is why he charged with 'rough conduct' rather than with 'charging'.

The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.

Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.
Click to expand...

Yes. The AFL absolutely botched this and their prosecution was very poor. They seem to have tied themselves in knots

It is another example of there being a 'flavour of the month' in their tribunal actions - in this case, all year they have been obsessed with 'duty of care' and how it applies to tackles. They have tried to apply the same logic here and it doesn't work.

Instead, he simply should have been charged with charging, on the grounds the the hit on the ballcarrier was late, high and unreasonable force. No duty of care needed - you just can't jump and bump people in the head and if you do so forcefully you wear the consequences.
 
Karma4Pies said:
The Melbourne player who had to leave the room needs to get his head checked.
What about Melbourne's optics throughout this case? Goodwin's hypocrisy from Van Rooyen/Ballard to the events since Thursday?
Click to expand...
Don't really care about any of that. Just think Maynard should have waited until his tribunal hearing was over, and until he was welcome in the room. He was thinking of his own needs rather than Brayshaw's. Brayshaw didn't urgently need his apology, he could have waited a bit for that. That's it.
 
DAVID MUNDY: “If Brayden Maynard was falling and that was Scott Pendlebury underneath him, I think he would make a different decision than cover up and just protect himself and not worry about the other player".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Chadwiko
MRP / Trib. Brayden Maynard - staging fine incoming?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
TENACIOUS
TENACIOUS
Mister Dog
MRP / Trib. Maynard dangerous tackle on Owies?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
Maddo11
Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
TW Sherrin
TW Sherrin
1990crow
News AFL Tribunal appeals board upholds Houston's 5 Week Suspension
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
893
Views
29K
Eshay187
Eshay187
TY24
MRP / Trib. Charlie Cameron gets a week for dumping tackle on Lever - Tribunal = down to a fine.
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
288
Views
11K
Chief
Chief
Chief
MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Grand Final
42 43 44 45 46
Replies
1K
Views
54K
Maddo11
Maddo11
Grand Uncle Horace
Duncan cleared, Fox concussed
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Nebular
Nebular
Back
Top