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

 

[doppleganger]

Darts?
Well I certainly have more chance aspiring to the body shape of that sports elite than with the footy

View attachment 1916613

Yes Darts is a great activity / sport.

Fully inclusive of ALL body shapes and sizes.

And importantly NO chance of any injury there. The emotive wowsers who cant handle collisions in contact sports might appreciate the lack of dogs / cowards playing darts.

 

[Proffessor]

Keep trying. Your contentions, whilst still ultimately wrong(see the Tribunal reasoning), are at least getting closer to coherent argument. I commend you on taking the time to finally read the Guidelines and frame your points accordingly. Well done.

Might have even gotten close to 5/10 in exam conditions.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

This is a great example of projection.

You have offered no evidence or coherent arguments to support any of your positions, just simplistic references to authority i.e. the tribunal that have added no value to the discussion.

 

[sideswipe]

This is a great example of projection.

You have offered no evidence or coherent arguments to support any of your positions, just simplistic references to authority i.e. the tribunal that have added no value to the discussion.

I agreed with the Tribunal findings. Nothing to add to the published reasonings from Gleeson KC. You looking for different ways to argue against those findings won't change things.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

so your counter-argument is 'you misspelled asterisk'

that about sums it up

Maynard is going down in history for two things

1) a coward headhunt that ended someone's career, and tainted the 2023 premiership

2) making three critical errors in the last 2 minutes of the 2018 grand final, including failing to prevent the mark that Dom Sheed took to steal Collingwood's flag

LMAO

3. Premiership player

 

[Duckimus Prime]

3. Premiership player

Yeah and he gets to share that with the like of Billy Frampton and Aaron Keating.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

This is a great example of projection.

You have offered no evidence or coherent arguments to support any of your positions, just simplistic references to authority i.e. the tribunal that have added no value to the discussion.

Yet you continue to circumvent specifically articulating the conspiracy theory that you're waving around indirectly. Ive seen the word gutless thrown around but this is the best example.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Yeah and he gets to share that with the like of Billy Frampton and Aaron Keating.

Ouch!

 

[Reg Grundy35]

The reality of the soft Pies protection seems to have rankled you chaps.
I get your shtick is to claim its Pies against the world, fighting against all odds yet evidence suggests otherwise

How the hell did you get that from this thread. Most of it is about how you all think there's a undefined mythical conspiracy to give the Pies a leg up. Lol

 

[adammania9]

so your counter-argument is 'you misspelled asterisk'

that about sums it up

Maynard is going down in history for two things

1) a coward headhunt that ended someone's career, and tainted the 2023 premiership

2) making three critical errors in the last 2 minutes of the 2018 grand final, including failing to prevent the mark that Dom Sheed took to steal Collingwood's flag

LMAO

Only two certain things came out of this whole hysteria.

1. Brayden Maynard was cleared of any wrongdoing
2. Brayden Maynard is a premiership-winning hero of the biggest and best club in the league

 

[drcollossimo]

still refusing to tell us the who and how of your alleged AFK fix, eh? what a shock

Still on with this strawman are you?

You know that what you’re asking for is unknowable all we can do is judge the outcomes

I’ve provided statements from the tribunal that literally contradict one another but you skate around that as if it wasn’t the entire point im making and instead ask for the impossible

Well played sir well played

 

[Proffessor]

Could you run me through th bolded, as I seriously don't understand why you think there is an inconsistency of logic in the tribunal finding regarding the jump and the brace.

Because the rules and charges were constructed in such a way that he had to have been guilty of at least one of the charges for the action he engaged in.

If it wasn't possible to control himself post launch, then he was guilty of Charge 1.

If it was possible then he was guilty of Charge 2.

 

[sr36]

Because the rules and charges were constructed in such a way that he had to have been guilty of at least one of the charges for the action he engaged in.

If it wasn't possible to control himself post launch, then he was guilty of Charge 1.

If it was possible then he was guilty of Charge 2.

Ok. Sorry, re-reading the original post it should have been clear that that's what you meant - the issue with it is that whether or not you are in control doesn't make it a reportable offence - so it doesn't actually apply.

They looked at two different actions which occured at different times - the jump and the turn and brace.

To me the decision was pretty clear cut under the guidelines.

The new guidelines around smothering are going to be interesting if we get an incident with a bloke getting knocked out from a smother - as they're trying to do what you and others want to do - the new rule tries to combine the two actions - if you do this - jump in someones direction whilst trying to smother - you can't brace for contact - you hav to make reasonable action to try to minimise the damage. **** knows what that is - what is reasonable action? I think they should hav simplified it to the same rules as a bump - if you jump to smother and knock someone out, you've jumped too dangerously.

 

[Proffessor]

Ok. Sorry, re-reading the original post it should have been clear that that's what you meant - the issue with it is that whether or not you are in control doesn't make it a reportable offence - so it doesn't actually apply.

They looked at two different actions which occured at different times - the jump and the turn and brace.

To me the decision was pretty clear cut under the guidelines.

The new guidelines around smothering are going to be interesting if we get an incident with a bloke getting knocked out from a smother - as they're trying to do what you and others want to do - the new rule tries to combine the two actions - if you do this - jump in someones direction whilst trying to smother - you can't brace for contact - you hav to make reasonable action to try to minimise the damage. * knows what that is - what is reasonable action? I think they should hav simplified it to the same rules as a bump - if you jump to smother and knock someone out, you've jumped too dangerously.

You are still missing the point.
The excuses the tribunal admitted they accepted for the two charges, were mutually exclusive.

Accepting that he wasn't responsible for the final hit because he had no control to get him off Charge 2, effectively proved the AFL's careless jumping case for Charge 1.

IIRC you previously stated you thought his jump was indeed worthy of suspension, so this would have been consistent with your basic judgement of the action.

Hence the new rules weren't necessary, apart from trying to add some desperately needed cover for the tribunal's dodgy illogical ruling.

By stating they needed a rule change, the AFL were essentially admitting they got it wrong and promising to do better next time.

 

[sr36]

You are still missing the point.
The excuses the tribunal admitted they accepted for the two charges, were mutually exclusive.

Accepting that he wasn't responsible for the final hit because he had no control to get him off Charge 2, effectively proved the AFL's careless jumping case for Charge 1.

IIRC you previously stated you thought his jump was indeed worthy of suspension, so this would have been consistent with your basic judgement of the action.

Hence the new rules weren't necessary, apart from trying to add some desperately needed cover for the tribunal's dodgy illogical ruling.

By stating they needed a rule change, the AFL were essentially admitting they got it wrong and promising to do better next time.

No. Because the two actions occured at different times with different situations in place.

For the jump, he was in control of the action, but it didn't meet the guidelines for careless.

For the turning, he wasn't deemed to have made a decion to bump - as he had no control due to time - a collision was inevitable.

 

[Proffessor]

No. Because the two actions occured at different times with different situations in place.

For the jump, he was in control of the action, but it didn't meet the guidelines for careless.

For the turning, he wasn't deemed to have made a decion to bump - as he had no control due to time - a collision was inevitable.

'he wasn't deemed to have made a decion to bump - as he had no control due to time - a collision was inevitable.'

If you accept that, as the Tribunal did, that is why the jump had to be deemed careless.

 

[sr36]

The wasn't deemed to have made a decion to bump - as he had no control due to time - a collision was inevitable.'

If you except that, as the Tribunal did, that is why the jump had to be deemed careless.

You're tying yourself in knots trying to make the tribunal guidelines not match with the decision. A big collision like that wasn't inevitable from the jump - it involved Brayshaw somehow not seeing him and shifting a couple of feet to the right. It became inevitable when he was on the way down.

 

[HairyO]

Your'e right. They should have made up a new grading that didn't exist and rated it as the non-existant reckless grading. You're really getting on top of understanding the guidelines...

What specifically is in the new rule that wasnt in any of the old rules which would see this now be bannable ?

 

[doppleganger]

What specifically is in the new rule that wasnt in any of the old rules which would see this now be bannable ?

the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

It wasnt in 2023, hence no case to answer for Maynard as under the rules he didnt commit a reportable act.

Lawyers would still try to argue to get a player off of course, but the tribunal would be coming from a starting point where the player actually has committed a reportable act.

 

[sr36]

What specifically is in the new rule that wasnt in any of the old rules which would see this now be bannable ?

The new rule basically specifies that jumping to smother is a dangerous act where you are responsible for showing a duty of care if it results in you crashing into someone - they haven't gone the whole hog like they have with bumps and made it an automatic suspension, as you can avoid suspension if you "take all reasonable steps to avoid making contact with their opponent’s head".

Some think that Maynard would still get off as what were his "reasonable steps" when he was about to collide - if you run with the argument that him turning was a reflex action to an impending collision.

I don't think that he'd get off (and I'm assuming that the AFL have run it through QCs) as it means that he's responsible from the moment he leaves the ground and has to be prepared for a potential impact - so jumping like that and not being prepared to try to avoid the head is graded as careless. I'm not sure though what the reasonable steps would look like? But in Maynard's casee, he didn't take any steps to avoid the head - let alone evaluating whether they were "all reasonable steps."

Assuming it plays out like I think it will - I think it's a good rule.

It's tough to get the rules right - as they can't make it jumping, because we don't want blokes suspended when they accidentally knock someone out whilst launching for a mark - so they have to specify particular actions - "jump to smother". Such a rare concussion event that they didn't have a rule for it in 2023.

 

[doppleganger]

Assuming it plays out like I think it will - I think it's a good rule.

I dont particualrly like the rules on the run aspect to specifically target such rare collisions.

But that is what happens when the wowsers start running with the rhetoric that players will just run off the line and deliberately take players out disguised as a smothering attempt crap.

It's tough to get the rules right - as they can't make it jumping, because we don't want blokes suspended when they accidentally knock someone out whilst launching for a mark - so they have to specify particular actions - "jump to smother". Such a rare concussion event that they didn't have a rule for it in 2023.

The professor would have a field day with a knee to the head when taking a speccy.

Most fair minded fans currently accept that in attempting to mark there was no intent to knee, even though it can happen and kneeing is listed as a specific reportable act.

But a couple of big KO incidents from speccy attempts, and the Professors of the world will get the speccy outlawed as jumping with your knee up is careless.

 

[Cyclops]

Yes we try to be reasonable and have something like a consistent code but any sport where contact us allowed, players routinely jump and there's no offside so you can be approached from 360' of the arc cannot be governed in this way.

We sentence in part on severity but we convict on act and intent.

The severity of Maynards hit demanded a severe punishment but the act and intent did not.

I was in favour of 2 weeks because a guy was sconned but I accept the position the the rules were followed.

The new rule is another rule-on-a-rule: we are growing a coral reef of a rulebook. If there's any underpinning principle here it's a head injury means a suspension, but that principle leads to Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

suspended for concussing a team mate.

The spectre is Jesaulenko being retrospectively suspended for high contact on Jerker Jenkin.

 

[HairyO]

the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".

It wasnt in 2023, hence no case to answer for Maynard as under the rules he didnt commit a reportable act.

Lawyers would still try to argue to get a player off of course, but the tribunal would be coming from a starting point where the player actually has committed a reportable act.

So in a Prelim the claim would be that they did all they could.... which is exactly what Maynard said.

He couldnt avoid it so it was a football act.

So nothing has changed.

 

[sr36]

I dont particualrly like the rules on the run aspect to specifically target such rare collisions.

I wouldn't call it rules on the run. I'd call it refining the rules as they weren't written with every possible action in mind. So if they think something should be suspendable, but isn't under the rules - they tweak the rules.

 

[sideswipe]

The new rule basically specifies that jumping to smother is a dangerous act where you are responsible for showing a duty of care if it results in you crashing into someone - they haven't gone the whole hog like they have with bumps and made it an automatic suspension, as you can avoid suspension if you "take all reasonable steps to avoid making contact with their opponent’s head".

Some think that Maynard would still get off as what were his "reasonable steps" when he was about to collide - if you run with the argument that him turning was a reflex action to an impending collision.

I don't think that he'd get off (and I'm assuming that the AFL have run it through QCs) as it means that he's responsible from the moment he leaves the ground and has to be prepared for a potential impact - so jumping like that and not being prepared to try to avoid the head is graded as careless. I'm not sure though what the reasonable steps would look like? But in Maynard's casee, he didn't take any steps to avoid the head - let alone evaluating whether they were "all reasonable steps."

Assuming it plays out like I think it will - I think it's a good rule.

It's tough to get the rules right - as they can't make it jumping, because we don't want blokes suspended when they accidentally knock someone out whilst launching for a mark - so they have to specify particular actions - "jump to smother". Such a rare concussion event that they didn't have a rule for it in 2023.

The AFL doesn’t run rule/tribunal changes past KCs. No need and anyway they have v good lawyers in house. Kane would likely be a KC now if she stayed at the Bar.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

The AFL doesn’t run rule/tribunal changes past KCs. No need and anyway they have v good lawyers in house. Kane would likely be a KC now if she stayed at the Bar.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

What's your take - do you agree with the articles that suggest that he'd still get off under the new rule - or do you think he'd get suspended.