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

 

[sideswipe]

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.

It certainly gets him closer to careless, which would turn 0 into 3. I dunno whether it would get him all the way there. It was such an unlikely collision I don’t think we will see anything similar anytime soon.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HairyO]

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.

R1 he is guilty, Prelim he is innocent. That has always been the way.

They deliberately add wriggle room in all their rules.

Until the multi million dollar lawsuits start being found against the AFL and against the Execs for their gross negligence.

 

[sr36]

R1 he is guilty, Prelim he is innocent. That has always been the way.

They deliberately add wriggle room in all their rules.

I don't think that's the case anymore. Last year, the only tribunal decision I thought wtf about was that mid season one where a Sydney defender caught a bloke high when he body checked a forward trying to run past him. I didn't read the ruling but not sure how it wasn't considered a decision to bump.

 

[Proffessor]

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.

I would say the opposite because you are now effectively back to blaming Brayshaw for the collision.

However, it has been a good discussion, because I think we are now at the heart of where much of the controversy lies.

 

[sr36]

I would say the opposite because you are now effectively back to blaming Brayshaw for the collision.

However, it has been a good discussion, because I think we are now at the heart of where much of the controversy lies.

I'm not blaming Brayshaw. The point of discussing Brayshaw's movements is solely because it was only tribunal guidelines careless if Maynard was expected to be able to forseee Brayshaw's movement and thus where he was going to be in relation to his landing.

 

[doppleganger]

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.

No the starting point is that attempting to smother can be considered careless now.

In 2023 it wasnt.

Club legal teams will still try to argue for their respective player had extenuating circumstance like they do now for tackles / bumps.

In 2023 anybody who actually bothered to read and understand the rules knew he was getting off as attempting to smother wasnt a reportable act.

 

[HairyO]

No the starting point is that attempting to smother can be considered careless now.

In 2023 it wasnt.

Club legal teams will still try to argue for their respective player had extenuating circumstance like they do now for tackles / bumps.

In 2023 anybody who actually bothered to read and understand the rules knew he was getting off as attempting to smother wasnt a reportable act.

"Can be".

Brownlow favourite or winning team in a Prelim "wont be".

 

[Proffessor]

I'm not blaming Brayshaw. The point of discussing Brayshaw's movements is solely because it was only tribunal guidelines careless if Maynard was expected to be able to forseee Brayshaw's movement and thus where he was going to be in relation to his landing.

Now you are back to kidding yourself that Brayshaw dramatically changed direction, which he did not.

In reality he hardly deviated, and considering the intercept trajectory that Maynard was on, Angus's slight adjustment in his movement had very little effect on the timing and location of the inevitable collision, in comparison to him having not deviated at all.

 

[sr36]

Now you are back to kidding yourself that Brayshaw dramatically changed direction, which he did not.

In reality he hardly deviated, and considering the intercept trajectory that Maynard was on, Angus's slight adjustment in his movement had very little effect on the timing and location of the inevitable collision, in comparison to him having not deviated at all.

I don't think he dramatically shifted. I just think at the point of Maynard jumping his head and body position when Maynard was landing wasn't reasonably foreseeable by Maynard, which was enough for Maynard to be cleared.

 

[Proffessor]

I don't think he dramatically shifted. I just think at the point of Maynard jumping his head and body position when Maynard was landing wasn't reasonably foreseeable by Maynard, which was enough for Maynard to be cleared.

I don't wish to labour the point any further, but the suggestion that Brayshaw essentially maintaining his trajectory wasn't reasonably foreseeable is obviously completely ludicrous.

Yes, I do realise that that is indeed what the tribunal found, and why people like me have been so critical of their decision, and their 'the rules weren't adequate' smoke screen.

 

[doppleganger]

"Can be".

Brownlow favourite or winning team in a Prelim "wont be".

"Wait and see".

Not sure why people are still arguing about a 2023 decision when it was clear that he had no case to answer under the existing rules.

 

[sr36]

I don't wish to labour the point any further, but the suggestion that Brayshaw essentially maintaining his trajectory wasn't reasonably foreseeable is obviously completely ludicrous.

Yes, I do realise that that is indeed what the tribunal found, and that why people like me have been so critical of their decision, and their the rules weren't adequate smoke screen.

His head just needed to be two foot to the side of where it ended up being and there was no incident at all. Hence the finding.

 

[Maddo11]

I don't think that's the case anymore. Last year, the only tribunal decision I thought wtf about was that mid season one where a Sydney defender caught a bloke high when he body checked a forward trying to run past him. I didn't read the ruling but not sure how it wasn't considered a decision to bump.

Rampe v (Bulldogs fan help me out here)

There was vision from the wing that never got released publicly that I can find, that showed that while Rampe ran towards the forward, both of their last 3 or so steps were turning to follow the ball, but the dogs forward turned sharper and caused the collision.

Fwiw commentary at the time from swans fans was basically "**** that's dumb from Rampe when we're short on defenders". Vision from behind was very damning

 

[Maddo11]

"Wait and see".

Not sure why people are still arguing about a 2023 decision when it was clear that he had no case to answer under the existing rules.

No matter how many times you repeat this I think 250 pages of discussion is pretty compelling evidence that it was anything but "clear"

 

[Proffessor]

His head just needed to be two foot to the side of where it ended up being and there was no incident at all. Hence the finding.

Cognitive dissonance is clearly a tough thing to overcome.

I wish you well.

 

[Chief]

There is no "dramatic course change".

His head just needed to be two foot to the side of where it ended up being and there was no incident at all. Hence the finding.

Same could be said of any collision.

 

[sr36]

Same could be said of any collision.

Not every collision - but definitely any collision which resulted from a jump when the players were 5 metres apart and moving quickly- it's why he got off - because it was unreasonable to expect him to foresee where Brayshaw's head was going to be at the point of collision. And he had to be able to reasonably foresee it for it to be graded as careless - those were the rules.

 

[TW Sherrin]

can't believe this is still going.

in summary:

Pies supporters: he's innocent.

Everyone else (except the tribunal): hang him

 

[El_Scorcho]

Not every collision - but definitely any collision which resulted from a jump when the players were 5 metres apart and moving quickly- it's why he got off - because it was unreasonable to expect him to foresee where Brayshaw's head was going to be at the point of collision. And he had to be able to reasonably foresee it for it to be graded as careless - those were the rules.

It was "unreasonable" for him to foresee where Brayshaw's head would be because a Grand Final was on the line. If he'd done the same thing 4 weeks earlier he'd have gotten 3-4 weeks.

No one getting suspended for a high bump ever means to put his shoulder into a bloke's head. It's about not putting yourself in a situation where you're making forceful uncontrolled contact to a vulnerable opponent. The point of carelessness was the point where he left the ground with forward momentum.

 

[sr36]

It was "unreasonable" for him to foresee where Brayshaw's head would be because a Grand Final was on the line. If he'd done the same thing 4 weeks earlier he'd have gotten 3-4 weeks.

No one getting suspended for a high bump ever means to put his shoulder into a bloke's head. It's about not putting yourself in a situation where you're making forceful uncontrolled contact to a vulnerable opponent. The point of carelessness was the point where he left the ground with forward momentum.

There's different tribunal guidelines for bumps than other collisions.

I agree with you if talking about natural justice and an every day definition of "careless." But I think that the whole conspiracy - AfL wanted him in the GF thing is a load of bunkum, as to me it's clear why he got off if you read and understand the guidelines and ruling. I think the ruling was spot on in terms of the guidelines - it's not reasonable in that situation to expect him to foresee where Brayshaw's head was going to be.

 

[Satan]

can't believe this is still going.

in summary:

Pies supporters: he's innocent.

Everyone else (except the tribunal): hang him

Had Big footy been around 50 years ago the jimmy odea ,John Greening thread would be multi part and pies supporters would be screaming for a life ban

 

[Chief]

can't believe this is still going.

in summary:

Pies supporters: he's innocent.

Everyone else (except the tribunal): hang him

This is not what is happening.

 

[Chief]

it's not reasonable in that situation to expect him to foresee where Brayshaw's head was going to be.

And yet we can see in the video that it so obviously was.

 

[sr36]

And yet we can see in the video that it so obviously was.

From Melbourne Cup videos, we all should have foreseen the last 10 Melbourne Cup trifectas and made a killing - as it is very clear on those videos what happened.

 

[Chief]

From Melbourne Cup videos, we all should have foreseen the last 10 Melbourne Cup trifectas and made a killing - as it is very clear on those videos what happened.

It's OK that you don't agree.