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

 

[sr36]

It's OK that you don't agree.

Yeah it is. I'm just confused, by what appears so straight forward. My final post on it, is from the ruling. I'm seriously confused that there are people that disagree with this:

He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.

We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.

We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.

Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location...

 

[Chief]

We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.

Yep sure.

We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

You're in the air going full tilt at a kicker. Of course it was reasonably foreseeable. "Inevitable or likely" is what they are hanging it on?

There's the dispute.

I don't think he meant for it to happen, but it was quite foreseeable that it could have.

 

[sr36]

Yep sure.


You're in the air going full tilt at a kicker. Of course it was reasonably foreseeable. "Inevitable or likely" is what they are hanging it on?

There's the dispute.

I don't think he meant for it to happen, but it was quite foreseeable that it could have.

I see what you mean. Defintely the best attempt to explain why the ruling is incorrect in terms of the guidelines, but I don't think foreseeable means: I shouldn't jump now because it's possible that I will get him high. It means - I shouldn't jump know because I will get him high. Otherwise a careless conduct grading would be uncontestable and everytime someone was knocked out it'd be a 3+ week suspension for anyone that collided with them, which it clearly isn't.

 

[El_Scorcho]

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.

Brayshaw ran in a straight line and kicked. It's absolutely reasonable that he knew enough about where Brayshaw was going to be to know that if he jumped he was going to make heavy contact having lost control of his body. It's been a suspension for a decade at least.

"The whole conspiracy" about the AFL wanting players to play in grand finals isn't really a conspiracy, it's tribunal members being human mostly footy players who don't want to feel responsible for a player missing a GF or being ineligible for a Brownlow. The Maynard is just one of many incidents where a bump that would have been weeks earlier in the year is all of a sudden excusable because a GF or a Brownlow is on the line. Look at Cotchin on Shiel. Barry Hall gut punching Maguire. Tom Mitchell elbowing Goldstein in the head.

 

[sr36]

Brayshaw ran in a straight line and kicked. It's absolutely reasonable that he knew enough about where Brayshaw was going to be to know that if he jumped he was going to make heavy contact having lost control of his body. It's been a suspension for a decade at least.

"The whole conspiracy" about the AFL wanting players to play in grand finals isn't really a conspiracy, it's tribunal members being human mostly footy players who don't want to feel responsible for a player missing a GF or being ineligible for a Brownlow. The Maynard is just one of many incidents where a bump that would have been weeks earlier in the year is all of a sudden excusable because a GF or a Brownlow is on the line. Look at Cotchin on Shiel. Barry Hall gut punching Maguire. Tom Mitchell elbowing Goldstein in the head.

I agree with you on the last paragraph, but think they were the days before a proper tribunal process and that it's now far less likely to be the case and wasn't the case with this one as I just think it doesn't meet the guidelines.

 

[Chief]

I shouldn't jump now because it's possible that I will get him high. It means - I shouldn't jump know because I will get him high.

No they use "inevitable" and "likely" there.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I see what you mean. Defintely the best attempt to explain why the ruling is incorrect in terms of the guidelines, but I don't think foreseeable means: I shouldn't jump now because it's possible that I will get him high. It means - I shouldn't jump know because I will get him high. Otherwise a careless conduct grading would be uncontestable and everytime someone was knocked out it'd be a 3+ week suspension for anyone that collided with them, which it clearly isn't.

The defence used for Maynard could be used for every single high bump. Just trying to contest, got there late, got in a position where I couldn't control my body and braced and accidentally got him in the head.

Jumping to a position where you know you're going to land on a vulnerable player is careless. He didn't have to know he was going to KO Brayshaw, no player ever goes in trying to KO a bloke, but he knew he'd make heavy uncontrolled contact. That would absolutely have been enough for a suspension if the same incident happened 4 weeks earlier.

 

[sr36]

The defence used for Maynard could be used for every single high bump. Just trying to contest, got there late, got in a position where I couldn't control my body and braced and accidentally got him in the head.

Jumping to a position where you know you're going to land on a vulnerable player is careless. He didn't have to know he was going to KO Brayshaw, no player ever goes in trying to KO a bloke, but he knew he'd make heavy uncontrolled contact. That would absolutely have been enough for a suspension if the same incident happened 4 weeks earlier.

When it's judged that you've made a decision to bump it's treated differently.

The point is that he didn't "know" he was going to land on Brayshaw - that very easily could have played out differently. To foresee something isn't to think something is likely - it's to confidently see what is going to occur. I didn't foresee the Pies winning the 2023 flag, but I sure as hell thought we were a good chance.

 

[sr36]

No they use "inevitable" and "likely" there.

The guidelines say reasonably forseeable - the ruling says it's not reasonably foreseeable because it wasn't "inevitable" or even particularly "likely" when he made the decision to jump. Basically, you're using a different definition of reasonably foreseeable to me - and the tribunal.

How could a concussion event not result in a suspension under your version of reasonably foreseeable?

 

[El_Scorcho]

When it's judged that you've made a decision to bump it's treated differently.

The point is that he didn't "know" he was going to land on Brayshaw - that very easily could have played out differently. To foresee something isn't to think something is likely - it's to confidently see what is going to occur. I didn't foresee the Pies winning the 2023 flag, but I sure as hell thought we were a good chance.

I don't really think they are treated differently. Apart from this one (and the Cotchin one where he also got to play in a Grand Final), can you think of any incidents where someone has braced at the last minute into a bumping position, hit a guy in the head at speed, concussed him and been treated differently because they weren't choosing to bump?

Maynard absolutely knew he was going to land on Brayshaw. He ran directly at him, jumped forward into Brayshaw's path, Brayshaw didn't make any dramatic movements that Maynard couldn't have foreseen. He had full view of the Brayshaw and knew what Brayshaw was trying to do, because he jumped to smother the kick. Landing on Brayshaw was inevitable when he jumped and it's absolutely foreseeable that he was going to make heavy contact.

 

[sr36]

I don't really think they are treated differently. Apart from this one (and the Cotchin one where he also got to play in a Grand Final), can you think of any incidents where someone has braced at the last minute into a bumping position, hit a guy in the head at speed, concussed him and been treated differently because they weren't choosing to bump?

plus heaps at ground level contests where a bloke turns and braces for contact - I'd say macarthy did in the ground final.

 

[Chief]

The guidelines say reasonably forseeable - the ruling says it's not reasonably foreseeable because it wasn't "inevitable" or even particularly "likely" when he made the decision to jump. Basically, you're using a different definition of reasonably foreseeable to me - and the tribunal.

I don't agree, but I don't make the decisions. Run at a kicker full tilt head on and leave the ground, such that the only way you'd miss them when you came down is narrowly to one side and it's of course reasonably foreseeable you'd slam into them.

How could a concussion event not result in a suspension under your version of reasonably foreseeable?

That's not the result of "my version". I'm talking about THIS event.

Like I said, I don't think he meant it, I think he thought he was OK, turns out it didn't take much for it not to be OK.

But I don't make the decisions.

 

[sr36]

I don't agree, but I don't make the decisions. Run at a kicker full tilt head on and leave the ground, such that the only way you'd miss them when you came down is narrowly to one side and it's of course reasonably foreseeable you'd slam into them.


That's not the result of "my version". I'm talking about THIS event.

Like I said, I don't think he meant it, I think he thought he was OK, turns out it didn't take much for it not to be OK.

But I don't make the decisions.

I actually agree that it should be suspendable.

Out of curiosity are you reading "reasonably" with its meaning in "I'm reasonably happy."

 

[VicBased]

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.

Last time I looked his head was attached to his body.
Maynard was airborne and on a collision course with Brayshaws body and because his trajectory, after launching, was downward it is reasonable to surmise he would hit the head first.

 

[sr36]

Last time I looked his head was attached to his body.
Maynard was airborne and on a collision course with Brayshaws body and because his trajectory, after launching, was downward it is reasonable to surmise he would hit the head first.

I think we're using different definitions of either reasonably or foreseeable or both. People dismiss things as only semantics, but they matter enormously in a ruling and they're actually what heaps of disagreements are about when you scratch deeply enough.

 

[VicBased]

I think we're using different definitions of either reasonably or foreseeable or both. People dismiss things as only semantics, but they matter enormously in a ruling and they're actually what heaps of disagreements are about when you scratch deeply enough.

As I said earlier in this thread "One set of Lawyers were better than the other set of Lawyers ".
All the rest of it is intellectual clap trap and denial.

 

[sr36]

As I said earlier in this thread "One set of Lawyers were better than the other set of Lawyers ".
All the rest of it is intellectual clap trap and denial.

There's basically two bones of contention we have How inevitable was a dangerous collision - that's the lawyers job to have created doubt - I think it was a pretty easy thing to do. And how inevitable it has to be to be reasonably foreseeable - in this case there was no debate by the lawyers regarding that term. I basically think it means a lot more inevitable than is being suggested and a lot more inevitable than it was, because I think there was a lot more doubt than you do.

 

[Proffessor]

There's basically two bones of contention we have How inevitable was a dangerous collision - that's the lawyers job to have created doubt - I think it was a pretty easy thing to do. And how inevitable it has to be to be reasonably foreseeable - in this case there was no debate by the lawyers regarding that term. I basically think it means a lot more inevitable than is being suggested and a lot more inevitable than it was, because I think there was a lot more doubt than you do.

This was a rare event for a reason. The reason being that most players recognise that running and jumping directly towards an opponent running in opposite direction and shaping to kick the ball, will almost inevitably lead to a nasty outcome.

Maynard’s actions weren’t at all reasonable, the outcome was easily foreseeable, the rules were adequate, the tribunal's ex-players just decided they didn't want to stop one of their compadres playing in a grand final.

Like the tribunal, you keep trying to have it both ways, sr36.

If it wasn't inevitable then he was guilty of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge.

And if it was inevitable, then he was guilty of the general Rough Conduct charge.

The same event\action can't be both 'not reasonably foreseeable' and inevitable, and you can't just flick the inevitability switch mid-flight or between charges.

 

[sr36]

This was a rare event for a reason. The reason being that most players recognise that running and jumping directly towards an opponent running in opposite direction and shaping to kick the ball, will almost inevitably lead to a nasty outcome.

Maynard’s actions weren’t at all reasonable, the outcome was easily foreseeable, the rules were adequate, the tribunal's ex-players just decided they didn't want to stop one of their compadres playing in a grand final.

Like the tribunal, you keep trying to have it both ways, sr36.

If it wasn't inevitable then he was guilty of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge.

And if it was inevitable, then he was guilty of the general Rough Conduct charge.

The same event\action can't be both 'not reasonably foreseeable' and inevitable, and you can't just flick the inevitability switch mid-flight or between charges.

The turning and bracing and the jumping to smother ocurred at different times and about 3 metres apart from each other. It's some odd reasoning you've got going on here. St Kilda's bloke about to face the tribunal should give it a go - at this point I was running and not electing to bump and it was all one event/action, therefore you've got to treat my running the same as what can't have been a decision to bump because as you can see in this part of the event I was running and not braced for contact at all. It was just a running event with an unforseeable outcome ...

 

[Proffessor]

The turning and bracing and the jumping to smother ocurred at different times and about 3 metres apart from each other. It's some odd reasoning you've got going on here. St Kilda's bloke about to face the tribunal should give it a go - at this point I was running and not electing to bump and it was all one event/action, therefore you've got to treat my running the same as what can't have been a decision to bump because as you can see in this part of the event I was running and not braced for contact at all. It was just a running event with an unforseeable outcome ...

So, you are now supportive of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge sticking for Maynard. It wasn't inevitable at all? OK.

 

[sr36]

So, you are now supportive of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge sticking for Maynard. It wasn't inevitable at all? OK.

You might have missed what I was saying.
They get done for individual decisions within play and not a series of events.

Evidence was presented that there was an inadequate amount of time for his turn and brace to be called a bump. It wasn't countered and despite precedent not being relevant, it was consistent with prior cases of blokes turning at the last minute when they were about to collide with someone. And when that occured he couldn't avoid a collision as he couldn't stop - it was inevitable.

The jump was considered a clear decision, a collision wasn't inevitable when he made that decision, but it wasn't categorised as careless for a different reason.

 

[Proffessor]

You might have missed what I was saying.
They get done for individual decisions within play and not a series of events.

Evidence was presented that there was an inadequate amount of time for his turn and brace to be called a bump. It wasn't countered and despite precedent not being relevant, it was consistent with prior cases of blokes turning at the last minute when they were about to collide with someone. And when that occured he couldn't avoid a collision as he couldn't stop - it was inevitable.

The jump was considered a clear decision, a collision wasn't inevitable when he made that decision, but it wasn't categorised as careless for a different reason.

These knots you are tying yourself up in must be getting uncomfortable.

It wasn't a series of events, by Maynard's own defence's claim. If the nominal second event was inevitable following the first then there is only one decision point, the jump. Hence it was indeed a careless jump.

If there is a second viable decision point, and there is a sequence of separable events, then his excuse for the second charge becomes invalid and he would then be guilty of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge.

 

[sr36]

These knots you are tying yourself up in must be getting uncomfortable.

It wasn't a series of events, by Maynard's own defence's claim. If the nominal second event was inevitable following the first then there is only one decision point, the jump. Hence it was indeed a careless jump.

If there is a second viable decision point, and there is a sequence of separable events, then his excuse for the second charge becomes invalid and he would then be guilty of the Rough Conduct (High Bump) charge.

There's no doubt that at some point after the jump a collision became inevitable, but that alone doesn't make it careless. Careless for that action depends on the degree of inevitably when he chose to jump. Something becoming inevitable doesn't mean it always was inevitable.

Maynard is expected to foresee where he was going land, but under the ruling wasn't expected to foresee how Brayshaw moved after he had committed to the jump and thus wasn't expected to foresee that they would collide violently or that he'd turn and brace for that collision.

You seem to be conflating events with decisions.

There wasn't a logical flaw; any flaw would be in the decision itself

The two different questions asked of Maynard's contact were independent questions. The new rule does what you want to do and combines the jumping decision with post jump actions, the old rules didn't.

 

[TW Sherrin]

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

You think they're comparable?

Lol

 

[Stax on the mill]

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

No shame in that. Remind us, how many AFL premierships have you won?