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

 

[Carringbush2010]

Cleared by a corrupt kangaroo court
His premiership tally is now at zero, because he was at negative one after the one he gave to West Coast

 

[Carringbush2010]

Conspiracy! I Tells ya!

 

[sr36]

7 weeks fair enough.

Meanwhile, Maynard ends a guys career and gets rewarded with a premiership.

Bravo AFL. Enjoy your gift Collingwood.

There are supporters of clubs who can carry on about the pies getting gifts or preferential treatment, but a Sydney fan? Really?

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Well this is crazy. Last time a guy lands a bump in finals and plays in a GF. Maynard incredibly lucky and probably the last guy to get away with it.

There's going to be some pain in the finals this year. I can feel it.



Interesting question: Maynard incident this season. How many weeks?

 

[sr36]

I hope no one gets knocked out, but if someone does, I hope it's from a shepherd and someone gets suspended under the new rule. This thread will hit a 1000 pages of humourous idiocy.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

What Jimmy did was dangerous and stupid and he deserves a big stint on the sidelines.

My issue is, it has only been six months since this:

That resulted in 'no worries young fella, go out and enjoy the Grand Final, have fun'

And Maynard's hit was front on, all of his force went into Brayshaw's body.

It effectively ended Brayshaw's career. He will never play again.

What kind of bullshit bush league can give zero for this, and seven weeks for Webster's hit?

We'll see how serious the AFL is about protecting the head the next time a boys club member KOs somebody.

 

[Tas]

I think he got 3 weeks + the 4 that Maynard should have got last year. I think Maynard's was worse because he launched head on which increases the impact force significantly. If you connect with the head with force, you should be penalised, regardless if the action is a tackle or bump or smother attempt, if you can't execute without knocking someone's head off then perhaps this isn't the caper for you.

Too harsh a penalty imo, should be 4 weeks max for anything that isn't a Baz king hit... or testicle biting.

IMO Maynard's focus was taking Brayshaw out of the GF, he took him out of the sport entirely.

 

[Cyclops]

AFL seem to ride the wave of public opinion. This one was widespread in its condemnation of Webster.

Cripps, Lynch, Maynard while all not intentional trying to take someone out - lacked duty of care and weren't suspended the last couple of years.

While there is no conspiracy - little doubt that the decision makers are heavily influenced by public opinion.

Nice post, shame you've been thoughtful and logical, probably get ignored.

I think you're right, and the AFL always jumps when they realize money is in the picture.

One bloke retired from brain damage, another on the cusp (both from top 4 sides, premiership players) suddenly they're dishing out licks and changing rules.

Guys from smaller clubs eg Seedsman and Lynch retired and the league didn't really blink.

 

[Theo X]

They made an example of Webster to make up for the inaction on Maynard.

 

[Swallow_Wood]

So much of the commentary around Webster’s hit is that he jumped off the ground and therefor makes it so much worse …. ( rightfully so)

But Maynard …. Because of ‘football action’…?

Well, yeah. Maynard made a legitimate attempt to smother the ball and his momentum took him straight into Brayshaw. Webster made no attempt to smother, tucked the arm in then launched himself at Simpkins head.

 

[Muddiemoose]

So much of the commentary around Webster’s hit is that he jumped off the ground and therefor makes it so much worse …. ( rightfully so)

But Maynard …. Because of ‘football action’…?

Rule got changed in between last and this season so no real point trying to compare

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

So much of the commentary around Webster’s hit is that he jumped off the ground and therefor makes it so much worse …. ( rightfully so)

But Maynard …. Because of ‘football action’…?

Yes. Marking. Spoiling. Smothering. All football acts. All jump off the ground.

You're starting to understand football.

 

[Erakor]

Well, yeah. Maynard made a legitimate attempt to smother the ball and his momentum took him straight into Brayshaw. Webster made no attempt to smother, tucked the arm in then launched himself at Simpkins head.

Trying to smother a ball doesn’t give you carte blanke to then smash your shoulder into a guys head.

 

[Erakor]

Rule got changed in between last and this season so no real point trying to compare

You don’t need to be an AFL rules lawyer and cite Bi law 3.33a to know Maynard jumped into someone and KO them and got should have been given weeks.

AFL changing the the wording of a rule is just covering their own ass.

 

[Erakor]

Yes. Marking. Spoiling. Smothering. All football acts. All jump off the ground.

You're starting to understand football.

Yes, because everyone who attempts a smother can then shoulder charge an incoming player and KO them with head high contact.

‘Football act’…. ‘Bradshaw changed direction’ …. Just say words which sounds like a defense, the masses need this…. It’s a final and Collingwood are in it god dammit!

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

What Jimmy did was dangerous and stupid and he deserves big stint on the sidelines.

My issue is, it has only been six months since this:

That resulted in 'no worries young fella, go out and enjoy the Grand Final, have fun'

And Maynard's hit was front on, all of his force went into Brayshaw's body.

It effectively ended Brayshaw's career. He will never play again.

What kind of bullshit bush league can give zero for this, and seven weeks for Webster's hit?

We'll see how serious the AFL is about protecting the head the next time a boys club member KOs somebody.

Are you happy Webster got 7?

Enough already about Maynard's smother.

Are you still angry about the high bumps from last year which weren't smothers & received 3 weeks or less?

 

[Erakor]

I'm not saying it does but there is a clear distinction between the two acts. One was very unfortunate, the other, well....

In no way is this a defence of Webster at all, deserves more than 7 weeks imo.

Just knew the AFL would come hard on the next head hit after they coward out of the Maynard one.

 

[Swallow_Wood]

In no way is this a defender of Webster at all, deserves more than 7 weeks imo.

Just knew the AFL would come hard on the next head hit after they coward out of the Maynard one.

Oh, ok. Yeah well, we all know the AFL's approach to contentious incidents during finals. They have history here. If the Maynard Brayshaw hit happened during the season proper its likely he would have recieved at least a week for what would've been interpreted at worst as a careless act.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Yes, because everyone who attempts a smother can then shoulder charge an incoming player and KO them with head high contact.

‘Football act’…. ‘Bradshaw changed direction’ …. Just say words which sounds like a defender, the masses need this…. It’s a final and Collingwood are in it god dammit!

Go back & read the findings from the Tribunal.

What are you getting out of going over past incidents anyway? Webster got 7. Plenty of high bumps/charges got 3 or less last year.

Charging & leaping off the ground into player after they've disposed of the ball & making contact with their head has never been allowed. It's not a football act.

Rohan lined up an opposition player and knocked his own team mate out in Cameron. Apparently Cameron's head wasn't important in that instance? That act or outcome wasn't punished.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

In no way is this a defence of Webster at all, deserves more than 7 weeks imo.

Just knew the AFL would come hard on the next head hit after they coward out of the Maynard one.

The Tribunal made the decision on Maynard.

 

[mcnulty]

So much of the commentary around Webster’s hit is that he jumped off the ground and therefor makes it so much worse …. ( rightfully so)

But Maynard …. Because of ‘football action’…?

So no flying for marks now? How can you…anyone…not see the difference?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

So no flying for marks now? How can you…anyone…not see the difference?

I'm starting to think some of these people are new to football.

They literally do not understand what football acts are. Spoiling, smothering, marking, etc.

 

[Erakor]

So no flying for marks now? How can you…anyone…not see the difference?

If it is in a marking contest and you have eyes for the ball the whole time.

Not when you make some vague attempt at marking and then just dive with your shoulder into someone’s head with your eyes solely on them.

 

[Tadpole]

So no flying for marks now? How can you…anyone…not see the difference?

It's not easy to see things when you walk around with your eyes firmly squeezed shut, even if they're literally right in front of your face.

 

[sideswipe]

They’re more likeable without Eddie there

Is your previous president still carrying on with legal proceedings against your incumbent?

Hard to get news on the small clubs.