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

 

[bilko2]

How does a tribunal or otherwise take into account there are 'damaged' (ie those who have multiple concussions previously) running around on the field. Just looking at big Harry last night, that looked fairly innocuous and he went down hard.

As I posted in a different thread -

it's my understanding that people who have had multiple concussions, (1) a small knock can be huge and (2) their reflexes become a bit 'shot'.

Is there side on view of Maynard available. If so, can someone post.

If Maynard has attempted to smother but jumped forward by let's say 2 metres forward, he looks in trouble, if he jumped high, with no accelerated thrust, he might be fine.

 

[sherb]

Concussion and CTE no longer a serious issue when it comes to finals.

Any Collingwood supporter who knows Paul Seedsman’s story and saw how his career ended should want this thuggery stamped out of the game. It’s pathetic.

Plus Collingwood supporters (and every other football fan) sadly saw the worst of what concussion can do to a player when John Greening was ko'd in 1972.

Admittedly that was well before most current supporters' time, but it's well known what that incident did to him.

 

[sherb]

Was that the narrative last year when Cripps was reported for his head high attack on the Brisbane player?

My narrative was that he fully deserved suspension.

 

[demondavey]

You need to take a chill pill mate, very aggressive and personal attacks aren’t needed!

Wasn’t a personal attack. I was saying he can go forth and multiply for what he did. I am angry because Brayshaw may very well not play again for what was an avoidable incident.

I don’t mind Maynard. A tough player that is a dour defender. He will be feeling pretty bad, but he does need to get suspended.

 

[demondavey]

Was that the narrative last year when Cripps was reported for his head high attack on the Brisbane player?

Stick to the topic

 

[Karma4Pies]

Genuine question for Collingwood fans;

If Viney did that to Daicos, how would you feel?

So you feel upset? Angry? Emotional?

 

[GoPies1]

Wasn’t a personal attack. I was saying he can go forth and multiply for what he did. I am angry because Brayshaw may very well not play again for what was an avoidable incident.

I don’t mind Maynard. A tough player that is a dour defender. He will be feeling pretty bad, but he does need to get suspended.

It wasn’t just this post I was referring to.
Opinions vary, that’s the purpose of this site.

 

[FIGJAM]

How can you in the same breath imagine (aka fabricate) Maynard's intent, then critcise others for fabricating his intent?

I don’t have to fabricate anything. I was Level 1 on the half forward flank that it happened. It was an epic attempt at a smother.

People booed the outcome like it was a hit, but it was an accident.

 

[GoPies1]

Plus Collingwood supporters (and every other football fan) sadly saw the worst of what concussion can do to a player when John Greening was ko'd in 1972.

Admittedly that was well before most current supporters' time, but it's well known what that incident did to him.

The Greening incident was a cowardly punch by an opposition player behind play.
No comparison to attempting to spoil a football in play.
He jumped up with his arms outstretched.
99 out of 100 times the player with the ball sidesteps and makes Maynard look foolish.
And we applaud the play.

 

[FIGJAM]

Genuine question for Collingwood fans;

If Viney did that to Daicos, how would you feel?

It would suck, but accidents happen. Like head knocks in a genuine ground ball contest. This is exactly like that.

 

[NFNL Member]

The Greening incident was a cowardly punch by an opposition player behind play.
No comparison to attempting to spoil a football in play.
He jumped up with his arms outstretched.
99 out of 100 times the player with the ball sidesteps and makes Maynard look foolish.
And we applaud the play.

not sure about the 99/100 comment. in an open situation maybe but not straight out of a centre ball up.
the player with the ball can do whatever he wants and he chose to get it forward quickly.
2-3 weeks i think

 

[Gaspard]

I have, like everyone else, watched and rewatched this and the van Royen incidents until I have them off by heart. What I see are the following
Maynard leaped to smother the ball, with outstretched fingers clearly striving for the ball. I don't see that he touched it, but some say he did. It looks a lot like an incident later in the game when he leaped across in front of a Melbourne player to smother successfully, but this time leaping from the side.
Having made this attempt, he saw an impending collision that he was not going to avoid and protected himself.
Brayshaw was totally focussed on his kick, and did not seem to get his eyes up to see what was coming, and so he was unable to evade either.
This was two players playing football as they expect to do and there was no offense committed by anybody.

The other incident, judged to be one third as serious, involved a player looking directly at an opponent, ignoring the ball, lifting his elbow and hitting the opponent in the jaw.

The adjudication of these two with such uneven penalties shows the shambles that match review systems are in. It is a tribute to the players that they have somehow adjusted to the "dangerous tackle" rulings. Less skilled players in lower leagues must be having a much more difficult time of it.

The recognition of the perils of concussion is forcing a lot of changes to contact sport. Instead of the piecemeal application of fragments of solutions by mostly targeting players as culprits, the AFL should restructure the rules of the game to reflect concussion realities, and a few others too. This would be a huge and very unpopular action, and is well outside the AFL's risk averse, blame someone else, avoid litigation at all costs methodology.

Australian Rules football is under threat, despite its current success. Like soccer with its problems with heading, the whole structure of the game is faced with losing its grass roots as the rules of the game are exposed as unable to cope with the likelihood of head injuries. The current AFL management seems totally incapable of facing up to this.

 

[sherb]

The Greening incident was a cowardly punch by an opposition player behind play.
No comparison to attempting to spoil a football in play.
He jumped up with his arms outstretched.
99 out of 100 times the player with the ball sidesteps and makes Maynard look foolish.
And we applaud the play.

I wasn't comparing the two incidents, I know what happened with John. I was alive for it, and was growing up in Tassie (where Greening was originally from) at the time, so it was big news down there. And it still upsets me what happened to him.

I was actually talking about the need to take concussion seriously, following on from the post I quoted.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Brayden Maynard

4

Brayden Maynard

Age

28

Ht

189cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

5.9

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.6

5star

MG

327.8

4star

D

20.7

5star

K

14.0

5star

HB

6.7

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

3.0

4star

MG

417.4

5star

D

13.8

4star

K

8.6

4star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.6

5star

MG

205.8

4star

Bump/Spoil

 

[juss]

Having watched a bit more closely now, I think his issue might be that he charges forward and jumps forward into Brayshaw, turning his body in the process and then flushes him in the chin.

Even if it was a genuine smother attempt, it's that forward jump into him not just a vertical jump that I think will have him in trouble with the AFL.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

0 chance Maynard “braces himself” with a tucked shoulder if it was Pendlebury in his line instead of Brayshaw.

Known thug tries to make a tough statement, fails. A tale as old as the game itself. A KO from a fair “smother”, one in a million.

He would brace every time. Was a freek accident.

 

[sherb]

Having watched a bit more closely now, I think his issue might be that he charges forward and jumps forward into Brayshaw, turning his body in the process and then flushes him in the chin.

Even if it was a genuine smother attempt, it's that forward jump into him not just a vertical jump that I think will have him in trouble with the AFL.

I said early on and I haven't changed my mind - it started as a genuine smothering attempt but it didn't finish as one.

 

[Romeoh1]

No his intention was to get the ball, not to mark it, but to smother it. He still was going for the ball

Sure- but there still has to be a duty of care in this day and age - so we don’t have a whole heap of players with lifelong issues. I’m not sure he has met that.

 

[Karma4Pies]

The Greening incident was a cowardly punch by an opposition player behind play.
No comparison to attempting to spoil a football in play.
He jumped up with his arms outstretched.
99 out of 100 times the player with the ball sidesteps and makes Maynard look foolish.
And we applaud the play.

Yeah. Why does Brayshaw who had options - decide to charge head on into Maynard. Hello Melbourne's football department.

 

[bilko2]

Having watched a bit more closely now, I think his issue might be that he charges forward and jumps forward into Brayshaw, turning his body in the process and then flushes him in the chin.

Even if it was a genuine smother attempt, it's that forward jump into him not just a vertical jump that I think will have him in trouble with the AFL.

I think you are on to something there.

Although having said that -

I rate Jack Martin's as the most dangerous action, then maybe on a par Van Rooyen and Maynard.

 

[NFNL Member]

Yeah. Why does Brayshaw who had options - decide to charge head on into Maynard. Hello Melbourne's football department.

you win the prize!!! this is the most ridiculous comment ive read on this topic!!!!

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

How does a tribunal or otherwise take into account there are 'damaged' (ie those who have multiple concussions previously) running around on the field. Just looking at big Harry last night, that looked fairly innocuous and he went down hard.

As I posted in a different thread -

it's my understanding that people who have had multiple concussions, (1) a small knock can be huge and (2) their reflexes become a bit 'shot'.

Is there side on view of Maynard available. If so, can someone post.

If Maynard has attempted to smother but jumped forward by let's say 2 metres forward, he looks in trouble, if he jumped high, with no accelerated thrust, he might be fine.

It's this level of analysis that makes it ridiculous. Watch it in real time from any angle. He tried to smother and crashed into a bloke. It happens in non contact sports too.

He jumps at the ball as it is kicked. He wasn't thinking about moving forward, angles, acceleration, or hurting someone. It's early in a final and he's a fast twitch athlete.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Yeah. Why does Brayshaw who had options - decide to charge head on into Maynard. Hello Melbourne's football department.

Brayshaw had no options. When he kicked, it put him off balance and carried him into Maynard. He tries to raise his elbow, but if it does anything at all, it just makes it worse.

 

[bilko2]

It's this level of analysis that makes it ridiculous. Watch it in real time from any angle. He tried to smother and crashed into a bloke. It happens in non contact sports too.

He jumps at the ball as it is kicked. He wasn't thinking about moving forward, angles, acceleration, or hurting someone. It's early in a final and he's a fast twitch athlete.

The vid shows he jumped up and in that motion goes forward.
The review will have to deem if that was reasonable.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Yep - for all those saying it was a "football action" , I have one simple question.

Was the ump right in paying a downfield free kick?

After you say yes then the incident is "careless conduct, severe impact and high contact" - 3 weeks.

Yes. But does that make it right? The point of a court is to point out the occasions when a law is being applied outside of its intention.

The intention of such a law/rule in this case is to stop blokes flattening each other recklessly during the game (So you can argue Maynard did that, but in no way can you argue it was deliberate).

The consequences of enforcing the law this way will be footy being watered down from being a contact sport. It was an unfortunate football accident, one that cannot be completely removed from the game. Punishment does not fit "the crime" in this circumstance to my mind.