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

 

[demondavey]

Because we are playing finals. Same as Brayshaw's history comes into, and Maynard's apparently thuggish reputation comes into it. If he got up and was fine we aren't even talking about this.

Shouldn't it come into it, but the lawyers will bring it all up.

Finals don’t matter. You don’t start changing punishments just because of finals. That’s just wrong. If I get caught drink driving on Christmas Eve the police don’t give me a fine instead of suspending my licence because on Christmas Day I need to drive my family over the bridge to have lunch with Nan and Pop.

 

[jackenny]

So never follow a reflex to go for the ball? Got it.

Except there’s video evidence of him leaping forward at the same time to put pressure on the kicker. He wasn’t just going for the ball, was he? I don’t think you really got it. And then the person he was leaping toward got knocked out…

 

[Karma4Pies]

Finals don’t matter. You don’t start changing punishments just because of finals. That’s just wrong. If I get caught drink driving on Christmas Eve the police don’t give me a fine instead of suspending my licence because on Christmas Day I need to drive my family over the bridge to have lunch with Nan and Pop.

Like it or not it has in the past.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Finals don’t matter. You don’t start changing punishments just because of finals. That’s just wrong. If I get caught drink driving on Christmas Eve the police don’t give me a fine instead of suspending my licence because on Christmas Day I need to drive my family over the bridge to have lunch with Nan and Pop.

Agreed. But you know it is being mentioned at the tribunal.

 

[bilko2]

So did Maynard do anything to try and actually limit the potential for impact on Brayshaw?

Well he didn't put his knee into his head, nor his fists outstretched.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Christian has to go.

AFL boss has clearly seen that he cant put his Collingwood bias aside.

Please site other MRO examples or STFU.

 

[Jibroni]

Fair, but my point is, if you are the match review panel/whoever is making this call, why are you caring if he moves forward or not. They are over analysing it at that point.

If you thought it was deliberate you would look at that stuff, but if it is just a football incident I'm not sure what it adds?

He tried to smother and feel on a bloke. The AFL just needs to decide if they think it is fair to rob someone of finals for what is effectively a bad accident.

You can say it was a 'football act' and he was jumping to smother yet this is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clearer: in the scenario a player jumps to contact then its that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head.

Maynard had an option other than hitting him should to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head with his shoulder. That decision is on him.

 

[demondavey]

Agreed. But you know it is being mentioned at the tribunal.

I know. And it should be discounted immediately.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Except there’s video evidence of him leaping forward at the same time to put pressure on the kicker. He wasn’t just going for the ball, was he? I don’t think you really got it. And then the person he was leaping toward got knocked out…

You realise that's part of the game yeah? Going towards other players and the ball. It is quite hard to get the ball if you don't move toward it. I'm also 100% sure he would have tried to tackle him if Brayshaw hadn't kicked it. I'm not sure what moving forward or not adds to anything.

The debate isn't did he move in the right way when he fell on him. It's did he mean to hit him high or was it a bad accident? And, could he do anything once he was in the air?

Actually, the real debate is that is it fair to apply this stupid head knock flowchart rule system to this incident.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Except there’s video evidence of him leaping forward at the same time to put pressure on the kicker. He wasn’t just going for the ball, was he? I don’t think you really got it. And then the person he was leaping toward got knocked out…

He would have been moving forward to intercept the player and then jumped with his natural momentum carrying him forward.

 

[Maddo11]

Why does that matter or of curiosity? It only matters if you believe he meant to do it deliberately. I cannot fathom how anyone who watched the footage thinks he meant to knock him out.

You can be suspended for unintentional contact. Not many here are arguing that he did it intentionally, but he was definitely careless in his attack on the ball carrier.

 

[eddiesmith]

Christian has to go.

AFL boss has clearly seen that he cant put his Collingwood bias aside.

So far I’ve seen only one ex player think he should be suspended and that’s the biggest thug to play the game, but also a board member of their grand final opponents…

The only people who think this is worthy of a suspension are Collingwood hating fans and some soft new footy boss.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

You can say it was a 'football act' and he was jumping to smother yet this is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clearer: in the scenario a player jumps to contact then its that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head.

Maynard had an option other than hitting him should to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head with his shoulder. That decision is on him.

It was a football act. But I don't disagree that under the current rule system he is in trouble. I do disagree that we are effectively asking players not to protect themselves in unavoidable contact. You can't ask someone falling to the ground not to tuck their shoulders.

 

[eddiesmith]

Im hoping this doesnt sound bad. But lets say this same situation happened to a bloke with no concussion history and he gets straight up after the knock and kept playing with no sign of concussion. What would have happened then?

No suspension, no mass media hysteria.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

You can be suspended for unintentional contact. Not many here are arguing that he did it intentionally, but he was definitely careless in his attack on the ball carrier.

There are plenty of occasions where you can be in a car accident and you be at no fault. Even if the front of your car is wrecked.

But yes, I understand he is likely to get pinged under our current rule system. My points have been more directed at the bias melbourne fans saying he meant to knock him out.

And at the AFL I suppose - was it dumb, yes and therefore a free kick. But a suspension for this seems unfair.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

You can say it was a 'football act' and he was jumping to smother yet this is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clearer: in the scenario a player jumps to contact then its that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head.

Maynard had an option other than hitting him should to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head with his shoulder. That decision is on him.

The turning of the body by Maynard might have been a biomechanical process that just happened naturally because he jumped off a certain foot. He didnt turn that much just a little. The contact and body turn may have been unavoidable. Brayshaw also came at Maynard from an angle after kicking the ball with his right foot (again a biomechanical issue and not his fault). Had he not kicked or kicked with his left he would have probably missed Maynard. There was no decision after the smother attempt. It was just bad luck.

 

[jackenny]

Grandstanding right after? Viney remonstrates with Maynard like five minutes after the incident. Viney ends up with his jumper pulled off him - and on the losing team by the end of the game.

Your memory’s shot. Angus hadn’t even been stretchered off at this point and you’re saying ‘like five minutes after’?

 

[sr36]

Wasn’t intentional but commentators saying what can you do.

The rule is if you leave the ground and make high contact that’s your responsibility so will have to be 4 weeks unless they get Carlton’s lawyers and it’ll be 0.

That's the rule if you elect to bump. It's not the rule for any other collision.

 

[Karma4Pies]

There are plenty of occasions where you can be in a car accident and you be at no fault. Even if the front of your car is wrecked.

But yes, I understand he is likely to get pinged under our current rule system. My points have been more directed at the bias melbourne fans saying he meant to knock him out.

And at the AFL I suppose - was it dumb, yes and therefore a free kick. But a suspension for this seems unfair.

Actually I think he will get off and that's the opinion of most people - and also those with legal background/experience with the tribunal and I've been quite fixated on this case.

 

[Karma4Pies]

Your memory’s shot. Angus hadn’t even been stretchered off at this point and you’re saying ‘like five minutes after’?

Maynard also plays out the game; successfully smothers another ball on the wing and plays in the winning team.
It'd be nice for you if Maynard was put off his game; plays a stinker and in the losing side but that didn't happen.
What you wished Maynard's reaction to be when Viney remonstrated with him, is quite telling.

 

[Chilli Con Incarnate]

Actually I think he will get off and that's the opinion of most people - and also those with legal background/experience with the tribunal and I've been quite fixated on this case.

Yeah I'm not so sure. This is the purpose of the tribunal however, to make sense of things when the rules aren't reflective of their intended impact. We'll see

 

[PowerBaz]

In this one you can see WHE maneuvers his body to avoid contact which unfortunately Brayshaw didn’t

You forgot to mention Pickett moved to the right well aware of the situation before he entered into it.

 

[Pancakes]

I'm sure it has been said but I'm too lazy to look, but when does the tribunal sit?

 

[sherb]

Actually, the real debate is that is it fair to apply this stupid head knock flowchart rule system to this incident.

Fair point, but how do you come up with a workable tribunal system?

My recollection is that the old tribunal system was viewed as a chooklotto in the end, hence why we ended up with firstly a points system and now the grading system, in an attempt to make penalties more workable and consistent.

And here we are now, with a seemingly equally (at times) confusing and unfathomable system as the original one they tried to improve. Which people, again, seem to be complaining about as much as the original one.

The problem is that by definition the system can't be perfect and will struggle to be consistent, because no two incidents are identical and just about every incident has so many variables and factors to consider.

On top of that the current tribunal system has become basically a legal process now, with clubs regularly getting the suits involved, plus the fact that the system has to be seen to be upholding AFL policy in certain areas (eg with this incident - head high contact leading to concussion).

Anyway, off topic I guess..........

 

[FireKrakouer]

Genuine question for Collingwood fans;

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

I would think that, as with a bump, players have a duty of care to not hit their opponent high. I do not believe that Maynard "elected to bump" and that it was an attempted smother as claimed. However, he left the ground while moving at speed towards another player and it was therefore his own responsibility to not make high contact.

In your hypothetical if Viney had taken out Daicos I'd obviously be shattered and angry to lose an important player in such a way. If Viney went over and spoke to Daicos shortly after the fact showing remorse and had a history of friendship with him then I'd believe that there was no genuine malice in it and 1 week off is sufficient.

With hindsight I also agree that the collingwood chant at the time was really inappropriate. In the defense of the fans, there were plenty of Collingwood supporters standing and applauding as Brayshaw left the ground in the usual show of good sportsmanship towards an injured player. The chanters were probably caught up in the adrenaline and mob mentality.

Your turn, what would your view be in the hypothetical that Viney had caused the injury?