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]

Most players are smart enough to step out of the way or avoid contact, not Brayshaw though, he's special.

That’s right, he is ‘dumb’ because he didn’t move away from a player he wasn’t expecting to shirtfront him. People are ‘dumb’ when they don’t do what you say or think.

Got it now.

 

[Roby]

But they lose all future litigation if they do nothing. They'll win some if they can establish that they've taken reasonable measures.

That's not true, it's just speculation for now.

 

[demondavey]

You don't understand physics or momentum. When you jump up vertically you're slowing your current forwatd moment.

He can't literally stop like hitting a wall, but he's stopping as he jumps up.

Also he was not not going at full pace as you suggest. So many things you get wrong.

You’re right though, aren’t you?

 

[demondavey]

Am I misinterpreting, or were you suggesting Brayshaw had enough time to avoid contact?

One of the worst.

You’re not misinterpreting

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

That's because most players move out of the way if someone jumps into them.

Another post where you imply Brayshaw had enough time to move out of the way as if he should need to.

But Maynard didn’t have enough time to “brace” in a way where he didn’t put a shoulder through his face?

Contractions everywhere

 

[Carringbush2010]

But they lose all future litigation if they do nothing. They'll win some if they can establish that they've taken reasonable measures.

Litigation is gonna come either either, the only way out is zero contact, obviously not an option.

The AFL is attempting to deter accidents, deter away but accidents are still gonna happen, not up for debate.

There is no known universe you can penalize a player for an accident and expect positive change, ain't gonna happen.

All that is currently happening is on top of players getting concussed we have players having an accident getting suspended for it.

 

[sr36]

That's not true, it's just speculation for now.

If you don't do anything to reduce known risks despite reasonable action being possible - you're stuffed.

 

[sr36]

There is no known universe you can penalize a player for an accident and expect positive change, ain't gonna happen.

Within a month we saw a significant change regarding tackling...

 

[BF Tiger]

I feel like this comes down to a simple counterfactual. If Maynard had tried, instead of bracing for impact, was there some other form of motion (like some kind of aerial bear hug) that he could have done in that amount of time that would have protected both players.

If the tribunal thinks yes, then he should cop 3-4. If the tribunal thinks no, then no penalty.

And I genuinely don't know the answer. Maybe he could have? I don't think I could have but they have better reaction times than me.

Yes, this is it for me too.

Most of the impact was Maynard’s shoulder into Brayshaw’s head. That meant a lot of force being focussed through a small hard area (his shoulder) into a delicate part of the body (Brayshaw’s head).

Maynard’s alternative IMHO was to stay open and upright. He still crashes into Brayshaw but with his torso into Brayshaw’s torso, chest and head region. The force that Maynard hits with is spread over a larger area, the impact zone is a larger area on Brayshaw and the force is dissipated somewhat.

An injury to one or both still might have occurred but likely lessened in its severity, and Maynard has shown a duty of care to his colleague.

 

[sr36]

Litigation is gonna come either either, the only way out is zero contact, obviously not an option.

Lots of claimants don't win.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Yes. Brayshaw as per usual, intentionally tried to get a high free kick. Certainly careless, the AFL should ban Angus from the AFL

A third post where you imply Brayshaw actually drew the contact. He must be SuperMan.

In the time Maynard leaped off the ground. Brayshaw has So taken two steps, kicked the ball, completed his kicking action and then move towards a shoulder that had formed only milliseconds earlier. But slow little Bruzzy has no time to adjust his positioning?

Getting a bit ridiculous.

 

[Roby]

If you don't do anything to reduce known risks despite reasonable action being possible - you're stuffed.

No.

The link between repeated concussions and CTE is tenuous at best. More research is required. Hopefully players like Platten will donate their brain for science so we can do more studies on CTE.

I can understand why the AFL is acting this way, previous litigation in other sports, now have to face one,K themselves, and the link to CTE and concussions; they're trying to cover themselves, just in case.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Within a month we saw a significant change regarding tackling...

Tackling isn't an accident sr, only very recently have sling tackles top being trained.

Ever since my junior days playing to my senior games in the early 90s we trained in sling tackling (obviously to dispossess), very deliberate action, not an accident.

You cannot legislate accidents out of the game and is futile to attempt so.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Lots of claimants don't win.

Not the point, it's clear the AFL want to eradicate the possibility of litigation, ain't gonna happen, unless contact is removed.

 

[sr36]

Maynard’s alternative IMHO was to stay open and upright. He still crashes into Brayshaw but with his torso into Brayshaw’s torso, chest and head region. The force that Maynard hits with is spread over a larger area, the impact zone is a larger area on Brayshaw and the force is dissipated somewhat.

So to reduce concussions you think the AFL should be sending the message - stay wide open and front on when you're going to collide with someone?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Tackling isn't an accident sr, only very recently have sling tackles top being trained.

Ever since my junior days playing to my senior games in the early 90s we trained in sling tackling (obviously to dispossess), very deliberate action, not an accident.

You cannot legislate accidents out of the game and is futile to attempt so.

You can try to stop players from recklessly jumping into contests that will more than likely lead to serious head injury. If there is any risk of it going wrong you should not leave the ground and lose control, leaving concussion to chance.

Unfortunately that’s the way the game is going. But it will hopefully save some trauma after footy. You can never stop accidents but you can make people think before they launch themselves carelessly with no regard for others.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Jason Cloke

Jason Cloke

Age

42

Ht

189cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.7

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

4.7

4star

T

1.8

4star

No current season stats available

D

11.6

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

fixed his spoiling technique.

Maynard will be able to fix his smothering technique too, it's all good.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can try to stop players from recklessly jumping into contests that will more than likely lead to serious head injury. If there is any risk of it going wrong you should not leave the ground and lose control, leaving concussion to chance.

Unfortunately that’s the way the game is going. But it will hopefully save some trauma after footy. You can never stop accidents but you can make people think before they launch themselves carelessly with no regard for others, or themselves, was obvious Maynard braced for contact in mid air. Dumb yes, malicious no.

Fair enough, good post.

As far as Maynard is concerned it was a brain fade no doubt, brain fades with no ill intent will still happen, so the question is what sort of penalty if any should apply?

Do we punish players for stupid? IMHO I don't think that's right.

In any event my point still stands, it's clear the AFL are attempting to eradicate incidental contact via punishment which is even dumber than Bruzzy's brain fade.

 

[sr36]

Not the point, it's clear the AFL want to eradicate the possibility of litigation, ain't gonna happen, unless contact is removed.

Of course there's going to be future accidental concussions. Of course there's going to be the possibility of people suing for these accidents. The AFL are legally and morally responsible for taking reasonable actions to reduce the risks. It's a contact sport so the debatable question is what reasonable means in this context, but it's not debatable that they have to try to reduce risk in their workplace.

 

[sr36]

No.

The link between repeated concussions and CTE is tenuous at best. More research is required. Hopefully players like Platten will donate their brain for science so we can do more studies on CTE.

I can understand why the AFL is acting this way, previous litigation in other sports, now have to face one,K themselves, and the link to CTE and concussions; they're trying to cover themselves, just in case.

It's not just CTE. There's a range of long term effects. There's coming litigation from people who are alive and CTE can only be diagnosed after death.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course there's going to be future accidental concussions. Of course there's going to be the possibility of people suing for these accidents. The AFL are legally and morally responsible for taking reasonable actions to reduce the risks. It's a contact sport so the debatable question is what reasonable means in this context, but it's not debatable that they have to try to reduce risk in their workplace.

And penalizing players for accidental contact is not the way to go about because it doesn't stop accidental contact.

All it does is punish a player for an accident after the accident has already occurred.

 

[BF Tiger]

So to reduce concussions you think the AFL should be sending the message - stay wide open and front on when you're going to collide with someone?

It is situational. In this instance I think it would have been preferred (almost certainly by Brayshaw) rather than a shoulder at high speed through the head.

I think if one or both players suffered, for example, broken ribs it’d still be preferable to one player getting concussed now and dealing with CTE years down the track.

 

[Caligo]

Yes, this is it for me too.

Most of the impact was Maynard’s shoulder into Brayshaw’s head. That meant a lot of force being focussed through a small hard area (his shoulder) into a delicate part of the body (Brayshaw’s head).

Maynard’s alternative IMHO was to stay open and upright. He still crashes into Brayshaw but with his torso into Brayshaw’s torso, chest and head region. The force that Maynard hits with is spread over a larger area, the impact zone is a larger area on Brayshaw and the force is dissipated somewhat.

An injury to one or both still might have occurred but likely lessened in its severity, and Maynard has shown a duty of care to his colleague.

My concern with that is surely Maynard has a first duty to protect himself and a secondary duty to protect brayshaw. I don't think it is fair to expect him just to open himself up for possible head contact against himself. For me, the question is could he manage some kind of way to safely contact brayshaw whilst protecting himself. And if you don't think he could do that, I don't find it fair to penalise him.

 

[Caligo]

Whether they've done it already or not, part of the AFLs duty of care regarding concussion will be to train players how to approach collisions in a contact sport. I guarantee that the training won't involve an aerial bear hug or any of the other nonsense supposed concussion avoiding methods that are being advocated as what Maynard should have done. Methods that dramatically increase the risk of head clashes. It will be turn brace and try to get your head out of the way.

If he gets done it will be for launching - not for bracing for impact.

I think that is awfully unfair. He had every right to launch to complete a "football act" which was a spoil.

If he gets weeks, it really should be for the reasons I set out earlier. I am not saying you are wrong about what the tribunal might do, just that I really think it is so wrong and unfair.

 

[sr36]

It is situational. In this instance I think it would have been preferred (almost certainly by Brayshaw) rather than a shoulder at high speed through the head.

I think if one or both players suffered, for example, broken ribs it’d still be preferable to one player getting concussed now and dealing with CTE years down the track.

What about both players getting knocked out in a head clash? Where does that sit in the preference list?

If the AFL haven't got clubs to already train players with preventative action in a collision, then they're miles behind where they should be and if they're training involves hold that superman pose when you're hurtling at someone, then they're out of their minds.