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]

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.

I don't think he'll get suspended.

a) you can't suspend people for bracing for impact - it's what they should be trained to do.
b) I agree with you regarding going for the smother

I just think in terms of dangerous acts, the launch was the bit that they might want to get rid of.

 

[sr36]

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.

What do you mean by accidental. As I'd call a concussion from a sling tackle or most hip and shoulders accidental.

The guidelines are to suspend players for accidantal contact if that act can be reasonably foreseen to ...

I think that's fair.

 

[SC_Power]

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.

Maynard could have stayed open and upright.
He could have stayed straight and arms out to cushion impact.
He could have turned AND put his arms out to cushion impact.

Id refute the “no option but to brace and hit Brayshaw high” as a false argument.

I can understand why they’d want to get him off as he didn’t approach the contest to bump, but by making the decision to jump he did put himself in the position to collide, and he did have the time to make the decision to hip and shoulder, and nothing unexpected or unforeseeable happened in front of him to make the situation worse, and he did make high contact which knocked a player out as the outcome of his own decisions.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

This is rubbish Roby.

For years and years players manning the mark for shots at goal would take a run-up then leap vertically without going over the mark. Brainard was trying to place as much frontal pressure as he could on Brayshaw's kick, he just miscalculated and applied way too much forward momentum to his launch, which was the cause of the collision that was outside the laws of the game both in terms of giving away a free kick, and being reportable.

 

[Roby]

This is rubbish Roby.

For years and years players manning the mark for shots at goal would take a run-up then leap vertically without going over the mark. Brainard was trying to place as much frontal pressure as he could on Brayshaw's kick, he just miscalculated and applied way too much forward momentum to his launch, which was the cause of the collision that was outside the laws of the game both in terms of giving away a free kick, and being reportable.

He applied too much frontal pressure, so he should've run back the other way?

Should we have zones like netball, this can reduce the amount of speed at contests. Maybe I'll propose this to Laura Kane as it will reduce concussions.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What do you mean by accidental. As I'd call a concussion from a sling tackle or most hip and shoulders accidental.

The guidelines are to suspend players for accidantal contact if that act can be reasonably foreseen to ...

I think that's fair.

Sling tackles and hip & shoulders are intent to contact, jumping to smother is not, nor is jumping for a mark and raising the knee for self protection, or a ruck contest or a spoil.

This is my point, all of these things that include jumping and kneeing (like marking) are not intended for head high contact but is likely to happen.

This is the inconsistency, it's ok to fly for a mark, knee someone in the head but it's not ok to make contact unintentionally in a smother attempt.

Like I said if the AFL wanna remove contact from the game then remove contact from the game.

They're not gonna do that obviously and like I said punishing players for accidents will not remove accidents.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

He applied too much frontal pressure, so he should've run back the other way?

Should we have zones like netball, this can reduce the amount of speed at contests. Maybe I'll propose this to Laura Kane as it will reduce concussions.

He can run and jump where ever he likes, just not into a player's head who has just kicked the ball.

 

[DonsRule]

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

More than anything insurance companies that underwrite the comp/legal actions down the track

Sling tackles and hip & shoulders are intent to contact, jumping to smother is not, nor is jumping for a mark and raising the knee for self protection, or a ruck contest or a spoil.

This is my point, all of these things that include jumping and kneeing (like marking) are not intended for head high contact but is likely to happen.

This is the inconsistency, it's ok to fly for a mark, knee someone in the head but it's not ok to make contact unintentionally in a smother attempt.

Like I said if the AFL wanna remove contact from the game then remove contact from the game.

They're not gonna do that obviously and like I said punishing players for accidents will not remove accidents.

Thats fair but I think the red flag comes when he turned to protect himself did he have other options, maybe as Gary Lyon said what would be to stop players in the future using 'a spoil' as an excuse if they know they can get away with it.

Maynard was suspended for a fairly legit spoil a few years ago - though I would accept that one was far more black and white than this especially now


There are plenty of tackles now that are suspected that aren't really sling tackles are far more head hit the ground how you get charged. You can sling tackle if the opponents head doesn't hit the ground the AFL don't bat an eyelid.


It wouldn't surprised me if he gets off but the AFL are using this as a test for next year on how they need to modify rules the chances of a smother were pretty low. But like a lot of tackles this year it may be aimed at having players modify technique

 

[jatz14]

Are you arguing that players injure their teammates in training at the same rate as they do opposition players on game day? I don’t know what you’re getting at.

So, we have come from it never happens, to rate at which it happens?

Well, you get way less contact in most training sessions, so, way less serious contact, and way less injuries, and way less concussion.
But, it happens, even with players not trying to hurt each other.

So, if, having changed your argument, you no longer see the point, let me explain it again (paraphrasing for clarity).

You asserted that the fact he braced for contact meant he was engaging in a deliberate act to try to hurt Brayshaw, and that he wouldn't have done this to a team mate because he wouldn't want to hurt him.

I said players brace when there is going to be hard contact in training drills with their team mates, so, yes he would.

You said players dont get knocked out in training drills.
I said players get serious injuries in training drills all the time. An example of someone being knocked out in a training drill was given by someone above if you care to look.

So, bracing is the result of suddenly realising your about to make contact.
Players do brace when making contact with team mates.
Bracing is instinctive, you do it on the spur of the moment, countless training drills as juniors drills this in to us, and the AFLW players the first year were endlessly criticised for not doing it enough and leaving themselves open to hits.
Maynard bracing for the impact is not evidence of malice, or intent, or undue care, or carelessness, or a desire to hurt Brayshaw.
It is evidence Maynard knew contact was coming, and thats it.

Point clear?

 

[jatz14]

More than anything insurance companies that underwrite the comp/legal actions down the track

Thats fair but I think the red flag comes when he turned to protect himself did he have other options, maybe as Gary Lyon said what would be to stop players in the future using 'a spoil' as an excuse if they know they can get away with it.

Maynard was suspended for a fairly legit spoil a few years ago - though I would accept that one was far more black and white than this especially now


There are plenty of tackles now that are suspected that aren't really sling tackles are far more head hit the ground how you get charged. You can sling tackle if the opponents head doesn't hit the ground the AFL don't bat an eyelid.


It wouldn't surprised me if he gets off but the AFL are using this as a test for next year on how they need to modify rules the chances of a smother were pretty low. But like a lot of tackles this year it may be aimed at having players modify technique

If you want to reduce head injuries, you start suspending players for all acts that cause impact to the head, irrespective of outcome. So, suspend players for sling tackles. Every single one of them, regardless of outcome.

The AFL places undue attention on outcome, and should be stamping out high risk acts.

Jumping to smother is common, as is colliding with the kicker.

If this is judged dangerous, suspend everybody that attempts a smother.

The AFLs current stance is bizarre, its like making speeding and killing someone illegal, but speeding and not killing someone is fine, then wondering why ramping up the penalty for speeding and killing people, isnt causing the rate of people being killed by speeding to fall. Its because no one thinks, I'm going to speed and kill someone, but I will get in trouble so I probably shouldn't.

For the league, the worst outcome is Maynard getting suspended.

What it says, any act is fine, provided no one gets concussed, but I am pretty sure that when Maynard chose to jump, Brayshaw getting concussed wasn't remotely on Maynards radar, and it will not be for the next player either.

If people think what Maynard did was wrong because of the outcome, and they want this prevented in future, then ban leaving your feet. Ever, regardless of outcome. If you jump, your suspended.

What you cannot do is say, its fine to jump, unless you land on someone's head, then we come down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

[gutsroy]

It doesn't matter if most of the momentum was Brayshaw's.
Brayshaw is entitled to do what he did.
The onus is on Maynard to avoid turning a collision into a reportable offence.
If you jump, the chances of contacting someone high is almost guaranteed.
You choose to jump, you take on liability for what happens next.
Just like if you tackle and engage a slinging motion, you take on liability for what happens next.
"It's a football act" doesn't absolve you of blame.
"It's a football act" is wishy-washy catch all that doesn't actually mean anything because anything can be a football act.
If I am playing footy in my backyard and boot the ball through the next door neighbour's window do I get to say "football act" and hold no responsibility for breaking their window?? Of course not.

The distinction that is being made is between an unfortunate outcome of an act which is itself within the rules of the game and usually encouraged, i.e. a 'football act', like attempting to smother, or a tackle that ends up in a player's head incidentally contacting the ground, for example, from chicken wings / eye gouges, judo trips etc.
Of course it doesn't absolve him or anyone else of blame in cases where concussions or other injuries result, but pissing down people's legs and pretending it's raining with strawmen and exaggerated caricatures doesn't seem overly helpful either.
How Maynard's ends up being viewed is anyone's guess, but he's off to the tribunal so clearly there's a fair chance he will be suspended.

 

[Didak Wine]

Has a player even been concussed by an opponent who kneed them in the back of the head. How is the action of jumping into someone ok. Knees in their back ok. Knees into their head ok. If done in the act of marking. You can knock someone in the head, punch em in the head spoiling a mark, all above board.
.

 

[Kappa]

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.

Lol, if he stayed open his jaw would've smashed into Brayshaws head and they'd both be concussed.

 

[jatz14]

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.

You cannot make them think before they launch.

You can only stop them launching. No player running to jump at a mark is going to assess the situation, work out the likelihood of head contact, then abort based on a carefully thought out risk assessment. Punishing the outcome is not doing anything to prevent players brains, its only intended to protect the AFL from lawsuits.

Its ban jumping totally, ban it in certain situations, or dont ban it and players and the AFL have to accept that their are inherent risks in the sport.

Ban jumping at the ball, or not.

Not doing that, then punishing players like Maynard, because there was a bad outcome from them doing what you said they could is the worst of all worlds.

 

[jatz14]

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 a bizarre read.

So, when doing those drills in juniors where 2 players go for the ball that's between them, being told to turn their body, so the shoulder takes the impact. We should stop that right?

Teach them to go in face first?

Because, we all know what happens when you go for the ball, and turn your shoulder as you were trained, and the other player doesn't., because they aren't aware, didn't know you were there, to focussed on the ball, whatever. Your shoulder meets their head. Happens every year, in every level.

Do we apply your 'don't turn your shoulder' principle then?

And if you don't turn your shoulder, so you don't collect them in the head if they don't turn their shoulder, but then they do?

You need to turn your shoulder, the problem here isn't the Maynard did, its that Brayshaw didn't.

 

[DonsRule]

If you want to reduce head injuries, you start suspending players for all acts that cause impact to the head, irrespective of outcome. So, suspend players for sling tackles. Every single one of them, regardless of outcome.

The AFL places undue attention on outcome, and should be stamping out high risk acts.

Jumping to smother is common, as is colliding with the kicker.

If this is judged dangerous, suspend everybody that attempts a smother.

The AFLs current stance is bizarre, its like making speeding and killing someone illegal, but speeding and not killing someone is fine, then wondering why ramping up the penalty for speeding and killing people, isnt causing the rate of people being killed by speeding to fall. Its because no one thinks, I'm going to speed and kill someone, but I will get in trouble so I probably shouldn't.

For the league, the worst outcome is Maynard getting suspended.

What it says, any act is fine, provided no one gets concussed, but I am pretty sure that when Maynard chose to jump, Brayshaw getting concussed wasn't remotely on Maynards radar, and it will not be for the next player either.

If people think what Maynard did was wrong because of the outcome, and they want this prevented in future, then ban leaving your feet. Ever, regardless of outcome. If you jump, your suspended.

What you cannot do is say, its fine to jump, unless you land on someone's head, then we come down on you like a ton of bricks.

As I said though it's the insurance companies that cover the AFL that would be driving a lot of this THey don't provide indemnity insurance you probably don't have a game at all.

While I also agree on ban all sling tackles I'm just saying it has not been the AFL's stance at all recently its been player injuries or concussed work back from there.

But also say it isn't just sling tackles that have been cited, the stance changed somewhere early in the year what was reportable pre season and in the first few rounds seemed to change by stealth from memory about a week or two before Anzac day. I remember at the time with the Merrett tackle thinking he was in deep trouble. but also one of the AFLs own guideline videos being very close to the Merrett tackle. - probably the same as half a dozen through out the year if you were to go through them

The AFL probably doesn't want to make some of the calls it does but its hand is being forced really by lawyers/insurance companies

 

[Roby]

He can run and jump where ever he likes, just not into a player's head who has just kicked the ball.

Just like Mansell? He can run wherever he likes just not into an opponent's head

 

[Kappa]

Maynard could have stayed open and upright.
He could have stayed straight and arms out to cushion impact.
He could have turned AND put his arms out to cushion impact.

Id refute the “no option but to brace and hit Brayshaw high” as a false argument.

I can understand why they’d want to get him off as he didn’t approach the contest to bump, but by making the decision to jump he did put himself in the position to collide, and he did have the time to make the decision to hip and shoulder, and nothing unexpected or unforeseeable happened in front of him to make the situation worse, and he did make high contact which knocked a player out as the outcome of his own decisions.

Next time you're flying through the air at full speed let us know how you feel about staying open and upright.

FMD do u even hear the things you're saying.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Thats fair but I think the red flag comes when he turned to protect himself did he have other options

So the other option would be to have open arms and still likely concuss Brayshaw and injure himself and still get suspended.

How is that a better outcome?

 

[Kappa]

So the other option would be to have open arms and still likely concuss Brayshaw and injure himself and still get suspended.

How is that a better outcome?

He should just fly through the air at full speed then close his eyes, smile and open his arms wide for a nice big hug with Angus

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Just like Mansell? He can run wherever he likes just not into an opponent's head

Mansell was entitled to make forceful contact with Aish as the ball was first in dispute and then for a split second Aish was in possession. Maynard had no such entitlement because Brayshaw had clearly disposed of the ball before the contact took place. Mansell had a duty of care to Aish to do all he could reasonably do to not make contact with Aish's head. It is debatable whether Mansell exercised that duty of care. The Tribunal thought he did not. As you know I disagreed with them.

In the Maynard case that element does not even seem debatable, there is no evidence whatsoever that he took any action to reduce the likelihood of contacting Brayshaw's head. It only exacerbates Maynard's guilt that Brayshaw had already disposed of the ball, meaning Maynard has not entitlement to make forceful contact at all, let alone to the head.

So unless it is deemed to be Brayshaw who caused the collision to occur, Maynard should be suspended for at least the 3 weeks Mansell was issued.

 

[DonsRule]

So the other option would be to have open arms and still likely concuss Brayshaw and injure himself and still get suspended.

How is that a better outcome?

I agree but here is the grey area the AFL is in leave the ground hit an opponent in the head intentional or not and you're in some trouble. The AFL has been like that for years though I agree in pretty much every case thats been an intentional bump which this wasn't, I don't really think he should be suspended, and tbh I really don't know which the the tribunal will go, lean ever so slightly to be will be get off.

But like tackles - not just tackles that are 'sling' tackles they've started to suspend tackles that weren't really ever intended to hurt - perhaps some poor technique particularly when the umpires let the tackle linger when the umpires wait hoping the ball or players gets out. The Merrett tackle pre anzac day is one of many stands the ump let it go on and forced him to take him to ground the same augment whats he supposed to do let his opponent go or just wait for him to release the ball to a team mate. I think sadly it was worth a week in the current climate but there also wasn't any intent to hurt and wasn't really a classic sling tackle but head hit the ground ever so slightly and he was in trouble

 

[Carringbush2010]

I agree but here is the grey area the AFL is in leave the ground hit an opponent in the head intentional or not and you're in some trouble. The AFL has been like that for years though I agree in pretty much every case thats been an intentional bump which this wasn't, I don't really think he should be suspended, and tbh I really don't know which the the tribunal will go, lean ever so slightly to be will be get off.

But like tackles - not just tackles that are 'sling' tackles they've started to suspend tackles that weren't really ever intended to hurt - perhaps some poor technique particularly when the umpires let the tackle linger when the umpires wait hoping the ball or players gets out. The Merrett tackle pre anzac day is one of many stands the ump let it go on and forced him to take him to ground the same augment whats he supposed to do let his opponent go or just wait for him to release the ball to a team mate. I think sadly it was worth a week in the current climate but there also wasn't any intent to hurt and wasn't really a classic sling tackle but head hit the ground ever so slightly and he was in trouble

And this is exactly my point, the AFL are attempting in folly to deter unintended contact by punishment which is obviously futile.

For years if not more the AFL has handed down suspension knowing the intent was not there, yet incidental contact still exists and will always exist.

It's a hiding to nothing, it does not stop incidental contact because it is impossible to stop the incidental, all it does is punish players for accidental.

 

[DonsRule]

And this is exactly my point, the AFL are attempting in folly to deter unintended contact by punishment which is obviously futile.

For years if not more the AFL has handed down suspension knowing the intent was not there, yet incidental contact still exists and will always exist.

It's a hiding to nothing, it does not stop incidental contact because it is impossible to stop the incidental, all it does is punish players for accidental.

I honestly hope he gets off and you see him in a few weeks in the prelim. I just don't know which way the tribunal will go.

The only thing I argue though if had caused players to improve techniques be more careful when to bump, and try and improve tackling techniques, it will never eliminate all but the majority of players will learn.


It really gets down to the insurance companies that are covering any litigation the less the AFL does either they won't cover the AFL or premiums will be that high it almost makes too expensive to cover a rock and a hard place . They are stuck between a rock and a hard place atm I think their hands are really tied

 

[Carringbush2010]

I honestly hope he gets off and you see him in a few weeks in the prelim. I just don't know which way the tribunal will go.

The only thing I argue though if had caused players to improve techniques be more careful when to bump, and try and improve tackling techniques, it will never eliminate all but the majority of players will learn.


It really gets down to the insurance companies that are covering any litigation the less the AFL does either they won't cover the AFL or premiums will be that high it almost makes too expensive to cover a rock and a hard place . They are stuck between a rock and a hard place atm I think their hands are really tied

Great post.

Firstly it was a brain fade on Maynards part that he'd be able to smother, his intent, to smother.

Secondly, yes the AFL are stuck between a rock and a hard place, it's an impasse, they're trying to eradicate contact from the game for the purposes of avoiding future litigation, while at the same time trying not to remove contact from the game, that is obvious.

My point is, punishing players for non intentional contact will not remove non intentional contact, blunt reality.

The only options are

• Remove contact from the game altogether, not an option
• Have players sign an indemnity
• Stay the hypocritical course they're on.

That's it, that's all they've got.