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

 

[RAPPA]

Excellent point! I do think, at least in part, this could never happen with a team mate because nobody has ever attempted to block the kick of a team mate before. Nonetheless, has the tribunal ever used that argument? I wonder how it might work.

It’s an unusual context and I guess it goes to the mental element of the action. If it was an intraclub match for example. Different stakes I understand. I’m not sure how far it goes because it comes down to his subjective intent in executing the action, and then trying to apply an objective standard of what would a reasonable person have done in the circumstances His evidence will be critical and I’m sure they’ll have the biomechanics experts giving their take too.

 

[Ricmel]

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?

The problem did not start when he was in the air. It started when he made the decision to leap into the path of a player running straight at him at full speed.

Ok, he could have smothered the ball. That was one possible outcome. The other was that they were going to collide. And if they collided, Maynard was going to be a couple of feet in the air and Brayshaw was going to be completely open (unless he threw the ball away).

When the opportunity to collect someone head high at speed is that likely then it is unquestionably a reckless decision to jump into a player's path where both players are closing on each other at speed.

 

[Caligo]

It’s an unusual context and I guess it goes to the mental element of the action. If it was an intraclub match for example. Different stakes I understand. I’m not sure how far it goes because it comes down to his subjective intent in executing the action, and then trying to apply an objective standard of what would a reasonable person have done in the circumstances His evidence will be critical and I’m sure they’ll have the biomechanics experts giving their take too.

I don't have a full knowledge of how they treat biomechanics experts at the tribunal, but I do remember that the expert was definitive in the Sicily case, and was still completely ignored by the panel. They didn't even refer to the expert at all in their finding. It was like he didn't exist.

 

[RAPPA]

I don't have a full knowledge of how they treat biomechanics experts at the tribunal, but I do remember that the expert was definitive in the Sicily case, and was still completely ignored by the panel. They didn't even refer to the expert at all in their finding. It was like he didn't exist.

It’s a raffle and hope your ticket is a winner

 

[Caligo]

Nobody has ever driven their shoulder deliberately through a team-mates' head before.

The problem isn't that there was incidental contact, it's that Maynard led into it with his shoulder directly into Brayshaw's head.

There's plenty of incidental head-contacts in tackles which have cut teammates open or knocked them out. None of them the teammate chose to lead into a team-mate with their head (or shoulder or elbow).

Trying to remember an example but there must be dozens of cases where a player has made forceful contact with a team mate using his shoulder or elbow. There was a major one earlier in the year with a knee to the head.

 

[Caligo]

It’s a raffle and hope your ticket is a winner

That has always been my opinion with respect to the AFL on any issue they consider, from trade bans to compo to tribunal. The rules are just an excuse for them to do what they please. And if they don't like those rules, they have others.

 

[sr36]

Least preferable obviously. And in this instance least likely given the position of Maynard’s head above the impact zone.

He's rotating forward. His head is going to come down. Turn and lean your head out of the way when you're about to collide with someone is what they have always taught and will teach even more diligently due to our new knowledge of concussion. If they try to discourage that action, they're crazy and opening themselves up far more for litigation. You can't suspend someone for what is and always will be the recommended action when a collision is inevitible. The only question is whether the launch to smother that caused the collision was careless. I'd be worried about that if the contact was inevitable when he made that decision, but Brayshaw shifting to the right after Bruzzy had left the ground makes me think he's safe and will be playing in the Prelim.

 

[FIGJAM]

Nobody has ever driven their shoulder deliberately through a team-mates' head before.

The problem isn't that there was incidental contact, it's that Maynard led into it with his shoulder directly into Brayshaw's head.

You can clearly see Maynard's hands on Brayshaw's chest first.

This "shoulder first" argument is demonstrable bullshit. He doesn't lead with the shoulder any more than he didn't raise an elbow. It was an accident.

 

[VicBased]

You can clearly see Maynard's hands on Brayshaw's chest first.

This "shoulder first" argument is demonstrable bullshit. He doesn't lead with the shoulder any more than he didn't raise an elbow. It was an accident.

Ah, yes we all see what we want to see.

 

[Saint]

If it's not "careless", and this kind of injury is deemed an unavoidable part of the game, then the game won't be able to continue in its current form.

It seems very clear that you can't go 100% at the ball and be "careless" about whether you're going to knock somebody out.

If you cant see Maynard turn his body to lead with his shoulder, you're not watching the same vision as me.

 

[VicBased]

If it's not "careless", and this kind of injury is deemed an unavoidable part of the game, then the game won't be able to continue in its current form.

It seems very clear that you can't go 100% at the ball and be "careless" about whether you're going to knock somebody out.

If you cant see Maynard turn his body to lead with his shoulder, you're not watching the same vision as me.

Read the post above yours I don't get it either. I see exactly what you are seeing.

 

[HairyO]

So apart from the obvious injuries, sticking out your hand in someone's face could cause an eye or nose injuries.

Maynard could also fracture his hand or fingers, strains to ligaments or tendons, to his hands or wrists.

Lots of couldas there.

What we know for sure is dropping your shoulder on someone's head when travelling at speed is absolutely going to do some damage.

At a minimum would be 20 min for the concussion test. Even with the toughest skull.

 

[VicBased]

You can clearly see Maynard's hands on Brayshaw's chest first.

This "shoulder first" argument is demonstrable bullshit. He doesn't lead with the shoulder any more than he didn't raise an elbow. It was an accident.

 

[kickazz]

So a player who takes a big hang, and in the process, collets the player he marked over, in the back of the head with his knee. Not a mark? suspension? Or only if the player is hurt? If it was a marking contest, and Maynard took the mark and in the process, Brayshaw got concussion, its the outcome that matters?

The logic indeed follows to this scenario - I've started a thread on it even. You'd hope that speccies don't become affected by this, but who knows?

 

[Ambrosia]

You can clearly see Maynard's hands on Brayshaw's chest first.

This "shoulder first" argument is demonstrable bullshit. He doesn't lead with the shoulder any more than he didn't raise an elbow. It was an accident.

Yeah from the footage I really don't see the Maynard turned his shoulder into Brayshaw's head argument at all.

 

[_Mike_]

You can clearly see Maynard's hands on Brayshaw's chest first.

This "shoulder first" argument is demonstrable bullshit. He doesn't lead with the shoulder any more than he didn't raise an elbow. It was an accident.

Click on the AFL's footage HERE , set play speed to 0.5, skip forwards to the 1M mark and play from there.

At no point did Maynard have his hands on Brayshaw's chest as you suggest.

 

[FIGJAM]

Click on the AFL's footage HERE , set play speed to 0.5, skip forwards to the 1M mark and play from there.

At no point did Maynard have his hands on Brayshaw's chest as you suggest.

His right hand touches the outside of Brayshaw's bicep and Maynard turns his left shoulder inwards to soften the contact.

It was unavoidable contact and everything that could have been done by Maynard was done. It was a footy act and an accident. As confirmed by the MRO's ruling.

 

[VicBased]

His right hand touches the outside of Brayshaw's bicep and Maynard turns his left shoulder inwards to soften the contact.

It was unavoidable contact and everything that could have been done by Maynard was done. It was a footy act and an accident. As confirmed by the MRO's ruling.

Well we will all find out tomorrow. You better believe all the suits will be in negotiation as we speak.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Maynard clearly puts his hands in Brayshaws chest, clearly. It isn't his upper arm / shoulder contacting Brayshaws head first, no sir.

 

[StonesThrow]

Would his approach to the collision have been different if it was a teammate? Curious as to whether the tribunal will apply a comparator argument.

He would have put his hands outwards and cushioned the impact, which is what he should have done to Brayshaw. Would have been a high free kick.

Maynard is a physical player and I don't doubt he wanted to bump, just didn't intend on getting him high. Clumsy in the end.

 

[Deepthroat]

Contact was unavoidable.

My question is was the nature of the contact unavoidable?

Did it have to be a bumping motion or was there a chance to extend arms and reduce the impact to the player?

"Duty of care" appears to be three words the AFL will throw around at present to seem like it's proactive in mitigating concussions.

Given where Maynard's hands started in the smother attempt and where they finished in the bumping action, there WAS opportunity to use the hands to reduce the impact to opponent (show care).

Personally, I don't think the AFL world is ready for this concept as the group mentality is the motion was legit.

Under current climate he'll get off.

Once some of these lawsuits start getting traction I believe we will see the "duty of care" concept tighten further. The game will evolve once again to a point where players are expected to not only remove the risk of their injury but also act in a way that prevents others being injured (to the head).

The expectation will be that Maynard use his extended hands to reduce the impact when he landed down on Brayshaw.

 

[Roby]

What I saw was after he disposed of the ball he looked up and saw Maynard coming down on him.
He then shat himself knowing he was going to get pulverised , there was no time for anything else.

If there was no time for anything else, then how does Maynard have any time to make a decision?





This is Maynard jumping half a second before collision. The ball has left Brayshaw's foot, and has one foot on the ground, as opposed to Maynard who doesn't. Brayshaw has as much time as Maynard here, and in fact had more time, as he had the ball first. Brayshaw decided to take the contact, and inadvertently ended up getting his free kick down the ground.

 

[HalloweenJack]

The action to jump to smother the ball was not careless it was reckless. It is also the first time I have ever seen a footballer perform this action.

The upshot is that Maynard needs to be suspended for at least 3 weeks maybe longer. If he gets off then the game will see a lot of brave but lesser footballers performing this type of smother and doing so against the real stars of the game. Personally I don't watch the footy to cheer for the thugs.

 

[sr36]

Nobody has ever driven their shoulder deliberately through a team-mates' head before.

It goes without saying that if the tribunal decide he deliberately drove his shoulder through Brayshaws head, he's stuffed. But you're dreaming if you think that will be the finding.

 

[Roby]

Lots of couldas there.

What we know for sure is dropping your shoulder on someone's head when travelling at speed is absolutely going to do some damage.

At a minimum would be 20 min for the concussion test. Even with the toughest skull.

No