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

 

[pebblesofsand]

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.

Again the contact WAS avoidable.

The expectation will be that if two players are running in a straight line from opposite directions and one has just got rid of the ball, the other shouldn't jump into the air at full tilt and ko the player who had the ball.

 

[Deepthroat]

No the expectation will be that if two players are running in a straight line from opposite directions and one has just got rid of the ball, the other shouldn't jump into the air at full tilt and ko the player who had the ball.

Ummm, that's pretty much what I said.

 

[DonsRule]

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.

I guess this is where its a bit perhaps of a can of worms the chances of him making any impact on the kick were pretty remote. Though then some chase down tackles etc are a lot like that (or the Shaw? smither Riewoult kick)


You obviously can't remove all contact from the sport.

I don't even thing an indemnity form would really word, think I've seen some lawyers talk about it courts in a lot of cases would throw them out especially if 'forced' to sign (I don't recall all the details I'd read on it other then in a lot of cases they are probably barely worth the paper they are written on)

I'm not sure they really have an option other than the 3rd atm sadly and thats the impasse we are at.

 

[Maze]

I originally at the time thought he would get off and it wasn’t malicious. I think he meant to hurt. I think the most natural thing in Maynard’s position in the air would be to put your arms out relatively straight and sort of push into Brayshaw. He went the bump to hurt I’m pretty sure of it.

I wonder if you'd be pretty sure if he was wearing a Brisbane jumper??
It's odd how Blues fans want 3-4 weeks for an accident whilst pretending that Martin's deliberate round house is conspiracy by Christian and was dealt hardly for getting 2 weeks. JVR gets 1 week for an action 10 times worse than Maynard's and yet Dee's fans want Maynard's penalty to be 3-4 times harsher than JVR.
Maynard's penalty if found guilty is to miss a preliminary and perhaps a GF....not convinced that is either fair or appropriate for innocent intention....

 

[Roby]

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.

If players are jumping up to smother, most players will just walk around them.

 

[DonsRule]

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.

So he shouldn't try and spoil at all if the ball flicks his fingers and breaks/causes ligament damage to them trying to smother it ?

 

[Roby]

So he shouldn't try and spoil at all if the ball flicks his fingers and breaks/causes ligament damage to them trying to smother it ?

Hitting a ball is different to getting your hand squashed by 90kg object moving towards you.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Ummm, that's pretty much what I said.

Yeah - I edited my post to clarify the bit about the contact being "unavoidable".

It was clearly avoidable until Maynard made the careless decision to jump, while running at full speed, at a player who had the ball.

Careless, high contact, severe impact- 3 weeks.

Anything less is a joke but is it the AFL tribunal we are talking about so as to what actually happens it's anybody's guess.

 

[BomberManU]

Doesn't this come under the 'if you choose to' heading? Sure, you can launch yourself into a smother, no problem, but if you knock someone out doing so, you're in trouble - ie. 'careless'.
I would have thought Careless/high contact/high impact = 2 weeks. With a right to appeal.
But it's been sent to the tribunal, because it's been judged by the MRO as 'severe' impact = 3 weeks. Only thing I can see them arguing down is the impact.

 

[DonsRule]

Hitting a ball is different to getting your hand squashed by 90kg object moving towards you.

A ball particularly right of the boot is traveling at a fair speed, plenty of players have been concussed with a kick off the boot hitting their head - rare but happens I don't think its out of the question that a ball traveling at high speed getting the top of your fingers could cause at the very least ligament damage

 

[_Mike_]

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

It was Maynard's right shoulder that hits Brayshaw, and yes Maynard's hand hits Brayshaw's right bicep as you mention. By what you typed earlier it had come across that Maynard's hands hit Brayshaw's chest.

 

[Deepthroat]

Yeah - I edited my post to clarify the bit about the contact being "unavoidable".

It was clearly avoidable until Maynard made the careless decision to jump, while running at full speed, at a player who had the ball.

Careless, high contact, severe impact- 3 weeks.

Anything less is a joke but is it the AFL tribunal we are talking about so as to what actually happens it's anybody's guess.

I have no problem with the jumping. That's legit in an attempt to smother.

It's whether you miss a smother and look to lessen impact (put hands out) or miss a smother and look to make a physical play (brace to bump).

It's about mindset. Big final, go hard, hard acts. The game demands a player brace to bump.

If they put hands out to lessen impact it would be deemed "soft".

The game is stil fundamentally flawed when it comes to concussions.

 

[Elixuh]

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.

They don’t need to make that finding for a suspension lol the bar is way lower

The only people really strongly defending this are pies supporters who if the same thing happened to daicos would want the other player deregistered

 

[Maze]

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.

Is that like when Dangerfield chose to knock out his team mate in Cameron ( I think) earlier in the year or perhaps it just football bad luck..maybe accidents are sometimes unavoidable

 

[PenAndPaper]

Again the contact WAS avoidable.

The expectation will be that if two players are running in a straight line from opposite directions and one has just got rid of the ball, the other shouldn't jump into the air at full tilt and ko the player who had the ball.

The problem is that you could argue that absolutely any contact is avoidable.

 

[Elixuh]

Isn’t the only question whether bruz smother technique was careless or reckless.

It was entirely reasonable up until he turned his body and put his shoulder into brayshaws head. That action was careless and reckless.

The other bits are irrelevant because we know it was high and severe.

Any player can easily do what bruz did and cannon themselves shoulder first into another player, but they don’t. Wonder why.

This has put the league in a tough spot, especially with all the publicity around how unwell Bradshaw is.

Green lighting bruz action would be interesting. You’d hate to see a Collingwood player smothered out of the game in a grand final.

 

[Maze]

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.

I backing you think Martin should then get 6 for his deliberate thugs act....or is that different??

 

[PenAndPaper]

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.

Jack Martin gets 6 weeks then for a punch to the head that saw a player have to come from the field?

 

[Didak Wine]

how is there no footage from the other side of the collision

 

[Satan]

I reckon.

It’ll go to the Supreme Court if need be. Collingwood’s legal fees will be in the millions. We are talking Erin Brokovich on a tight turnaround.

Nah Dennis Denuto

 

[BomberManU]

how is there no footage from the other side of the collision

Yep, ridiculous. Usual sub-standard broadcast we're served up. Lack of ground coverage, zoomed in too much etc.

 

[Roby]

Doesn't this come under the 'if you choose to' heading? Sure, you can launch yourself into a smother, no problem, but if you knock someone out doing so, you're in trouble - ie. 'careless'.
I would have thought Careless/high contact/high impact = 2 weeks. With a right to appeal.
But it's been sent to the tribunal, because it's been judged by the MRO as 'severe' impact = 3 weeks. Only thing I can see them arguing down is the impact.

Michael Christian the Match Review Officer didn't cite it. It was overriden by the AFL GM.

 

[BomberManU]

Michael Christian the Match Review Officer didn't cite it. It was overriden by the AFL GM.

"The Match Review Officer and executive general manager of football Laura Kane graded the incident as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, drawing a minimum three-match ban"

 

[FIGJAM]

The only people really strongly defending this are pies supporters

Nah, the only people strongly pushing for suspension are those on a collision course with us, like yourself, Brisbane Board Member Leigh Matthews and Garry Lyon.

Not even serial Collingwood hater Kane Cornes is arguing for a suspension and his team is set to play us if they win this week.

I'd argue that there is an abnormal distribution of oppo fans arguing in our favour. It's so unusual that it's disconcerting.

Oh, and the MRO has already found in favour of an accidental collision, so it's not like it's a tenuous argument!

 

[Elixuh]

Nah, the only people strongly pushing for suspension are those on a collision course with us, like yourself, Brisbane Board Member Leigh Matthews and Garry Lyon.

Not even serial Collingwood hater Kane Cornes is arguing for a suspension and his team is set to play us if they win this week.

I'd argue that there is an abnormal distribution of oppo fans arguing in our favour. It's so unusual that it's disconcerting.

Oh, and the MRO has already found in favour of an accidental collision, so it's not like it's a tenuous argument!

No need to panic, bruz 100% will not be suspended. I’m just saying he should be.