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]

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

Pickett moved out to the side, away from WHE. This may be used as an example of what could have been done. In fact it should be.

 

[demondavey]

What's this game coming to? He tried to smother and it was totally accidental. Martin goes the cheap shot, give him two weeks. Maynard has nothing to answer.

Well the game is coming to protection of the head. That’s the AFL’s line. Forever we heard the following ‘the head is sacrosanct’. If the AFL have any clout they’ll rub him out for 3. He literally could have fallen over Brayshaw, moved to the side, anything but driving his shoulder into the guy.

Makes it worse when you know Maynard has form for being a rough nut.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Cripps got off ONLY because the Tribunal was found not to have met the principles of procedural fairness as required in hearing his case. The main issue as I recall it was the Tribunal had ruled as to Cripps' intent without actually allowing Cripps to answer any allegation as to his intent.

Maybe this could be a pinned post so the Cripps example doesn't get mentioned for the 87th time.

 

[demondavey]

It can't be one.

It's either 3 or 0.

Either you suspend players who go for the footy and accidentally hit someone, or you don't.

It wasn’t an accident though, he had an opportunity not to absolutely smash him. It’s probably prudent that Brayshaw not playing for the rest of the year comes into the discussion also.

 

[FIGJAM]

Not sure how he protected him. If Sicily got 3 weeks then Maynard deserves 4.

I've already shown the photo where Maynard first makes contact with his hands before collapsing.

You're making out like he lifted his elbow, yet he didn't even intentionally hit him with his shoulder.

It was an accident in a footy act.

 

[Warhorse]

I'm surprised that is was graded as careless. I have no doubt Maynard was trying to hurt him

 

[JackFlash]

The biggest mistake Maynard made was talking big during the week. The incident itself is a football collision while trying to perform a football act that we were all taught as kids, smother the ball, or at least attempt to? It's an unfortunate result and no doubt Miss Legal Eagle will make an example of Maynard and rub him out for the rest of the finals. Already we have someone in control who doesn't know what playing football is all about. We are getting closer to International rules quicker than everyone thinks. This is a benchmark moment in our game.

 

[demondavey]

I’ve literally never seen anything like that. Never seen a player get smashed front on like that when someone is attempting to smother. The reason I’ve never seen that is because it doesn’t happen in a natural motion, it’s also unnecessary. Maynard not getting 3 means a few things;

1. The AFL is showing no consistent ruling on protection of the head. None.

2. The AFL continues to create a Rod for its back by not sending a message about head protection but sending a message for actions like the Sicily tackle because of him having a record when the action wasn’t malicious.

3. Finals comes into the equation where additional considerations apply because the stakes are higher, I.e rules for the home and away, rules for finals. Inconsistency and lack of professionalism.

4. Any messages about head protection are null and void. You either do or you don’t. Money can be thrown at the problem to free up players to play. If this was a home and away game then Collingwood wouldn’t be on the phone 24/7 with lawyers organising their case for appeal.

If we focus on point 4 then this also means that the AFL starts to become liable for not cracking down on their primary mandate, head protection.

 

[demondavey]

The biggest mistake Maynard made was talking big during the week. The incident itself is a football collision while trying to perform a football act that we were all taught as kids, smother the ball, or at least attempt to? It's an unfortunate result and no doubt Miss Legal Eagle will make an example of Maynard and rub him out for the rest of the finals. Already we have someone in control who doesn't know what playing football is all about. We are getting closer to International rules quicker than everyone thinks. This is a benchmark moment in our game.

Interesting.

What do you mean by international rules?

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Where were these magical hands?? If hands were out we wouldn’t be having this debate as Brayshaw would of played out the game

 

[takethepowerback]

IMO it had to go to the tribunal because the MRP are too useless to come up with a decision on this. It will be left to the lawyers to argue this out.
Get knocked out with a knee to the head in a marking contest - no case to answer.
Get knocked out by a shoulder in a smothering attempt - straight to the tribunal.
It's not an even playing field

Not really the same thing, a marking attempt - with eyes on the ball - is a pure football act. This incident has two actions, Maynard attempting to smother, and then turning to his side and making contact. It's clear Maynard makes that decision (intent aside). The equivalent would be a failed marking attempt, with the player then choosing to turn to his side, with his shoulder making contact to the opponents head.

 

[Imet Hassa]

How many times do people need to hear that the AFL position all year has been that the incoming player has a duty of care and must take responsibility for what happens if the head is contacted given his decision to take the action he did. He had options and chose to brace. Pretty simple.

Given Brayshaw’s concussion history, potential career ending injury and his direct connection to the Frawley family the AFL would be playing with legal fire to say Maynard’s action is all good.

You have to question the media’s priorities in showing more sympathy for Maynard than Brayshaw.

Pie supporters chanting while Brayshaw is unconscious and taken off not to mention constant cheering of Maynard shows their true colours as well. Any other supporter base would be respectful of an injured player.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Barnyard should have used his hands on Brayshaw and not his shoulder to stop his reckless momentum

He tried

 

[420]

Bruzzzzzz won't play again this year, shame he seems to be a really likeable guy

 

[Fadge]

Only when the contact is careless, severe and high.

Maynard was careless, the impact on Brayshaw was severe and the contact was high.

Haven't you read the tribunal guidelines?

So is 'carelessly' sticking your knee into the back of a player's head in a marking contest an issue now?

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Not really the same thing, a marking attempt - with eyes on the ball - is a pure football act. This incident has two actions, Maynard attempting to smother, and then turning to his side and making contact. It's clear Maynard makes that decision (intent aside). The equivalent would be a failed marking attempt, with the player then choosing to turn to his side, with his shoulder making contact to the opponents head.

No his intention was to get the ball, not to mark it, but to smother it. He still was going for the ball

 

[Fadge]

I think the interpretation is that jumping does not remove liability, if anything, it adds to carelessness by removing options - can't change directions mid air when he sees Bradshaw's new position. Added to this is the turning of the shoulder into the head, done to protect himself, sure, but endangering Brayshaw. What instigated this all was choosing to jump, thus losing control, carelessness. The second action, turning the shoulder, enhanced impact. Has to be a sanction imo. Clear as day.

OK. So let's outlaw 'jumping' on the football field now.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

 

[Fadge]

Wasn't that Adelaide player who broke that St. Kilda player's jaw also dismissed by the MRO but the AFL forced him to send it to the tribunal?

That was the Mackay/Clark incident, that was sent to the tribunal ungraded, as referenced in the article I inked earlier.

 

[Fadge]

You're intelligence is shining through here

I'm not the only one to have (sarcastically) said this, in response to what others have suggested by referencing the fact the umpire saw enough in it to be a down the ground free kick, and so the report is justified.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet, I saw it on reddit. Supposedly shows Brayshaw copping a head knock prior to the incident with Maynard. Not sure if it would impact the tribunal's decision. (Ignore the play button, it's a still image)

 

[FireKrakouer]

You're intelligence is shining through here

 

[danster168]

He isn't getting weeks, dreaming if you think it will even be cited.

This aged well. Straight to the tribunal. So who is the one dreaming

 

[gordo2016]

How many times do people need to hear that the AFL position all year has been that the incoming player has a duty of care and must take responsibility for what happens if the head is contacted given his decision to take the action he did. He had options and chose to brace. Pretty simple.

Given Brayshaw’s concussion history, potential career ending injury and his direct connection to the Frawley family the AFL would be playing with legal fire to say Maynard’s action is all good.

You have to question the media’s priorities in showing more sympathy for Maynard than Brayshaw.

Pie supporters chanting while Brayshaw is unconscious and taken off not to mention constant cheering of Maynard shows their true colours as well. Any other supporter base would be respectful of an injured player.

Brayshaw's concussion history is irrelevant, as is his direct connection to the Frawley family. Pies supporters were just backing up their player, like any other club supporter would. Like any club, they have good and bad supporters, most of them are good. Hope Brayshaw is ok, unfortunate to lose him so early in the game.

 

[Osho]

OK. So let's outlaw 'jumping' on the football field now.

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

Outlaw?
I think your getting hysterical.

 

[Demons09]

How many times do people need to hear that the AFL position all year has been that the incoming player has a duty of care and must take responsibility for what happens if the head is contacted given his decision to take the action he did. He had options and chose to brace. Pretty simple.

Given Brayshaw’s concussion history, potential career ending injury and his direct connection to the Frawley family the AFL would be playing with legal fire to say Maynard’s action is all good.

You have to question the media’s priorities in showing more sympathy for Maynard than Brayshaw.

Pie supporters chanting while Brayshaw is unconscious and taken off not to mention constant cheering of Maynard shows their true colours as well. Any other supporter base would be respectful of an injured player.

The cheer leading for Maynard from the commentators was disgusting , it’s like they haven’t progressed from the seventies when thuggery on the footy field was ok, since when do you try and smother the ball and KO the bloke.