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

 

[Maggie5]

I just can’t figure out why she should/would have any influence over the MRP..

Whether it is a she or a he is not relevant, if you look at who can make a referral to a tribunal it is laid out here in 2023 Tribunal
Guidelines

.

 

[sherb]

So how do we stop incidental contact in a full contact sport?

Obviously penalizing non intentional contact is not working.

If Maynard gets three weeks for this incident, and misses a GF as a result, let's see how often he tries to smother in this fashion in the future.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You cant stop unavoidable accidental contact in anything, that is, whatever happened was purely based on chance with no opportunity to avoid/mitigate the risk

Exactly.

So why then are we penalizing unintended contact? Considering if ill effects come from it, players are gonna sue anyway.

 

[_Mike_]

Dunstall and the Rat where my two favourite players. Unfotunately for Platten, he used to burrow with his head too many times. He was also very small so he certianly got shoved around a lot at stoppages. He was as good and is and under player I had seen.

Amazing player, Rat was, and it's awful to see the current state of his health along with many other ex-players suffering CTE

 

[demondavey]

So how do we stop incidental contact in a full contact sport?

Obviously penalizing non intentional contact is not working.

Excellent question. The answer is you can’t. You make the rules fit. Which means contact is minimal. Very hard for football is 360 degrees.

 

[demondavey]

Exactly.

So why then are we penalizing unintended contact? Considering if ill effects come from it, players are gonna sue anyway.

Might stop you at unintended.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If Maynard gets three weeks for this incident, and misses a GF as a result, let's see how often he tries to smother in this fashion in the future.

I'm surprised he did in the first place, it was a low percentage move, in that it was his intent was unlikely to be successful, even though it was said he got a hand to the ball.

That shouldn't equate to being suspended for a non intended contact.

The problem the AFL has is that is judges on outcome rather than intent, in which case incidental contact will not stop ex players in the future suing the AFL.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Excellent question. The answer is you can’t. You make the rules fit. Which means contact is minimal. Very hard for football is 360 degrees.

Thanks for agreeing.

 

[CrowFan77]

It was reported he got a hand / finger to the ball.

Doesn't look like it on the front on replay. Looks like the ball was well below his right arm.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Might stop you at unintended.

Why?

 

[_Mike_]

Exactly.

So why then are we penalizing unintended contact? Considering if ill effects come from it, players are gonna sue anyway.

Suspending Maynard as result of the Maynard-Brayshaw collision would need to have argued that the impact was avoidable, and that Maynard's direct action caused the damage

To get Maynard off it would need to be argued that regardless of Marynards action it was likely that Brayshaw could be injured.

This is the legal principle for damage suffered - the but-for effect.. But for the actions of the tortfeasor (Maynard in this instance) would the plaintiff (Brayshaw) have been injured.

 

[Imet Hassa]

I was under the impression that if you choose to jump off the ground and you make contact with someone's head and they get hurt then you are done regardless if the initial action or intent was fair.

This isn't even a new interpretation, Ziebell was suspended for 8 weeks early in his career for fair bumps and spoils where there was secondary contact that ended up high... and he is retired now so it was some time ago.

Have they changed the rules recently?

That’s it exactly. All the other talk is deflection.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Doesn't look like it on the front on replay. Looks like the ball was well below his right arm.

Regardless,

My whole point is that HQ are trying to legislate away incidental contact, that is impossible.

Penalizing Maynard does not stop Angus suing the AFL in the future.

 

[sherb]

Exactly.

So why then are we penalizing unintended contact? Considering if ill effects come from it, players are gonna sue anyway.

Because it is outside the rules of the game, certainly in this instance - hence why a free kick downfield was paid.

 

[demondavey]

Thanks for agreeing.

It wasn’t easy

Why?

Well they might say it was ‘intentional’ that he chose to turn and bump. We are now getting into the realms of speculation on a grand scale. Honestly, it’s very hard here. I think Maynard playing on the edge a bit hasn’t helped.

 

[Kipz]

Exactly.

Or, he was expecting Brayshaw to do what most footballers normally do and brace with his shoulder as well.

 

[sherb]

I'm surprised he did in the first place, it was a low percentage move, in that it was his intent was unlikely to be successful, even though it was said he got a hand to the ball.

That shouldn't equate to being suspended for a non intended contact.

The problem the AFL has is that is judges on outcome rather than intent, in which case incidental contact will not stop ex players in the future suing the AFL.

On what basis are you calling this contact not intended?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Suspending Maynard as result of the Maynard-Brayshaw collision would need to have argued that the impact was avoidable, and that Maynard's direct action caused the damage

To get Maynard off it would need to be argued that regardless of Marynards action it was likely that Brayshaw could be injured.

This is the legal principle for damage suffered - the but-for effect.. But for the actions of the tortfeasor (Maynard in this instance) would the plaintiff (Brayshaw) have been injured.

None the less, more broadly you can't deter accidents through punishment, that is impossible but that is what the AFL is attempting in futility.

 

[Spectore]

If we are going to grade it as careless or intentional, then we have to make assumptions about what the player is thinking. You either have to fall in those two parameters unless you're arguing he had no time to think about his actions.

I was arguing he had no opportunity to avoid a collision once it could be reasonably foreseen rather than no time to consider it.

Assumptions, or, rather, conclusions based on available evidence, of what the player is thinking are only relevant in regards to whether the act is considered intentional. Maynard's action of extending his arms above his head clearly demonstrates his intention to smother the ball. Once the ball has passed and a collision is unavoidable he withdraws his arms in front of his torso and contorts his body in a manner that shields the vulnerable organs located in this part of the body. These actions are consistent with someone trying to protect themselves. We can conclude it was not intentional.

With regard to rough conduct, a classification of careless stipulates the conduct must be unreasonable. Further, forceful front-on contact and rough conduct as it relates to high bumps require the following not be true: "the player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the player to contest the ball in that way". It's already been established Maynard was attempting to smother; this constitutes a contest on the ball. The stills I posted earlier demonstrate that at the time Maynard leaves the ground, with consideration to his trajectory and Brayshaw's momentum, a collision is not inevitable. It isn't until Brayshaw fades to his right that a significant collision becomes foreseeable, and at this point Maynard is already airborne and unable to take evasive action. Hence, it was reasonable for Maynard to contest the ball in the manner he did. For these reasons, it's neither careless nor intentional and, therefore, is not a reportable offence as per Law 22.2.2(a).

 

[Carringbush2010]

On what basis are you calling this contact not intended?

The attempt was to smother not knock Brayshaw out.

 

[demondavey]

Suspending Maynard as result of the Maynard-Brayshaw collision would need to have argued that the impact was avoidable, and that Maynard's direct action caused the damage

To get Maynard off it would need to be argued that regardless of Marynards action it was likely that Brayshaw could be injured.

This is the legal principle for damage suffered - the but-for effect.. But for the actions of the tortfeasor (Maynard in this instance) would the plaintiff (Brayshaw) have been injured.

And to your second paragraph I would say that it was not likely he’d be injured if it wasn’t for the action.

Can they then argue it was accidental? Not intentional etc?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well they might say it was ‘intentional’ that he chose to turn and bump.

It can't be intentional when you're mid air.

 

[_Mike_]

Penalizing Maynard does not stop Angus suing the AFL in the future.

No it doesnt, just like you being injured in a car accident through no fault of your own & the other driver was prosecuted or fined for their action causing your injury. You can still sue for damages in a civil case where a threshold for permanent injury/disability and loss of body function has been establish.

Even if Maynard was de-registered for the action on field, Brayshaw could still lodge a civil claim against the AFL.. Crazy, I know, but that's the reality

 

[Carringbush2010]

No it doesnt, just like you being injured in a car accident through no fault of your own & the other driver was prosecuted or fined for their action causing your injury. You can still sue for damages in a civil case where a threshold for permanent injury/disability and loss of body function has been establish.

Even if Maynard was de-registered for the action on field, Brayshaw could still lodge a civil claim against the AFL.. Crazy, I know, but that's the reality

Which is a stupid reality.

Like I said, whichever way you boil it down and dissect the AFL cannot possibly deter accidents from the game. The only way is to remove contact altogether, obviously not an option.

 

[SC_Power]

I still don’t get how people are defending someone who jumped in the air to smother as the ball was being kicked, then halfway through the jump has the time/instinct to turn, and then hip-shoulder the opponent in the head, and then somehow claim it was a) unavoidable and-or b) Brayshaw‘s fault for not avoiding.

But then again, they got Cripps off last year for pretty much exactly the same succession of events, so nothing would surprise me that the AFL let Brayshaw off.