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

 

[hawkman]

Yeah he should of gathered it and sold Maynard some candy and drilled it from 50 on the run. Maynard looks like a DH and Brayshaw lifts his team into a prelim. Game changing

Did you watch Melbourne on Thursday? He does that and he would still manage to hit Moore or Murphy on the chest

 

[hawkman]

As the week wears on, I’m thinking he’s getting time off. It was a footy incident, so he’s a bit unlucky. It wasn’t malicious but he made the wrong choice and someone has been concussed. Under duty of care, am thinking they will find he had time to make a better choice. It’s just how things are now.

I think it will be upheld tonight and then to the appeals board where it is 50/50 if it gets dismissed. Whatever happens this week, what Maynard did would be a suspension next year

 

[GoPies1]

Had a quick look at the Martin thread.
It should be pinging due to a blatant highly forceful punch in the head instead of a basic tackle.
That’s the thuggery that should be stamped out first and foremost.
But because no knockout nobody is reporting it, much like N Daicos.
Got a front on bump which fractures his leg but nobody is saying anything because he wasn’t knocked out.
Rohan knocked out Cameron and stuffed his shoulder because he missed the opponent directly in beside Cameron, and nothing is raised as a careless, high and high?
Which it was!

 

[DonsRule]

Did you watch Melbourne on Thursday? He does that and he would still manage to hit Moore or Murphy on the chest

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Exactly. Michael Christian trying to pressure Kane into “no case to answer” is nothing short of a disgrace and if he doesn’t want to stand by his word of quitting over it then he should be sacked for it.

I disagree. Christian confronted the “footy act” issue when he suspended Van Rooyen and people like Jonathan Brown said that it would change the fabric of the game. While the tribunal upheld the decision it was overturned by the AFL appeals board.

Those suggesting Christian was blatantly wrong when he initially cleared Maynard are expecting him not to have learned from similar experiences this year. I think that’s unreasonable. Whether Maynard gets off or not - you can’t seriously have a go at Christian on this - he is using recent precedent to guide his adjudication, an entirely reasonable course of action.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[sr36]

I think this crucial question comes down to whether we believe that Brayshaw did something irregular or unforeseeable to cause the collision to occur. I don't think he did, his actions were all well within the range of what could normally be expected from a player in his situation.

I don't think the question is whether crashing into Brayshaw's head was foreseeable for Maynard(though it probably was given Maynard's chosen trajectory.) The question would be simply was it reasonably foreseeable that forceful contact could result from Maynard's decision to leap forward on the line he did. If the answer to that is yes, then any injury suffered or even any potential to cause significant injury would see Maynard suspended. In this case there need be no reliance on potential to cause injury, the impact and injury are there for all to see.

It's not hugely clear, but it's actually whether it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be a reportable offence.

The Reportable offence of Rough Conduct has this preamble:

Rough Conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally or carelessly engage in Rough Conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable. Without limiting the wide interpretation of Rough Conduct, particular regard shall be had to the following officially recognised forms of Rough Conduct.

It then goes into a range of different types of rough conduct - the bump is the only relevant one if they do try to argue that bracing is bumping. He can obviously get suspended if they categorise it as a bump.

But for the launch you're kind of left with a confusing: Was it reasonably foreseeable that Maynard's action was unreasonable in the circumstances?

I'm backing Christian's judgement that the launch isn't careless under the guidelines - thus the reports that the AFL are going to try to have the bracing categorised as a bump, which I think is mental from the AFL.

 

[kingswood71]

(The next problem then will be how to rule on “friendly fire”… I’m not sure how it can be judged differently. I think Rohan it was on Cameron for example.)

Strangely enough, the guidelines state that a player has a duty of care "to all other Players. (and) each Player owes a duty of care to all other
Players, Umpires and other persons (as applicable) not to engage in conduct which will constitute a Reportable Offence being committed against that other
Player, Umpire or other person.".....But then the explanations of rough conduct only mentions "opponent".....So they mention duty of care, then re-neg on it later...

 

[TheFourPillars]

I think he is done for the year given the media on it

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Below are the reasons given by the AFL appeals board in relation to Van Rooyen.

Is a smother an attempt to spoil a mark? Perhaps a long bow to draw. But if it can be argued that it is then the Van Rooyen present could see Maynard get off.




The reasons as given



"Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.
These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.
We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.
However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.
It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.
Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two."


For context, 18.5.1 is
Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so

18.5.3 is
Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark

Regards

S. Pete

 

[VicBased]

I see it's still majority of supporters of teams still in the finals race that are calling for suspension.....

Yep, watch out for WC this finals series

 

[Checksider]

I disagree. Christian confronted the “footy act” issue when he suspended Van Rooyen and people like Jonathan Brown said that it would change the fabric of the game. While the tribunal upheld the decision it was overturned by the AFL appeals board.

Those suggesting Christian was blatantly wrong when he initially cleared Maynard are expecting him not to have learned from similar experiences this year. I think that’s unreasonable. Whether Maynard gets off or not - you can’t seriously have a go at Christian on this - he is using recent precedent to guide his adjudication, an entirely reasonable course of action.

Regards

S. Pete

But if he confronted the “footy act” issue by suspending Van Rooyen, shouldn’t he be consistent with it not being a defence for Maynard?

 

[Caligo]

Had a quick look at the Martin thread.
It should be pinging due to a blatant highly forceful punch in the head instead of a basic tackle.
That’s the thuggery that should be stamped out first and foremost.
But because no knockout nobody is reporting it, much like N Daicos.
Got a front on bump which fractures his leg but nobody is saying anything because he wasn’t knocked out.
Rohan knocked out Cameron and stuffed his shoulder because he missed the opponent directly in beside Cameron, and nothing is raised as a careless, high and high?
Which it was!

The Daicos contact was perfect football though. It was not a bump. Blanck is contesting the ball like Maynard was, but unlike Maynard he makes sure the unavoidable contact is not high and is not low. It is through the middle with no raised shoulder/forearm/anything. It was the safest contact possible.

Had Maynard done what Blanck did there would be no concussion. It should be the gold standard.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

But if he confronted the “footy act” issue by suspending Van Rooyen, shouldn’t he be consistent with it not being a defence for Maynard?

If the appeals board had backed him in then yes. But they didn’t so no, they overturned his decision - he should learn from the body with the higher authority.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Gavin Excell]

Will the tribunal be broadcast live
Coast to Coast?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

I think it will be upheld tonight and then to the appeals board where it is 50/50 if it gets dismissed. Whatever happens this week, what Maynard did would be a suspension next year

I am thinking Collingwood won't appeal at all given the anger from Melbourne/Brayshaw family surrounding the incident ..... it will only inflame the heated feelings and the PR for Collingwood would be hugely detrimental to the club .... they will except the 3 weeks and move on

 

[sr36]

The Daicos contact was perfect football though. It was not a bump. Blanck is contesting the ball like Maynard was, but unlike Maynard he makes sure the unavoidable contact is not high and is not low. It is through the middle with no raised shoulder/forearm/anything. It was the safest contact possible.

I agree that it wasn't reportable, but with no eyes for the ball he made front on contact in a marking contest after Daicos had marked. Should have been a 50 m penalty as the contact was illegal, after the mark and not unavoidable.

 

[GoPies1]

The Daicos contact was perfect football though. It was not a bump. Blanck is contesting the ball like Maynard was, but unlike Maynard he makes sure the unavoidable contact is not high and is not low. It is through the middle with no raised shoulder/forearm/anything. It was the safest contact possible.

Had Maynard done what Blanck did there would be no concussion. It should be the gold standard.

He broke the kids leg ffs

 

[tiger_tough]

Yep, watch out for WC this finals series

majority
/məˈdʒɒrɪti/
noun

1. 1.
   the greater number.

 

[Osho]

Will the tribunal be broadcast live
Coast to Coast?

PPV! 20 bucks a pop!

 

[Carn The Berries]

Had a quick look at the Martin thread.
It should be pinging due to a blatant highly forceful punch in the head instead of a basic tackle.
That’s the thuggery that should be stamped out first and foremost.
But because no knockout nobody is reporting it, much like N Daicos.
Got a front on bump which fractures his leg but nobody is saying anything because he wasn’t knocked out.
Rohan knocked out Cameron and stuffed his shoulder because he missed the opponent directly in beside Cameron, and nothing is raised as a careless, high and high?
Which it was!

What????

The Martin thread isn't "pinging" because everyone seems to be in agreement that he deserves to get suspended... Same for JVR...

Rohan was on a teammate FFS... The discussion about what might have happened if it was an opponent has been done to death.

Whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not, the tribunal has been moving to a "result based" method for determining culpability/suspension for many years now. The argument will come down to duty of care as to what Maynard could/should have done.

 

[sr36]

But if he confronted the “footy act” issue by suspending Van Rooyen, shouldn’t he be consistent with it not being a defence for Maynard?

Did you read the whole post or stop after the first sentence?

 

[Caligo]

I agree that it wasn't reportable, but with no eyes for the ball he made front on contact in a marking contest after Daicos had marked. Should have been a 50 m penalty as the contact was illegal, after the mark and not unavoidable.

He had eyes for the ball till he realised he was too late, then he looked down and made sure to contact daicos without making high or low contact. It was a split second late. That is never 50. Every single game has a dozen contacts half a second after a mark. It is never, ever 50.

Had Maynard done what blanck did, there would be no debate, and no tribunal. It is exactly what players must do from now on.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

I am thinking Collingwood won't appeal at all given the anger from Melbourne/Brayshaw family surrounding the incident ..... it will only inflame the heated feelings and the PR for Collingwood would be hugely detrimental to the club .... they will except the 3 weeks and move on

Lol

 

[gutsroy]

There's a fair chance he will be suspended because hitting someone in the head with your shoulder when you are a metre off the ground isn't a football act.

Why, it's almost as if bodies in motion don't end up where they started and can collide at speed.
You've cracked the code, I look forward to the doctoral thesis.
He will likely get suspended, and if that is the outcome, fair enough. Insufficient duty of care, severe impact etc.
But for Christ's sake give up this fairy tale (assuming you actually believe it and aren't just engaged in cheap trolling) that collisions in a contact sport are somehow inherently untoward and NoT FoOtBaLl AcTs, it is farcical.

 

[Caligo]

He broke the kids leg ffs

I don't think you understand. If you make contact the right way (for example not putting your shoulder through somebody's head) you don't get cited.