MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto thread II

Remove this Banner Ad

GeordieRoo

Premiership Player
Dec 17, 2003
3,558
1,994
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Newcastle United
My first thoughts when it happened were exactly the same as Goodwin’s … he left the ground and knocked a player out.

I’d have thought it was that simple, a former captain of our club might think the same.

But not when it’s Collingwood.

Absolute corruption.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JGreezy

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2014
3,273
11,766
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If turning into a guy shoulder first isn't engaging in the act of bumping then I have no *en idea and will pack it up. I see this as no different to a soccer player going in "to win the ball" and getting there late and just taking the bloke out. It can be a footy act and completely out of control and endangering and that's what it was. He had to go. If *en Logue gets a week for actually protecting himself then that's at least two.
If a soccer player is late on a tackle do they get suspended for 3 weeks?
 
Mar 16, 2001
23,930
55,584
Melbourne VIC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
I am glad he isn’t suspended. I am desperately sorry for Brayshaw but found the focus on his history a bit unfair - it’s not relevant to the case.

I also expect some rule tightening so jumping like this - as for bumps and tackles - will become something where players will be held liable for the consequences if the execution results in head high contact, no matter whether it was intended or not.
 
If turning into a guy shoulder first isn't engaging in the act of bumping then I have no *en idea and will pack it up. I see this as no different to a soccer player going in "to win the ball" and getting there late and just taking the bloke out. It can be a footy act and completely out of control and endangering and that's what it was. He had to go. If *en Logue gets a week for actually protecting himself then that's at least two.
Its not bumping.

Yes, he hit him in the face with his shoulder front on. Bumping is a side on action.

Personally i think he did it deliberately in the moment and that it was a shoulder strike to his head. He didn't do it to protect himself, just to make contact with the opposition player cos it was a final.

I'm not really surprised he got off but if he played for any other side I would have been.
 
Please see the below reasons of the Tribunal for its Maynard decision via Jeff Gleeson:

In the first quarter of Thursday's Qualifying Final from a centre bounce Brayshaw gathered the ball beyond the edge of the centre circle.

He ran in a direct line to the Melbourne goals at speed shaping to kick the ball long.

Maynard, who had set up at the centre bounce on the 50 meter line directly in line between the centre circle and the Melbourne goals and seeing Brayshaw running with the ball ran towards him.

He covered the distance of numerous meters at speed.

As Brayshaw shaped the kick and jumped high with both arms outstretched. He was attempting to smother the ball and in fact made contact with the ball.

By the time the ball made contact with Brayshaw’s boot, both of Maynard's feet had already left the ground.

At approximately the highest point of Maynard's elevation, he starts to pull his arms down and prepare for descent.

It’s obvious from the vision, and we find that at that moment it would have been obvious to Maynard, that he was going to collide with Brayshaw.

He turns his body to the right, tucks his right arm in, splays his legs and shapes his left hand in something of a fending motion.

He collides with Brayshaw with considerable impact.

After kicking the ball with his right foot, Brayshaw lands on that right foot. He lands or moves in such a way that his body moves to the right or directly into the path of Maynard.

Maynard’s arm or shoulder make forceful contact with Brayshaw’s head and he's knocked out cold. He suffers a concussion and is stretched from the field.

Maynard is charged with rough conduct, classified as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact.

The charge is advanced in two ways: Under the general rough conduct provision or alternatively under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, we will address them in turn.

First, the rough conduct general provision.

The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.

Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.

As to the decision to smother basis, we find that Maynard's decision was reasonable.

He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.

We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.

We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.

Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.

We are here discussing the first way in which the general rough conduct charge is pressed; That is, focusing on the decision to commit to the act of smothering.

The still images showing the ‘lanes’ in which the players were located at various relevant times, provide support for Maynard's evidence that he did not expect Brayshaw to be where he ultimately saw him to be after he took his eyes off the ball and look down to see Brayshaw.

As to the second basis of the rough conduct general provision, we accept the evidence of Professor Cole that he did not believe that Maynard’s body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.

Here, we’re addressing the second way in which general rough conduct charge is pressed, namely that it was something that Maynard did or didn't do after he'd decided to smother was careless.

We find that Professor Cole's evidence is consistent with the time intervals that were introduced into evidence and consistent with our repeated viewing of the video evidence from numerous angles at normal speed.

Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw, if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position, we find that he had no such sufficient time.

He would have had to weigh up what his other options were and whether they were more or less likely to cause harm to Brayshaw.

It is not an irrelevant consideration that these other possible methods of landing foreseeably have resulted in harm to Maynard.

The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.

It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.

We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.

This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.

The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.

The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.

We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.

It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.

At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.

In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.

We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.

The charge is dismissed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jun 4, 2013
17,056
43,703
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I thought it was pretty cynical of Brayshaw's brother to go on a podcast and say he expects Collingwood to get looked after, but uh. Yeah.

I'd like to say I can roughly navigate around illegal tackles now, but when it comes to other types of head knocks it's pretty ******* close to a crapshoot as to whether you can guess the outcome.

Bit bizarre to me some of the things you can be held liable for in a tackle, but throwing a forearm out at a bloke with the ball and concussing a guy is AOK, but having the ball and charging through someone isn't ok, but jumping in the air then turning side on and cannoning into someone is ok.
 
Right decision, anything else would have been bloody stupid.
He deliberately dropped his shoulder into Brayshaw's head after the smother attempt cos the opportunity to clean him up "legally" presented itself.

Although the contact was probably unavoidable he made sure he made the most of it.

I dunno whether that's worth a suspension or not. Our players get knocked out all the time and the MRO doesn't even cite the cases.
 
I thought the evidence The Pies gave
1694514374428.gif
 

zoomba23

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 17, 2017
5,103
14,113
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Correct call. I don't want a game where a bloke who desperately jumps to smother a ball is rubbed out for three matches. It was just unfortunate, not malicious.

I'd honestly be in favour of the league encouraging blokes with a history of head knocks to retire in order to protect themselves. It's a dangerous game, plain and simple, and you're never, ever, going to be able to ensure that this bloke or that bloke doesn't receive the head knock that breaks the camel's back
 
Jun 4, 2013
17,056
43,703
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Correct call. I don't want a game where a bloke who desperately jumps to smother a ball is rubbed out for three matches. It was just unfortunate, not malicious.

I'd honestly be in favour of the league encouraging blokes with a history of head knocks to retire in order to protect themselves. It's a dangerous game, plain and simple, and you're never, ever, going to be able to ensure that this bloke or that bloke doesn't receive the head knock that breaks the camel's back
Only way the league could "encourage" most of those players to retire is if they pay their salary until their mid 30's while they never again pull the boots on.
 
He deliberately dropped his shoulder into Brayshaw's head after the smother attempt cos the opportunity to clean him up "legally" presented itself.

Although the contact was probably unavoidable he made sure he made the most of it.

I dunno whether that's worth a suspension or not. Our players get knocked out all the time and the MRO doesn't even cite the cases.
Completely disagree. His left hand actually went out to cushion the blow, plus Brayshaw moves to his right after he kicks, while Maynard is in the air. There was no deliberate attempt to drop his shoulder into his head. Just my opinion!
 

zoomba23

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 17, 2017
5,103
14,113
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Only way the league could "encourage" most of those players to retire is if they pay their salary until their mid 30's while they never again pull the boots on.
The networking in footy is extensive. Suck it up and find something through your contacts. Of course they could choose to run the gauntlet and risk lifetime suffering for a few extra hundred ks, but at that point the league aren't to blame
 

Shagga is all Class

Premiership Player
May 15, 2005
4,126
6,183
Beneath the Blue and White
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
Look, I wouldn't want North player get suspended for the same incident, but deep down I know, for the same act:

Lindsay Thomas (Life, along with the usual media and public outrage) > Jack Ziebell (3 weeks) > Logue ( 1 week)

Call me cynical but some clubs get the Officer Barbrady treatment, and we get the North loading.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back