Player Watch Brayden Maynard

[windchimes]

He said this: I'm stepping outside my expertise here, but I don't think it's a typical shoulder that pops in and out that needs a full reco like some get.

Bucks mentioned on air earlier in the week too that he's been managing this issue for 4-5 years, or something.

 

[3rdMan]

Yes. Bucks said it's likely something he'll have to manage for the rest of his career and that it shouldn't see him miss games this year (outside of management).

 

[Fat Jesus]

Yes. Bucks said it's likely something he'll have to manage for the rest of his career and that it shouldn't see him miss games this year (outside of management).

Perhaps inoperable in terms of getting it right. Pops out and back in soon after.

 

[sr36]

Perhaps inoperable in terms of getting it right. Pops out and back in soon after.

The medical term is half bung.

 

[TradeDraft]

Essendon cult hero’s touching final AFL act

It was a sad end to the fan favourite’s career, but there was one moment that didn’t go unnoticed.

7news.com.au

 

[sideswipe]

Don't come at me with facts and logic sideswipe!
Is this all going to come down to a dog fight over whether he 'elected' to bump or not?

I think the real question is was Bruz contesting the ball? He touched it, so yes. Was it reasonable to contest the ball that way? The only way he was going to get to that ball was by jumping to touch it. So jumping was reasonable.

If we can answer yes to those two questions, it doesn't meet the definition of careless.

#freebruzzy

 

[Scodog10]

Howe better careful going for speccy’s if that is the criteria

It’s this sort of lack of fundamental understanding of the MRO process that leaves me cringing!

 

[Aussie pie]

Been listening to Sen for a little while, they have gone feral, well the callers have. I’ve heard “dog act” been used, I’ve heard that Bruzzy should have moved out of the way while in the air and the classic one “he was never going for the ball he was going for the man the whole time. One caller was upset that he retaliated when the hero Viney attacked him, they said he should have just stood there and taken it. Wtf are these people smoking.

 

[chestbrah]

Been listening to Sen for a little while, they have gone feral, well the callers have. I’ve heard “dog act” been used, I’ve heard that Bruzzy should have moved out of the way while in the air and the classic one “he was never going for the ball he was going for the man the whole time. One caller was upset that he retaliated when the hero Viney attacked him, they said he should have just stood there and taken it. Wtf are these people smoking.

The amount of arm chair physics professors that have emerged has been laughable.

More salt than the Bolivia Salt Pan spilling out of Demons supporters on SEN today.

Thrilled to have beaten them.

 

[domus]

Been listening to Sen for a little while, they have gone feral, well the callers have. I’ve heard “dog act” been used, I’ve heard that Bruzzy should have moved out of the way while in the air and the classic one “he was never going for the ball he was going for the man the whole time. One caller was upset that he retaliated when the hero Viney attacked him, they said he should have just stood there and taken it. Wtf are these people smoking.

The hatred is really coming on strong once again. There's something rather comforting and familiar about this feeling. Rabid, unhinged rage because we are a chance to win the flag. No longer everyone's second team even with our cute, cuddly coach.

 

[sam_e]

It’s this sort of lack of fundamental understanding of the MRO process that leaves me cringing!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Per AFL Tribunal Rules 2023, the likely assessment by the MRO of the Maynard incident will be as follows:

• Offence Type: Classifiable or Direct Tribunal or Fixed Financial = CLASSIFIABLE
• Classifiable type: Rough Conduct or Forceful Front-on Contact = ROUGH CONDUCT
• Conduct: Intentional or Careless or less than Careless = CARELESS
• Contact: High or Body = HIGH
• Impact: Severe, High, Medium or Low = SEVERE (by virtue of concussion)
• Sanction: 3+ matches (Tribunal)

And as a result, the sanction you end up with is 3+ matches and it’s sent straight to the tribunal.


But it’s all predicated on an assessment of Conduct being 'careless'. So is it intentional (don’t think anyone would argue this), Careless (let’s discuss further below) or less than Careless ie. if the conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid.


So let’s look at the rules / definitions for Conduct (below):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Conduct: In considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid against the Player.

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. 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. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key terms to establish Careless conduct:

• constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player
• In order to breach duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all circumstances
• careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence

So did Maynard breach his duty of care? To answer that you need to consider:

a) would a reasonable player regard what he did as ‘prudent’ in all circumstances?;

b) take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen?


So what was Maynard’s actions that we are assessing against those standards? Well, he jumped in the air, raised his arms to smother, he then lands and collides with an oncoming player.

For a) would any other reasonable player see it as PRUDENT to jump off the ground and attempt to smother the ball?

Well, yes, smothering by jumping in the air happens dozens of times across any individual game. It’s a normal football action. Was there anything imprudent in the way Maynard attempts to smother, in the context of where the other player is? Well, no, if you were to ask 100 other reasonable players in the AFL they would also say that running forward and jumping to smother the ball, of an oncoming player, is normal / standard / expected behaviour. If you asked that same cohort if they would have affected the smother any differently to the way Maynard applied it, they likely al say, yeah nah, we would have conducted ourselves in the same way. Michael Hibberd (Melb defender) post-game said “it was just one of those freak footy accidents”.

So if we assume that we’ve established the act of smothering and the way Maynard affected his smother was and is ‘prudent’ in the circumstance of Brayshaw as an oncoming player, let’s turn to b).

For b), should Maynard have FORSEEN that his act (conduct) would end up in hitting Brayshaw high and if so, could he have done anything to AVOID that contact?

Well, his intent when he leaves the ground is to smother the ball. This is evidenced by his actions in a) jumping at or towards the ball and b) raising his arms in a motion to smother the ball. In order to smother he has to be in line with Brayshaw as the oncoming opponent. If both players are moving in opposing directions then, yes, there is a likelihood they will collide if they both stay on the same trajectory. Maynard, and any other reasonable player, may in fact have foreseen that the act of smothering would end up in making contact with Brayshaw, just like any of the other thousands of football actions during a game such as tackling, jumping to mark, jumping to spoil etc etc

Maynard, however, jumps 15 feet in front of Brayshaw but once he is in mid-air and moving forward he cannot do anything to shift his body weight and change trajectories. A biomechanist will confirm that, once his feet leave the ground, he cannot do anything to slow his momentum or change directions in order to land 2-feet to the left or right, and therefore avoid contact.

Just before contact Maynard slightly turns his shoulder to brace. Is there anything more he can do at this point to avoid contact or minimise the impact? Well, if he doesn’t turn away and remains front on, there’s a good chance the collision ends up with a nastier face-to-face impact.

Just before contact, Brayshaw moves slightly off the line he is on, to his right and more directly into Maynard’s path. There is no way Maynard could foresee that movement which places Brayshaw more directly in Maynard’s path.

In my humble opinion, you cannot establish the act is in any way ‘careless’. His clear intent, when he jumps & leaves the ground, is to smother the ball. Any reasonable player would regard his decision to smother in that context as ‘prudent’, would also deem the way he affected the smother as ‘prudent’. Contact occurs as he’s landing as an incidental by-product of a prudent act. Once he’s in mid-air he cannot change his flight path to avoid contact. His brace position on impact is also reasonable, instinctive and without unnecessary force ie. he doesn’t unnecessarily coil & stiffen to impart maximum force /impact.

 

[cfc19902010]

Wow that’s a very comprehensive assessment
Sometimes mro and tribunal are wheel of fortune tho

 

[Greenaicos]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Per AFL Tribunal Rules 2023, the likely assessment by the MRO of the Maynard incident will be as follows:

• Offence Type: Classifiable or Direct Tribunal or Fixed Financial = CLASSIFIABLE
• Classifiable type: Rough Conduct or Forceful Front-on Contact = ROUGH CONDUCT
• Conduct: Intentional or Careless or less than Careless = CARELESS
• Contact: High or Body = HIGH
• Impact: Severe, High, Medium or Low = SEVERE (by virtue of concussion)
• Sanction: 3+ matches (Tribunal)

And as a result, the sanction you end up with is 3+ matches and it’s sent straight to the tribunal.


But it’s all predicated on an assessment of Conduct being 'careless'. So is it intentional (don’t think anyone would argue this), Careless (let’s discuss further below) or less than Careless ie. if the conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid.


So let’s look at the rules / definitions for Conduct (below):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Conduct: In considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid against the Player.

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. 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. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key terms to establish Careless conduct:

• constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player
• In order to breach duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all circumstances
• careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence

So did Maynard breach his duty of care? To answer that you need to consider:

a) would a reasonable player regard what he did as ‘prudent’ in all circumstances?;

b) take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen?


So what was Maynard’s actions that we are assessing against those standards? Well, he jumped in the air, raised his arms to smother, he then lands and collides with an oncoming player.

For a) would any other reasonable player see it as PRUDENT to jump off the ground and attempt to smother the ball?

Well, yes, smothering by jumping in the air happens dozens of times across any individual game. It’s a normal football action. Was there anything imprudent in the way Maynard attempts to smother, in the context of where the other player is? Well, no, if you were to ask 100 other reasonable players in the AFL they would also say that running forward and jumping to smother the ball, of an oncoming player, is normal / standard / expected behaviour. If you asked that same cohort if they would have affected the smother any differently to the way Maynard applied it, they likely al say, yeah nah, we would have conducted ourselves in the same way. Michael Hibberd (Melb defender) post-game said “it was just one of those freak footy accidents”.

So if we assume that we’ve established the act of smothering and the way Maynard affected his smother was and is ‘prudent’ in the circumstance of Brayshaw as an oncoming player, let’s turn to b).

For b), should Maynard have FORSEEN that his act (conduct) would end up in hitting Brayshaw high and if so, could he have done anything to AVOID that contact?

Well, his intent when he leaves the ground is to smother the ball. This is evidenced by his actions in a) jumping at or towards the ball and b) raising his arms in a motion to smother the ball. In order to smother he has to be in line with Brayshaw as the oncoming opponent. If both players are moving in opposing directions then, yes, there is a likelihood they will collide if they both stay on the same trajectory. Maynard, and any other reasonable player, may in fact have foreseen that the act of smothering would end up in making contact with Brayshaw, just like any of the other thousands of football actions during a game such as tackling, jumping to mark, jumping to spoil etc etc

Maynard, however, jumps 15 feet in front of Brayshaw but once he is in mid-air and moving forward he cannot do anything to shift his body weight and change trajectories. A biomechanist will confirm that, once his feet leave the ground, he cannot do anything to slow his momentum or change directions in order to land 2-feet to the left or right, and therefore avoid contact.

Just before contact Maynard slightly turns his shoulder to brace. Is there anything more he can do at this point to avoid contact or minimise the impact? Well, if he doesn’t turn away and remains front on, there’s a good chance the collision ends up with a nastier face-to-face impact.

Just before contact, Brayshaw moves slightly off the line he is on, to his right and more directly into Maynard’s path. There is no way Maynard could foresee that movement which places Brayshaw more directly in Maynard’s path.

In my humble opinion, you cannot establish the act is in any way ‘careless’. His clear intent, when he jumps & leaves the ground, is to smother the ball. Any reasonable player would regard his decision to smother in that context as ‘prudent’, would also deem the way he affected the smother as ‘prudent’. Contact occurs as he’s landing as an incidental by-product of a prudent act. Once he’s in mid-air he cannot change his flight path to avoid contact. His brace position on impact is also reasonable, instinctive and without unnecessary force ie. he doesn’t unnecessarily coil & stiffen to impart maximum force /impact.

Are you free for the appeal.

 

[ant22]

My gut feel is Maynard is sent straight to the tribunal and cops a ban and then gets it overturned on appeal. It’s going to be a long week. So much for no stress after earning a week off.

 

[Vic Park]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Per AFL Tribunal Rules 2023, the likely assessment by the MRO of the Maynard incident will be as follows:

• Offence Type: Classifiable or Direct Tribunal or Fixed Financial = CLASSIFIABLE
• Classifiable type: Rough Conduct or Forceful Front-on Contact = ROUGH CONDUCT
• Conduct: Intentional or Careless or less than Careless = CARELESS
• Contact: High or Body = HIGH
• Impact: Severe, High, Medium or Low = SEVERE (by virtue of concussion)
• Sanction: 3+ matches (Tribunal)

And as a result, the sanction you end up with is 3+ matches and it’s sent straight to the tribunal.


But it’s all predicated on an assessment of Conduct being 'careless'. So is it intentional (don’t think anyone would argue this), Careless (let’s discuss further below) or less than Careless ie. if the conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid.


So let’s look at the rules / definitions for Conduct (below):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Conduct: In considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid against the Player.

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. 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. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key terms to establish Careless conduct:

• constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player
• In order to breach duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all circumstances
• careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence

So did Maynard breach his duty of care? To answer that you need to consider:

a) would a reasonable player regard what he did as ‘prudent’ in all circumstances?;

b) take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen?


So what was Maynard’s actions that we are assessing against those standards? Well, he jumped in the air, raised his arms to smother, he then lands and collides with an oncoming player.

For a) would any other reasonable player see it as PRUDENT to jump off the ground and attempt to smother the ball?

Well, yes, smothering by jumping in the air happens dozens of times across any individual game. It’s a normal football action. Was there anything imprudent in the way Maynard attempts to smother, in the context of where the other player is? Well, no, if you were to ask 100 other reasonable players in the AFL they would also say that running forward and jumping to smother the ball, of an oncoming player, is normal / standard / expected behaviour. If you asked that same cohort if they would have affected the smother any differently to the way Maynard applied it, they likely al say, yeah nah, we would have conducted ourselves in the same way. Michael Hibberd (Melb defender) post-game said “it was just one of those freak footy accidents”.

So if we assume that we’ve established the act of smothering and the way Maynard affected his smother was and is ‘prudent’ in the circumstance of Brayshaw as an oncoming player, let’s turn to b).

For b), should Maynard have FORSEEN that his act (conduct) would end up in hitting Brayshaw high and if so, could he have done anything to AVOID that contact?

Well, his intent when he leaves the ground is to smother the ball. This is evidenced by his actions in a) jumping at or towards the ball and b) raising his arms in a motion to smother the ball. In order to smother he has to be in line with Brayshaw as the oncoming opponent. If both players are moving in opposing directions then, yes, there is a likelihood they will collide if they both stay on the same trajectory. Maynard, and any other reasonable player, may in fact have foreseen that the act of smothering would end up in making contact with Brayshaw, just like any of the other thousands of football actions during a game such as tackling, jumping to mark, jumping to spoil etc etc

Maynard, however, jumps 15 feet in front of Brayshaw but once he is in mid-air and moving forward he cannot do anything to shift his body weight and change trajectories. A biomechanist will confirm that, once his feet leave the ground, he cannot do anything to slow his momentum or change directions in order to land 2-feet to the left or right, and therefore avoid contact.

Just before contact Maynard slightly turns his shoulder to brace. Is there anything more he can do at this point to avoid contact or minimise the impact? Well, if he doesn’t turn away and remains front on, there’s a good chance the collision ends up with a nastier face-to-face impact.

Just before contact, Brayshaw moves slightly off the line he is on, to his right and more directly into Maynard’s path. There is no way Maynard could foresee that movement which places Brayshaw more directly in Maynard’s path.

In my humble opinion, you cannot establish the act is in any way ‘careless’. His clear intent, when he jumps & leaves the ground, is to smother the ball. Any reasonable player would regard his decision to smother in that context as ‘prudent’, would also deem the way he affected the smother as ‘prudent’. Contact occurs as he’s landing as an incidental by-product of a prudent act. Once he’s in mid-air he cannot change his flight path to avoid contact. His brace position on impact is also reasonable, instinctive and without unnecessary force ie. he doesn’t unnecessarily coil & stiffen to impart maximum force /impact.

Does the MRP meet today?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

My gut feel is Maynard is sent straight to the tribunal and cops a ban and then gets it overturned on appeal. It’s going to be a long week. So much for no stress after earning a week off.

That’s the least likely outcome. Appeals are designed to only get up if there was essentially a mistake at the tribunal.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[KinderSmock]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Per AFL Tribunal Rules 2023, the likely assessment by the MRO of the Maynard incident will be as follows:

• Offence Type: Classifiable or Direct Tribunal or Fixed Financial = CLASSIFIABLE
• Classifiable type: Rough Conduct or Forceful Front-on Contact = ROUGH CONDUCT
• Conduct: Intentional or Careless or less than Careless = CARELESS
• Contact: High or Body = HIGH
• Impact: Severe, High, Medium or Low = SEVERE (by virtue of concussion)
• Sanction: 3+ matches (Tribunal)

And as a result, the sanction you end up with is 3+ matches and it’s sent straight to the tribunal.


But it’s all predicated on an assessment of Conduct being 'careless'. So is it intentional (don’t think anyone would argue this), Careless (let’s discuss further below) or less than Careless ie. if the conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid.


So let’s look at the rules / definitions for Conduct (below):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Conduct: In considering a charge in respect of a Classifiable Offence, there will be a determination as to whether the Player’s conduct has been Intentional or Careless. If the Player’s conduct is found to fall short of being careless, no charge will be laid against the Player.

Careless conduct: A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players. 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. In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence.

An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key terms to establish Careless conduct:

• constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player
• In order to breach duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable player would not regard it as prudent in all circumstances
• careless if they breach their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence

So did Maynard breach his duty of care? To answer that you need to consider:

a) would a reasonable player regard what he did as ‘prudent’ in all circumstances?;

b) take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen?


So what was Maynard’s actions that we are assessing against those standards? Well, he jumped in the air, raised his arms to smother, he then lands and collides with an oncoming player.

For a) would any other reasonable player see it as PRUDENT to jump off the ground and attempt to smother the ball?

Well, yes, smothering by jumping in the air happens dozens of times across any individual game. It’s a normal football action. Was there anything imprudent in the way Maynard attempts to smother, in the context of where the other player is? Well, no, if you were to ask 100 other reasonable players in the AFL they would also say that running forward and jumping to smother the ball, of an oncoming player, is normal / standard / expected behaviour. If you asked that same cohort if they would have affected the smother any differently to the way Maynard applied it, they likely al say, yeah nah, we would have conducted ourselves in the same way. Michael Hibberd (Melb defender) post-game said “it was just one of those freak footy accidents”.

So if we assume that we’ve established the act of smothering and the way Maynard affected his smother was and is ‘prudent’ in the circumstance of Brayshaw as an oncoming player, let’s turn to b).

For b), should Maynard have FORSEEN that his act (conduct) would end up in hitting Brayshaw high and if so, could he have done anything to AVOID that contact?

Well, his intent when he leaves the ground is to smother the ball. This is evidenced by his actions in a) jumping at or towards the ball and b) raising his arms in a motion to smother the ball. In order to smother he has to be in line with Brayshaw as the oncoming opponent. If both players are moving in opposing directions then, yes, there is a likelihood they will collide if they both stay on the same trajectory. Maynard, and any other reasonable player, may in fact have foreseen that the act of smothering would end up in making contact with Brayshaw, just like any of the other thousands of football actions during a game such as tackling, jumping to mark, jumping to spoil etc etc

Maynard, however, jumps 15 feet in front of Brayshaw but once he is in mid-air and moving forward he cannot do anything to shift his body weight and change trajectories. A biomechanist will confirm that, once his feet leave the ground, he cannot do anything to slow his momentum or change directions in order to land 2-feet to the left or right, and therefore avoid contact.

Just before contact Maynard slightly turns his shoulder to brace. Is there anything more he can do at this point to avoid contact or minimise the impact? Well, if he doesn’t turn away and remains front on, there’s a good chance the collision ends up with a nastier face-to-face impact.

Just before contact, Brayshaw moves slightly off the line he is on, to his right and more directly into Maynard’s path. There is no way Maynard could foresee that movement which places Brayshaw more directly in Maynard’s path.

In my humble opinion, you cannot establish the act is in any way ‘careless’. His clear intent, when he jumps & leaves the ground, is to smother the ball. Any reasonable player would regard his decision to smother in that context as ‘prudent’, would also deem the way he affected the smother as ‘prudent’. Contact occurs as he’s landing as an incidental by-product of a prudent act. Once he’s in mid-air he cannot change his flight path to avoid contact. His brace position on impact is also reasonable, instinctive and without unnecessary force ie. he doesn’t unnecessarily coil & stiffen to impart maximum force /impact.

Top work here, mate.

I can see the AFL inventing some "Maynard Rule" or "Brayshaw's Rule" that bans a player from doing what Maynard did. I disagree with it but it's a possibility that may happen. Media isn't going to shut up about this all week. And probably next week. And during the prelim final.

 

[NMBB]

Goodwin doing his best to drop Maynard in it at his presser

 

[Kes1984]

It’s after 6pm. Where are MRO findings

 

[Harry O]

Maynard off to the tribunal according to Herald Sun
AFL determined to send him there but just trying to invent a charge that will legally stand up

 

[Harry O]

Gerard Wheatley saying he believes MRO (Christian) did not charge Maynard but that Laura Kane will likely over rule that and lay a charge

 

[chestbrah]

Gerard Wheatley saying he believes MRO (Christian) did not charge Maynard but that Laura Kane will likely over rule that and lay a charge

Ridiculous overstep if true.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Maynard off to the tribunal according to Herald Sun
AFL determined to send him there but just trying to invent a charge that will legally stand up

Fair enough to go to tribunal as it doesn’t fit the MRP formula. And they couldn’t just let it slide. As you say tribunal will have to invent something now.

 

[Kes1984]

Gerard Wheatley saying he believes MRO (Christian) did not charge Maynard but that Laura Kane will likely over rule that and lay a charge

She should stay out of it.

 

[Harry O]

Fair enough to go to tribunal as it doesn’t fit the MRP formula. And they couldn’t just let it slide. As you say tribunal will have to invent something now.

Even if they don’t believe he is guilty the AFL are just protecting themselves legally from the concussion claims in courts