Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Brayden Maynard

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Reader mode

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

sam_e said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


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.
Click to expand...
Ralphy on Fox confirmed it’s going to be graded careless, high and severe. Off to the tribunal. **** knows why you wasted so much time on this today when it was inevitable.
 
Can we get Carlton's lawyer on the blower?? Still think he will get off regardless. The AFL just want a story for Prelim week as usual
 
At the risk of quoting someone else. Angus Brayshaw is to be now known as Angus Glass-Jaw.
 
lvandinter said:
Can we get Carlton's lawyer on the blower?? Still think he will get off regardless. The AFL just want a story for Prelim week as usual
Click to expand...
Sydney’s lawyer on McCartin case 2 weeks ago or Bedford last night would be fine

Interesting Ms Kane did not over rule Chrisso on the Mitch Duncan one this year

No way he doesn’t get off at tribunal
 

Remove this Banner Ad

eyeroller said:
Can we at least get a competent lawyer to handle this case PLEASE
Click to expand...
Breaking Bad Trailer GIF
 
Scodog10 said:
Ralphy on Fox confirmed it’s going to be graded careless, high and severe. Off to the tribunal. * knows why you wasted so much time on this today when it was inevitable.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
The MRO doesn’t care about the actual law. It was always going to be graded that way.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If it's true Christian wasn't going to charge him because he believed it was a football accident then it's pretty scandalous.

Seems like a waste of time to me given precedent has already been set with the Duncan, Cripps and McCartin decisions.

Hopefully common sense prevails and Maynard receives a just outcome.
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

WalterBlaknWhte
    • Like
    • Love
  • Locked
Game Day Collingwood v North, Sunday 1pm, Marvel: Maynard Lovefest
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
28K
Dead Eye Didak
Dead Eye Didak

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom