Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

What should happen with Maynard?

  • 1-2 match suspension for careless, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 247 27.9%
  • 3-4 match suspension for intentional, med-high impact, high contact

    Votes: 203 23.0%
  • 5+ match suspension, intentional or careless with severe impact, straight to tribunal

    Votes: 68 7.7%
  • Charges downgraded to a fine

    Votes: 52 5.9%
  • No charge/no penalty

    Votes: 314 35.5%

  • Total voters
    884
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

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.


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 👍
 
No one is keen for that to happen you peanut. All isee is Collingwood fans laughing and dancing in the street that Maynard got away with flatlining a bloke and possibly ending his career.

You still didn't actually refute the statement. You know if the roles were reversed the "Collingwood army" would be absolutely baying for blood.

You can see whatever you wanna see, reality is unfortunately a very different beast.
 
Fair question, no it doesn’t.
The others are worse looking and the intent to bump is there.

Maynard’s?
No it wasn’t - the rules may change after this though.

If you honestly hand on heart believe he didn't have intent to hurt you have never played or been involved in sport let alone football.
 
If you honestly hand on heart believe he didn't have intent to hurt you have never played or been involved in sport let alone football.
I’m done, thanks for having me - bye.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Classy mate. I genuinely hope you don’t believe that bullshit. The way the Pies fans have played the victim in this is hilarious.

Brayshaw may never play again and you’re acting like he had any role to play in this. He disposed of the ball, looked up, and some thug was twisting his shoulder towards his face.

#Justice4Bruzzy
 
The only thing that's sure in football...more rule changes.

And as a consequence, more inconsistency in umpiring.

Amazing that others have been suspended yet Maynard is free and people are talking already about a rule change. Others weren't afforded this luxary.

Odd he is
 
“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”
That's related to when he jumped. If you accept that Brayshaw did shift to the right after Maynard had launched, which is pretty clear, I don't know how you can say that it is reasonable to expect Maynard to foresee Brayshaw's change of path.

A tribunal decision isn't about natural justice, it's about the tribunal guidelines, and whether it is viewed as careless under the current guidelines.

I think they'll re-write the guidelines to include a grading below careless - accident caused by one players dangerous action. It'll include a statement that being involved in a mark is a dangerous action, so it won't impact marking contests or accidental spoils where it isn't a swinging arm that is viewed as careless.

Under those guidelines, Maynard would be suspended, as launching like that as close to Brayshaw's path as he did is dangerous, but under the guidelines it isn't careless, as it's not reasonable to expect him to foresee Brayshaw's change of path. And significantly and fairly it won't be graded the same as an intentional bump where the player intentionally smashed into an opponent but didn't take enough care to miss his opponents head.
 
What a joke our once great game has become.

Fwiw I don't think he should be suspended, but the inconsistencies in the MRP, Tribunal, and general umpiring is ridiculous.

Massive conflicts of interest at AFL House continue as well.
Mansell was charged for murder for doing less.(trial by media)
Glad Maynard got off but the inconsistency by the CFL is appalling.

A Tiger VFL player made it to AFL 360 ffs to get his lynching.
 
Its in two parts all of this.

Should he have been suspended. Yes going on what we have seen from previous actions that have resulted in suspensions.

Did you think he was going to? No he plays for Collingwood.
Did you follow any of the hearing last night? He wasnt going to be suspended when the AFL counsel puts up one of the more insipid performances in memory.
 
Was it due to the strength of the argument presented by the AFL? Reading the proceedings through Zita tweets on our board suggested that Woods’ performance was soft.

It’s possible we’ll see a tightening of rules over the off-season to address the outcome, but based on the way it was prosecuted, the current rules and the transcript of the tribunal findings it was pretty clear, IMO. The problem I think is going to be that any change to the rules around leaving the ground to smother will still leave grey for some when it comes to an incident like Tom Lynch’s.
Probably a bit of both.

I don't know I saw a very clear simular incident to compare it to and it probably didn't deviate from other decisions this year - albeit I don't think there were any that were that close to this one either it probably hit in somewhat an unknown area attempted spoil see Brayshaw panic trained defense mechanistic turns to protect wasn't a pure bump but nor was really close to any/many spoils in recent times - suspect we may get some more clarity on that for n next year i.e. Maynard initiated the contact via a spoil you're responsible for more afterwards (not as simple as that obviously)

I think Maynards lawyer did a great job - though I'm not sure I completely agree with it all I think they heavily exagerated Brayshaws movement I honestly don't think Maynard as ever missing - but I do think it for sure really centered Brawshaw up too. Thats what he's paid to do though so fair play to him



The less Maynard said though probably the better may have been the only time in the hearing I was a little nervous for him


The AFL arguments seemed pretty odd to me and didn't really make a ton of sense so that probably pushed it further into the he will be safe
 
Last edited:
Did you follow any of the hearing last night? He wasnt going to be suspended when the AFL counsel puts up one of the more insipid performances in memory.

Please. The media and Collingwood mafia set out from the beginning to derail this. The Brayshaw family have every right to be fuming as does every other club as again Collingwood get away with what others don't.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Does it need to be worse? It was an illegal act as the rules are now.
In your opinion. Not in the eyes of the independent tribunal.

FWIW I agree with the assessment of the tribunal and if the AFL sees this as you do the rules need tweaking.
 
Not being able to understand that 'left the ground' pertains to an intentional bump and not a spoil is worthy of very mild name-calling. The tribunal decision basically makes the same point that nobody 'sensible' could make such an argument.

'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'

To perpetuate this level of ignorance like so many commentators did is not worthy of respect because it is objectively idiotic and has only succeeded in misleading the rest of the uninformed.
Isn’t that the role of the modern media? Perpetuating ignorance to an idiotically ill informed public.
Get outraged over everything.
See conspiracy when you don’t get your preferred outcome.
Outrage sells, outrage gets clicks, facts are boring.
 
Probably because his brother was victim blamed and knocked into next week. But yeah, tough guy.
What did he say when Gaff knocked his brother out?

I am so over the 'victim' blaming. I wonder whether you and others read what you post?

I haven't seen one poster 'victim blame' neither did the Tribunal. I have seen that the action after kicking contributed to the clash but that to me is not 'victim blaming'. I actually thought (and posted) that I thought that may have been his natural kicking action and that he didn't see Maynard until the very last second.

I can say that initially I though Maynard would go not because of the incident but due to the 'look' and that Brayshaw has a history of concussion and that the AFL would make a stand.

We too have a player with a history of concussion and there was an incident in an Adelaide game, no free kick and no report. I don't think you saw hundreds of posts complaining, nor derogatory comments against the Adelaide player. Some of the comments against Maynard might have looked amusing on a page but I really hope that players don't read social media after such incidents.

Concussion in sport is serious and maybe it has come to the point where club and player need to see the point of the player continuing as clashes/accidents will continue to happen despite the rules and penalties.
 
Last edited:
Please. The media and Collingwood mafia set out from the beginning to derail this. The Brayshaw family have every right to be fuming as does every other club as again Collingwood get away with what others don't.
So you obviously didnt. You cant complain about the outcome of a hearing when you hire Lionel Hutz to go up against Harvey Specter.

The AFLs case was so incredibly poor.

I saw plenty of media calling for a ban. It was a divisive case as many are. But cool, you go on believing a conspiracy..
 
The right decision has been reached under the rules as they stand. Pretty simple. Some of the crap on here is beyond laughable.

Trent Cotchin played a grand final after knocking out Dylan Shiel with a head high bump that should have got at least 2 weeks. Barry hall played a grand final after punching Matt Maguire in the guts 50m off the ball and it was determined ‘in play’. They were examples decisions of the nature that should engender outrage as they were clearly in contradiction of the rules as they stood at the time, and where players were given leeway simply because a GF was on the line. The Maynard decision is different, as it is actually correct under the rules of the day
 
Coll supporters- what if Toby greene had ended Nick Daicos' season in the same manner? No duty of care?
 
DAVID MUNDY: “If Brayden Maynard was falling and that was Scott Pendlebury underneath him, I think he would make a different decision than cover up and just protect himself and not worry about the other player".
So David Mundy is now a biomechanist?

It was proven that Maynard had no time to make any decision in the split second he had between looking down from the ball to the collision. All he did was flinch in an involuntary fashion that his brain made him do in an instinctive reaction of self-preservation.

Mundy is clearly another simpleton who hasn't even bothered to listen to or read the evidence.
 
Coll supporters- what if Toby greene had ended Nick Daicos' season in the same manner? No duty of care?

No. If a player’s primary objective is to affect the ball and not the player then I’m happy for Greene to get off.

People are crying inconsistency and then pointing to bumps and sling tackles as the comparators.

In a tackle or a bump the primary objective to to affect the processing of the player - slowing them down or better yet getting a holding the ball decision.

In the case of marking, spoiling or smothering the primary objective is to affect the ball when in is not in anyone’s possession. What happens after that, particularly immediately after, is always going to have a bit of grey and leeway when it comes to determining things like duty of care and choices.

This is why Maynard got off, it is why Van Rooyen got off and, until a rule change, it is why Greene should and would get off in your hypothetical scenario.

Regards

S. Pete
 
Back
Top