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 👍
 
Depsite what you think he was for the second time cleared. He's free to play finals. Move on.

We're in a thread discussing the incident, the fallout from the incident, and the tribunal verdict on the incident, on a discussion forum.

Pretty sure people are allowed to express an opinion on the topic still. You're free to move on from the thread of course.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Weird in the sense you think Mundys opinion in all of the AFL players is the only one that matters

Mundy's was the one that was posted here, with someone immediately following up mentioning the biomechanist. I'd say there was a clear link there.
 
We're in a thread discussing the incident, the fallout from the incident, and the tribunal verdict on the incident, on a discussion forum.

Pretty sure people are allowed to express an opinion on the topic still. You're free to move on from the thread of course.

OK, you're right. You're allowed to be salty. Carry on.
 
Mundy's was the one that was posted here, with someone immediately following up mentioning the biomechanist. I'd say there was a clear link there.

Do you think Maynards attempt to smother the ball was realistic?

List the options you think he should have taken
 
Do you think Maynards attempt to smother the ball was realistic?

I think he attempted to engage in a legitimate football action initially, but was careless in his execution and caused significant harm to another player through his actions.

I don't think he deliberately lined Brayshaw up and meant to knock him out, but I do think if it was Pendlebury or Mumford coming the other way he'd have found himself not turning his shoulder in.

So I fall on the side of careless, same as we see with other careless football actions; bumping, tackling, spoiling etc... where maybe the player isn't meaning to be malicious or cause harm, but are still responsible for the outcome of careless actions.
 
Coll supporters- what if Toby greene had ended Nick Daicos' season in the same manner? No duty of care
Mate the biomechanics guy is from some s**t college, ranked 35th in Australia.

He's just some guy your fancy lawyers wheeled out to get Maynard off.

He literally said Maynard was a human frisbee.
I'd trust the David Mundy who played 376 AFL games and has been retired for 1 year to have a better grasp of what players can and cannot do in a moment of time in the modern game over a biomechanist speculating.
Completely irrelevant.
What next, I produce 67 ex players who think Maynard should get off… Followed by you countering with 83 others who think he should be suspended?
The Tribunal decides and they did.
I take it that you and David Mundy disagree. That is irrelevant.
 
I think he attempted to engage in a legitimate football action initially, but was careless in his execution and caused significant harm to another player through his actions.

I don't think he deliberately lined Brayshaw up and meant to knock him out, but I do think if it was Pendlebury or Mumford coming the other way he'd have found himself not turning his shoulder in.

So I fall on the side of careless, same as we see with other careless football actions; bumping, tackling, spoiling etc... where maybe the player isn't meaning to be malicious or cause harm, but are still responsible for the outcome of careless actions.

When you make contact with something you dont expect , do you just open yourself up or brace?

Maynard didnt expect that Brayshaw would keep running and veer off, he cant control his actions once in the air.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You're acting like he did it just for the benefit of looking good for the tribunal.

All reports on Maynard suggest that he is a terrific guy with a big heart. It can't just be that he was caring about his mate?
If this was something that the tribunal were adamant would not be taken into account then I think we would all be in a better position to judge the sincerity of his actions.

But they do take it into account so I have no qualms with those who suggest he was only doing it to curry favour with the tribunal.

Arguably this is an area where intent is harder to determine than his on-field act.

Regards

S. Pete
 
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
Cotchin used the proper technique Shiel didn't that's why he got hurt & it wasn't a bump it was brace & Cotch won the footy, Noah Cumberland got hit head high in a game last year trying to pick up the ball the same way Shiel did in that final and Dimma said he used the wrong technique in the presser.
 
Last edited:
Coll supporters- what if Toby greene had ended Nick Daicos' season in the same manner? No duty of care?
We all know that we'd biasedly assume that Toby meant it and we'd be baying for blood.

But us being biased towards Daicos and against Toby is a pretty silly argument to suggest that under the guidelines Maynard should have been suspended.
 
You're acting like he did it just for the benefit of looking good for the tribunal.

All reports on Maynard suggest that he is a terrific guy with a big heart. It can't just be that he was caring about his mate?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying it looks like. And if he didn't want it to look that way, he should have waited til after the hearing. Just send a text if you have to, but don't show up at his house. And who said they are mates?
 
I'd trust the David Mundy who played 376 AFL games and has been retired for 1 year to have a better grasp of what players can and cannot do in a moment of time in the modern game over a biomechanist speculating.

No.
Evidence from biomechanic & neurological sciences & experts in the field have decades of research into all sorts of physical movement. Those experts have a far better understanding of what is possible & not possible than any untrained person making their own opinion. The experience of one person carries little weight, if any.
The Biomechanist's opinion is based on his professional knowledge. The Tribunal took that into account as they are not expert in the fields of Human Movement or Neurophysiology.
End of story.
Move on.
 
No, it wasn't.



The biomechanist's opinion is that Maynard reacted instinctively, not deliberately.

That assumes he's reacting after the fact to Brayshaw being there. Which is a silly argument IMO. He knew Brayshaw was in the vicinity from the moment he made the decision to leave the ground, so whilst his eyes may have been on the ball, he knew Brayshaw was going to be there.
Don't be a goose.

It was proven in that the Tribunal accepted his evidence.
 
Back
Top