Maynard cleared by tribunal for Brayshaw collision

[Corn Cobbers]

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.

AFL ponders rule change after Maynard Tribunal call

The Brayden Maynard saga is officially over after the AFL opted not to appeal the Tribunal's decision

www.afl.com.au

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

 

[Roby]

OK let's play words and say "The Majority"

So you just admitted to making in an inaccurate statement, which you were called out several times now for

 

[YeoShuey]

OK let's play words and say "The Majority"

That’s better.

 

[Roby]

And your credentials are???

I have a masters in biology

 

[VicBased]

So you just admitted to making in an inaccurate statement, which you were called out several times now for

Grow up will you. You are acting like a spoiled child.
Here, have a chocolate.

 

[VicBased]

I have a masters in biology

M.ore like a masters in bullshite

 

[Roby]

VicBased you're obviously as dumb as they come. I've seen your posts, I've had to ignore people like Sherb and others on this thread due to their constant cry-trolling. On ignore you go too now.

 

[VicBased]

VicBased you're obviously as dumb as they come. I've seen your posts, I've had to ignore people like Sherb and others on this thread due to their constant cry-trolling. On ignore you go too now.

Thank God for that.

 

[Roby]

It's amazing people with no expertise, no playing experience, no understanding of science, can claim to think they know more than these people.

Dunning-krugger effect in full force in this thread.

 

[jatz14]

The difference is that players standing under a kick are expecting to be launched at, so it's not as dangerous as they're prepared and they've chosen the danger. Contesting in a pack mark is inherently dangerous.

I think they'll add a classification below careless, where if you only one of the players does something that can be foreseen to be dangerous and this happens then they get suspended. And launching like that that close to Brayshaws path was dangerous. In a marking situation all players are doing something that is dangerous, so it wouldn't apply. And I think it's fair - a punishment but a lower punishment than careless

Watching the womens AFLW game now. First quarter, Geelong player jumps to smother a handball over the top. Would have collected the player making the handball, except the player handballed, then stepped to avoid the smotherer. Player doing the smother got her finger tips to the ball and breaks up the play.

Commentators - good bit of play. No free, no report, no hysterics.

If Maynard gets done, this is a reportable act.

It happens in every quarter, of every game, at every level, for ever.

1.41 left on the clock, first quarter.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

A shame Brayshaw won’t be out there tonight after being knocked out with a late hit last week.

 

[jatz14]

The difference is that players standing under a kick are expecting to be launched at, so it's not as dangerous as they're prepared and they've chosen the danger. Contesting in a pack mark is inherently dangerous.

I think they'll add a classification below careless, where if you only one of the players does something that can be foreseen to be dangerous and this happens then they get suspended. And launching like that that close to Brayshaws path was dangerous. In a marking situation all players are doing something that is dangerous, so it wouldn't apply. And I think it's fair - a punishment but a lower punishment than careless

Maynard jumped directly in Brayshaws line of sight. Player standing under a high ball has knees coming at his head from players he cannot see. So Im not sure how that players back of head is braced for contact somehow, while Brayshaw was surprised by the player in front of him.

The length of time Maynard was in the air before contact is an eternity by the standards of elite sports.

 

[jatz14]

33 sec left in the last quarter, AFLW Cats v North. North players charges a Geelong player taking a kick,leaves her feet, smothers the ball, collides with the Geelong player. No concussion or hard blow to the head. But looks like there may have been incidental contact to the head.

Reportable?

 

[SC_Power]

Maynard jumped directly in Brayshaws line of sight. Player standing under a high ball has knees coming at his head from players he cannot see. So Im not sure how that players back of head is braced for contact somehow, while Brayshaw was surprised by the player in front of him.

The length of time Maynard was in the air before contact is an eternity by the standards of elite sports.

Personal opinion. What do I think is quite amazing in all the goings on about Maynard’s smother?

That no one, anywhere, posted a video of how the vast majority of times a player jumps and smothers a ball, they seem to be able to turn their head and turn and attempt to adjust and spin and contort their body to the direction the ball was smothered to. Instantly.

Not one video. Even for reference. Even as a defence.

 

[bloodsbigot]

So with his shoulder, Maynard essentially ended Melbourne's season. And he got off Scot-Free. AFL really, really want a Carlton Vs Collingwood Grand Final.

 

[Roby]

So with his shoulder, Maynard essentially ended Melbourne's season. And he got off Scot-Free. AFL really, really want a Carlton Vs Collingwood Grand Final.

None of this happened

 

[DonsRule]

Personal opinion. What do I think is quite amazing in all the goings on about Maynard’s smother?

That no one, anywhere, posted a video of how the vast majority of times a player jumps and smothers a ball, they seem to be able to turn their head and turn and attempt to adjust and spin and contort their body to the direction the ball was smothered to. Instantly.

Not one video. Even for reference. Even as a defence.

Which is why I said although I thought he would get off it was always in somewhat an unknown areas and though it was possible he would go.

Some of the tribunals recent calls I feels like it would probably be cleared but I don't think I had seen anyone from either side being up a real comparable

 

[sr36]

Watching the womens AFLW game now. First quarter, Geelong player jumps to smother a handball over the top. Would have collected the player making the handball, except the player handballed, then stepped to avoid the smotherer. Player doing the smother got her finger tips to the ball and breaks up the play.

Commentators - good bit of play. No free, no report, no hysterics.

If Maynard gets done, this is a reportable act.

It happens in every quarter, of every game, at every level, for ever.

1.41 left on the clock, first quarter.

No it wouldn't be a reportable act. It needs to meet both conduct and impact.

I think that you're missing how ridiculously committed Maynard's attempt to smother was. It wasn't an everyday attempt to smother. He wasn't going to land on his feet. You'll occasionally see someone dive to smother off the boot. How often have you seen someone jump up to smother mid air and not land on their feet?

 

[Fadge]

It is interesting that all Collingwood fans defended him and non fans didn't (except Roby).
The true meaning of "One Eyed" comes into play here .
I guess we are all like that and what I saw was different to what Collingwood fans saw.
Anyway, safe to say Maynard and Brayshaw are no longer friends

OK let's play words and say "The Majority"

I do like how it went from 'All' to 'The Majority' so quickly.

My reading of it was that it was barely a Majority, if at all.

And it certainly wasn't a Majority outside of BigFooty.

Roby, we don't usually agree on very much in this forum, and i know you have me on ignore because you've told me 8 times, but you smashed this thread out of the park!

 

[deck]

So with his shoulder, Maynard essentially ended Melbourne's season. And he got off Scot-Free. AFL really, really want a Carlton Vs Collingwood Grand Final.

Are you suggesting the AFL colluded with Maynard to take Brayshaw out?

 

[deck]

It is interesting that all Collingwood fans defended him and non fans didn't (except Roby).
The true meaning of "One Eyed" comes into play here .
I guess we are all like that and what I saw was different to what Collingwood fans saw.
Anyway, safe to say Maynard and Brayshaw are no longer friends

Yet the majority of past players in the media and the media in general all supported Maynard getting off.

What I found interesting is the few who supported a hefty suspension all had connections with teams still involved in finals.

 

[jatz14]

No it wouldn't be a reportable act. It needs to meet both conduct and impact.

I think that you're missing how ridiculously committed Maynard's attempt to smother was. It wasn't an everyday attempt to smother. He wasn't going to land on his feet. You'll occasionally see someone dive to smother off the boot. How often have you seen someone jump up to smother mid air and not land on their feet?

No. I think your missing the point.

A sling tackle doesn't have to knock a player out to be reportable.

It doesn't even have to have the players head make forceful impact, or any impact at all.

And the reason is simple, you cannot state that sling tackles are OK, unless you happen to cause brain damage. Sling away all you want, but put a player on a stretcher, then oh boy, watch out.

This message is incoherent, and will result in open season on sling tackles and head injuries.

You can ban sling tackles, or not ban them. It is not possible to just stop the sling tackles that impact the head. This is why any sling is a free, and a sling making head contact is reportable.

But this is also why a normal tackle that results in a concussion is treated as an unfortunate outcome, not a report. Because a normal tackle is deemed an acceptable act. It remains acceptable even if their is an unfortunate outcome. Don't like good tackles knocking players out, ban tackles, don't report players that do good tackles with bad outcomes.

People keep focusing on the outcome here, but Maynard committed an act, he didn't commit an outcome.

The act is jumping to smother the ball, and in the process jumping towards the player with the ball.

This act happens all the time.

This AFLW game was the first game I had seen since the Collingwood game. And it happened twice.

In an AFL where Maynard's act is illegal, and the outcome makes it reportable, then the first instance in the AFLW should be a free, and the second a report.

Instead, not only was there no free, people would have been outraged if there had been.

I mean, if someone kicks the ball while there is someone in front of them and it hits them in the head and causes concussion, is that reportable? Same outcome, and you could argue hitting someone in the head if you kick it in their direction from close range is foreseeable, which makes the act reckless. So why wouldn't it be reportable. Because it's an acceptable act in the rules.

Jumping towards the player kicking the ball in an attempt to smother is an acceptable act. It always has been.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is if a player commits an acceptable act. Concussion, broken leg, spontaneous combustion. Maynard jumped to smother, the AFL says this is ok. There was an unacceptable outcome, unfortunate. If people want this to never happen again, ban smothering the ball. But you still cannot ban Maynard retrospectively.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[gouki88]

Kozzy & Viney with two much nastier actions last night than Maynard, just lucked out that Cripps and Fogarty bounced up quickly (although Cripps' nose seemed to be giving him trouble). I know that the grading matrix is important, and that the damage done is a crucial aspect of this, but those intentional high bumps after having chosen to go past the ball are so much worse for the game than trying to smother!

 

[SC_Power]

No. I think your missing the point.

A sling tackle doesn't have to knock a player out to be reportable.

It doesn't even have to have the players head make forceful impact, or any impact at all.

And the reason is simple, you cannot state that sling tackles are OK, unless you happen to cause brain damage. Sling away all you want, but put a player on a stretcher, then oh boy, watch out.

This message is incoherent, and will result in open season on sling tackles and head injuries.

You can ban sling tackles, or not ban them. It is not possible to just stop the sling tackles that impact the head. This is why any sling is a free, and a sling making head contact is reportable.

But this is also why a normal tackle that results in a concussion is treated as an unfortunate outcome, not a report. Because a normal tackle is deemed an acceptable act. It remains acceptable even if their is an unfortunate outcome. Don't like good tackles knocking players out, ban tackles, don't report players that do good tackles with bad outcomes.

People keep focusing on the outcome here, but Maynard committed an act, he didn't commit an outcome.

The act is jumping to smother the ball, and in the process jumping towards the player with the ball.

This act happens all the time.

This AFLW game was the first game I had seen since the Collingwood game. And it happened twice.

In an AFL where Maynard's act is illegal, and the outcome makes it reportable, then the first instance in the AFLW should be a free, and the second a report.

Instead, not only was there no free, people would have been outraged if there had been.

I mean, if someone kicks the ball while there is someone in front of them and it hits them in the head and causes concussion, is that reportable? Same outcome, and you could argue hitting someone in the head if you kick it in their direction from close range is foreseeable, which makes the act reckless. So why wouldn't it be reportable. Because it's an acceptable act in the rules.

Jumping towards the player kicking the ball in an attempt to smother is an acceptable act. It always has been.

It doesn't matter what the outcome is if a player commits an acceptable act. Concussion, broken leg, spontaneous combustion. Maynard jumped to smother, the AFL says this is ok. There was an unacceptable outcome, unfortunate. If people want this to never happen again, ban smothering the ball. But you still cannot ban Maynard retrospectively.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

Great story

Amazed that you've bought into the "only reasonable outcome once he commenced the smother action was to hit Brayshaw in the head" outcome, but great story.

I've looked at about 100 equivalent "jumping smothers" that were successful on video and astounded how quickly those players were able to react and twist in midair to adjust for pursuing the ball, something that Maynard did not seem able to do.
And yet not one equivalent exanple to not having any control over your body or movement was ever shown by Maynard's defence. And not one video countering Maynard's argument was ever provided by the AFLs side. Or by the media even. Not once. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

But hey, the AFL signed off on it, so it must be the right decision.

 

[gouki88]

Great story

Amazed that you've bought into the "only reasonable outcome once he commenced the smother action was to hit Brayshaw in the head" outcome, but great story.

I've looked at about 100 equivalent "jumping smothers" that were successful on video and astounded how quickly those players were able to react and twist in midair to adjust for pursuing the ball, something that Maynard did not seem able to do.
And yet not one equivalent exanple to not having any control over your body or movement was ever shown by Maynard's defence. And not one video countering Maynard's argument was ever provided by the AFLs side. Or by the media even. Not once. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

But hey, the AFL signed off on it, so it must be the right decision.

Definitely no self interest at play here

 

[jatz14]

Great story

Amazed that you've bought into the "only reasonable outcome once he commenced the smother action was to hit Brayshaw in the head" outcome, but great story.

I've looked at about 100 equivalent "jumping smothers" that were successful on video and astounded how quickly those players were able to react and twist in midair to adjust for pursuing the ball, something that Maynard did not seem able to do.
And yet not one equivalent exanple to not having any control over your body or movement was ever shown by Maynard's defence. And not one video countering Maynard's argument was ever provided by the AFLs side. Or by the media even. Not once. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

But hey, the AFL signed off on it, so it must be the right decision.

You typed words.

I'm sure you think it means something.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app