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 👍
 
It was against the rules. It was paid a downfield free kick. Contact was late, contact was high.

Ridiculous decision to not suspend him. They were fooled into believing it was a genuine attempt at the ball.
Free kicks are always paid without going to the tribunal. What you’re saying is anyone who has a free kick paid against them and gets sent to the tribunal is guilty.

How many times has that happened to Carlton players? Did they all get suspended?
 
This is the point. The AFL wanted Maynard to play. They pretended to care and did the bare minimum.

Hopefully a multimillion dollar lawsuit follows so the AFL is forced to actually do something.

Their rule change is bullshit. Maynard broke their existing rule when he left the ground and chose to protect himself before protecting Brayshaw.

As it stands the same action judged by former players will see the same result.
And Brayshaw deviated and so contributed to the injury. That was argued and upheld.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Free kicks are always paid without going to the tribunal. What you’re saying is anyone who has a free kick paid against them and gets sent to the tribunal is guilty.

How many times has that happened to Carlton players? Did they all get suspended?

You said the play wasn’t against the rules. That is wrong.

Generally illegal, late and high contact that causes a knockout gets weeks.
 
Except it wasnt. The AFL didnt want to cause drama during finals and chose not to appeal.

And now Gil is gone and someone else can clean up the CTE mess he leaves behind.
So what you’re saying is that it wasn’t argued he deviated? Or the AFL just wanted Maynard to keep playing because the Pies are the biggest club in the game. Yet the AFL sent him to the tribunal…..

Yeah makes sense.
 
It was against the rules. It was paid a downfield free kick. Contact was late, contact was high.

Ridiculous decision to not suspend him. They were fooled into believing it was a genuine attempt at the ball.

It was just high, once in mid air he can't stop so late contact is unavoidable. So it was simply just a high contact free kick. Was very much a genuine attempt to smother so nothing wrong there.
So only rule broken was high contact, are you now suggesting all high contact or any infringement of the rules be now suspended?
 
It was just high, once in mid air he can't stop so late contact is unavoidable. So it was simply just a high contact free kick. Was very much a genuine attempt to smother so nothing wrong there.
So only rule broken was high contact, are you now suggesting all high contact or any infringement of the rules be now suspended?

A pretty s**t attempt at a smother if the outcome is a player being knocked out with a shoulder through the face.

The hit was late (hence the downfield free kick), if you can’t see that there is no point in having a discussion.
 
Except it wasnt. The AFL didnt want to cause drama during finals and chose not to appeal.

And now Gil is gone and someone else can clean up the CTE mess he leaves behind.
Is that the AFLs stated reason for not appealing or is this something you've conjured up?

Or was it more to do with the fact Collingwood presented an emphatically superior argument to which the AFL decided the chance of a successful appeal was incredibly small?
 
A pretty s**t attempt at a smother if the outcome is a player being knocked out with a shoulder through the face.

The hit was late (hence the downfield free kick), if you can’t see that there is no point in having a discussion.

It was not a poor attempt at the smother, that same attempt happens plenty of times in games. Unfortunately in this instance an accident happened and someone got injured. It was contact not a hit. He was not king hit.
The umpire got it wrong with the downfield free kick but as it was something that had not happened before they just didn't know what to do. Anyway you think one way and I think the other.
 
I'm posting the tribunal's statement about the finding.

For those who think it was rigged, which parts of the statement do you disagree with? And don't be a nong and say the verdict.


It just seems pretty clear cut to me that they couldn't grade it as careless under last year's guidelines.
 
A pretty s**t attempt at a smother if the outcome is a player being knocked out with a shoulder through the face.

The hit was late (hence the downfield free kick), if you can’t see that there is no point in having a discussion.
An interesting (but ultimately meaningless) argument I’ve heard against Maynard, is “would he have turned the shoulder mid air and collided with the head if it was his teenage son, or his wife kicking the ball”?

We know that he wouldn’t have, because he would have exhibited some care for them. But it does point to some ability to control his actions whilst in the air.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

An interesting (but ultimately meaningless) argument I’ve heard against Maynard, is “would he have turned the shoulder mid air and collided with the head if it was his teenage son, or his wife kicking the ball”?

We know that he wouldn’t have, because he would have exhibited some care for them. But it does point to some ability to control his actions whilst in the air.

Pretty much.
 
Ruck contest, you expect contact.

marking contest , you expect contact.

You do not expect contact to your head after you have disposed of a ball.

it was a terrible tribunal decision, and why the AFL amended the rule immediately after it occurred for 2024. Removing the grey area the tribunal used to get to their decision.
How is “ expecting “ contact relevant! You get hit in the head by a flying knee from a marking opponent for eg your A fair chance of getting concussion. Expecting contact does nothing to reduce the effects of a head knock. You can’t brace your head
 
He actually spoiled the ball, genius.

Give it a rest.

Jumping at the ball was legit ... however, turning his shoulder and driving through him on the way down was a cheap dog act.

If that had been a match simulation at training and it was Jamie Elliot, would he have turned his shoulder like that or put out both hands to lessen the impact? Putting out both hands to lessen the impact would have also made the collision less risky for Maynard. He was up there, and deliberately crunched him on the way down.

Dog act.
 
Reminds me of the Dangerfield-Vlastuin KO in the 2020 GF.

Dangerfield knew he was technically ok with the footy act and took advantage of it.

Having said that, that’s football and I side with Maynard on it. Unfortunately it was just a matter of time for Braysaw and Dees didn’t manage his contract properly.
One diff is, the Tiges made the Cats pay for it.
 
The fact that he wasn't suspended was a complete farce, particularly due to the suspensions of other players for similar incidents throughout the year.

No aiming at Maynard, this is where most people’s discontent comes from. Inconsistent judiciary.

“ Player jumps / leaves ground, you are having a holiday “.
 
Jumping at the ball was legit ... however, turning his shoulder and driving through him on the way down was a cheap dog act.

If that had been a match simulation at training and it was Jamie Elliot, would he have turned his shoulder like that or put out both hands to lessen the impact? Putting out both hands to lessen the impact would have also made the collision less risky for Maynard. He was up there, and deliberately crunched him on the way down.

Dog act.
Correct. Started as a smother. Finished as a choice to hit Brayshaw in the head.

Maynard could have tried to avoid Brayshaw instead of collecting him the way he did.
 
disagree but is what it is.

the AFL has clearly thought it was wrong, hence they amended the smother rules.

They probably regret not appealing it.
They had to amend the rules, as under the rules that Maynard was playing under there was no case to answer.

And to appeal an AFL tribunal decision you have to have a valid reason for appeal, not just a vibe.

Again, they had to re-write AFL rules because under 2023 rules Maynard was clear to play.
 
You do not want contact to your head but as a footballer you should be expecting any type of contact at all times in a game of football. Yes even illegal contact you should be aware of that possibility it could happen to you.
One of the problems today is that the players think physical contact is only something you should be able to see and brace for, and hence they struggle as any person would being caught when not prepared for it.

They have changed the rule on the Maynard one, no problem with that, the AFL change rules weekly but still not sure Maynard did a lot wrong. He tried to smother a kick. Sometimes accidents happen.
Trying to rule out accidents will lead to the game becoming non contact, it is already 65% a non contested sport now.


I have to disagree greatwhiteshark. Maynard did a lot wrong, and it ended up costing poor Brayshaw his health and career.
You can't just launch yourself at a bloke who has the ball and is trying to dispose of it, which naturally leaves him vulnerable, without care for the potential consequences.

That is the reason we have tackling rules, 'no contact above the shoulders or below the knee, etc.'
The whole rule change issue is just a red herring to cover for the fact the AFL tribunal made a really bad call.

Regardless of intention. Maynard cannoned into Brayshaw's head, it was illegal contact, and the impact was extremely severe. The AFL didn't need any new rules, they just needed to apply the ones that existed properly. Maynard should have been suspended for what is essentially the definition of a reckless act, with severe consequences. The fact he got away with it just compounds the pain for those negatively impacted by his actions.
 
My opinion is that if the AFL wanted him suspended - he would have been suspended.

Simple as that.
Obviously not, the MRO cleared him and the AFL appealed, went to a tribunal and Bruz got off on a technicality coz of the rules.
I don't think it was about them wanting Collingwood to win. By the time you get to the Grand Final, the stacked deck has already maximised revenue.
Yeah agreed, so what is your theory then? Going by your previous post it was your theory that the AFL wanted him to get off without showing their intention to the public.

So now what is your theory, they wanted him to get off coz what? He's 'one of the best players'? Now that you've conceded that 'it's not the fairytale revenue coz we're already there by GF day' (so not to help Collingwood for a revenue raising cup win) then what is the reason they wanted him to get off?

This should be interesting.
 
I have to disagree greatwhiteshark. Maynard did a lot wrong, and it ended up costing poor Brayshaw his health and career.
You can't just launch yourself at a bloke who has the ball and is trying to dispose of it, which naturally leaves him vulnerable, without care for the potential consequences.

That is the reason we have tackling rules, 'no contact above the shoulders or below the knee, etc.'
The whole rule change issue is just a red herring to cover for the fact the AFL tribunal made a really bad call.

Regardless of intention. Maynard cannoned into Brayshaw's head, it was illegal contact, and the impact was extremely severe. The AFL didn't need any new rules, they just needed to apply the ones that existed properly. Maynard should have been suspended for what is essentially the definition of a reckless act, with severe consequences. The fact he got away with it just compounds the pain for those negatively impacted by his actions.

May I ask if Brayshaw had just got up and kept playing do you believe it was an illegal act? I ask sincerely as this happens all the time. You can’t just decide only when there is an injury.
I want you to declare Pkayer suspension when no one is injured because of dog act
 
I'm posting the tribunal's statement about the finding.

For those who think it was rigged, which parts of the statement do you disagree with? And don't be a nong and say the verdict.


It just seems pretty clear cut to me that they couldn't grade it as careless under last year's guidelines.
/thread.
 
Back
Top