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

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Apparently it is if you say you were trying to smother.

Because. It. Is. A. Football. Act.

Time to move on. Seriously.

 

[sherb]

Because. It. Is. A. Football. Act.

Time to move on. Seriously.

A smother doesn't end the way that Maynard's did.

It may have started out as a football act, but it didn't finish as one.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

A smother doesn't end the way that Maynard's did.

It may have started out as a football act, but it didn't finish as one.

No it doesn't. Never has before. Likely never to again. That's why they clarified the rule. Read the findings from the Tribunal.

But the fact is Maynard WAS attempting a smother. Which IS a football act.

 

[Rankine2Rachele]

Because. It. Is. A. Football. Act.

Time to move on. Seriously.

Louder for the nuffies at the back.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Yep- that will be the litmus test. Maynard should have missed time and didn’t and now this year, it's been ramped up. Let’s see how it goes- if they apply tough penalties consistently- most of us will be happy.

No. Players who got reported for 'high' bumps last year got 3 weeks or less. Charging at a player has never been allowed.

Bumping. A player can legally bump (also known as a hip-and-shoulder move) any opponent (not just the player in possession) who is within five metres of the ball. Charging a player is not a legal bump and is penalised with a free kick and can be reported, regardless of whether the ball is within five metres or not.

Webster's wasn't a smother. It's not related to Maynard at all.

 

[sherb]

Yep- that will be the litmus test. Maynard should have missed time and didn’t and now this year, it's been ramped up. Let’s see how it goes- if they apply tough penalties consistently- most of us will be happy.

An incident like Maynard's would have got weeks during the season last year, no doubt. But - come finals time, with a high profile club involved, it was a different story.

So an incident like this one, pre-season, involving a "lesser" Melbourne club, is hardly going to be the yardstick for what might occur near or in the finals this year, with a lot more on the line.

 

[sideswipe]

A smother doesn't end the way that Maynard's did.

It may have started out as a football act, but it didn't finish as one.

What is a "football act"? Where is it defined?

Maybe try using the terminology employed by the Tribunal? Like "careless", which the Tribunal found Maynard was not.

Hope you eventually get over it.

 

[sr36]

Nice post, shame you've been thoughtful and logical, probably get ignored.

I think you're right, and the AFL always jumps when they realize money is in the picture.

One bloke retired from brain damage, another on the cusp (both from top 4 sides, premiership players) suddenly they're dishing out licks and changing rules.

Guys from smaller clubs eg Seedsman and Lynch retired and the league didn't really blink.

How does that sit with the significant change regarding tackles last year that they copped a lot of flak for. The outrage about bumps that KO people has been a long time in the making with the AFL copping a lot of flak on the way about how they were taking the bump out of the game by suspending people for a good old fashioned hip and shoulder. The AFL has led us fans on this one rather than the other way around.

 

[sherb]

What is a "football act"? Where is it defined?

Maybe try using the terminology employed by the Tribunal? Like "careless", which the Tribunal found Maynard was not.

Hope you eventually get over it.

I'll tell you what it isn't - what Maynard did to Brayshaw's head.

 

[sideswipe]

I'll tell you what it isn't - what Maynard did to Brayshaw's head.

That's because it isn't a defined term. Just a made up phrase that commentators use and silly fans follow.

 

[Stax on the mill]

An incident like Maynard's would have got weeks during the season last year, no doubt. But - come finals time, with a high profile club involved, it was a different story.

So an incident like this one, pre-season, involving a "lesser" Melbourne club, is hardly going to be the yardstick for what might occur near or in the finals this year, with a lot more on the line.

How so? Following the tribunal decision on Maynard, the AFL recognised their existing guidelines would not stand up to challenge. That is why they didn’t appeal the verdict, and subsequently amended their guidelines.

Are you sure your opinion is not based on wishful thinking (because it’s a Pies player), rather than logic?

 

[Tas]

Rule got changed in between last and this season so no real point trying to compare

Rule hasn't changed in 20 years, Ziebell was given lengthy suspensions in his first couple of seasons for similar incidents to Maynard. AFL just has no consistency, they keep sending them to the tribunal and the dimwits there let players off randomly, particularly if it is during finals or certain clubs get lighter treatment at the tribunal.

 

[sideswipe]

Rule hasn't changed in 20 years, Ziebell was given lengthy suspensions in his first couple of seasons for similar incidents to Maynard. AFL just has no consistency, they keep sending them to the tribunal and the dimwits there let players off randomly, particularly if it is during finals or certain clubs get lighter treatment at the tribunal.

Cute that you still watch the footy during finals.

 

[Romeoh1]

No. Players who got reported for 'high' bumps last year got 3 weeks or less. Charging at a player has never been allowed.

Bumping. A player can legally bump (also known as a hip-and-shoulder move) any opponent (not just the player in possession) who is within five metres of the ball. Charging a player is not a legal bump and is penalised with a free kick and can be reported, regardless of whether the ball is within five metres or not.

Webster's wasn't a smother. It's not related to Maynard at all.

Yep- the two incidents were quite different and Webster- no excuse-was really bad. He’s copped a good penalty and he earned it. But Maynard didn’t show enough duty of care and deserved a couple of weeks. If we have a consistent approach this year- all good- I remain hopeful, if not convinced.

 

[Cyclops]

How does that sit with the significant change regarding tackles last year that they copped a lot of flak for. The outrage about bumps that KO people has been a long time in the making with the AFL copping a lot of flak on the way about how they were taking the bump out of the game by suspending people for a good old fashioned hip and shoulder. The AFL has led us fans on this one rather than the other way around.

Its a very fair question. I think the AFL haven't led the evidence, which has been in for quite a while. When they do try to lead the fans were rightly suspicious given the shenanigans they get up to. Well I am, and perhaps I'm unfair.

There's still loopholes (i think the reason Maynard caused outrage was because its such a remote case that led to a retirement) and the changes have generally followed incidents.

I don't think the AFL could forsee a smother leading to a head hit, the result upset people which is understandable but to ban Maynard would have required they break the system.

People remember past incidents (Hall on Stakers getting a run in the Webster thread), maybe they jumble them up, and emotion is involved too so I understand why it's upsetting.

I'm old enough to remember when Magro cracked Jezza, 6 weeks these days (deliberate, left the ground, high impact etc). In my mind that's footy but it's got to change, or we lose more blokes like Murphy and Brayshaw.

 

[danster168]

No it doesn't. Never has before. Likely never to again. That's why they clarified the rule. Read the findings from the Tribunal.

But the fact is Maynard WAS attempting a smother. Which IS a football act.

I dont think anyone is denying that he started off trying to smother the ball. But anytime I ask Collingwood fans if they think Maynard would've knocked out Nathan Murphy in the same scenario if it was a Collingwood intra-club game they sheepishly and deliberately avoid answering the question because deep down they know that Maynard added some extra pepper on the bump that was suspension worthy.

 

[sideswipe]

I dont think anyone is denying that he started off trying to smother the ball. But anytime I ask Collingwood fans if they think Maynard would've knocked out Nathan Murphy in the same scenario if it was a Collingwood intra-club game they sheepishly and deliberately avoid answering the question because deep down they know that Maynard added some extra pepper on the bump that was suspension worthy.

Except it wasn't a bump. That was what the Tribunal found. "Clearly", in fact.

 

[Cyclops]

What is a "football act"? Where is it defined?

Maybe try using the terminology employed by the Tribunal? Like "careless", which the Tribunal found Maynard was not.

Hope you eventually get over it.

To be fair it's the term Maynard used on the night to describe his action to the Melbourne blokes who were filthy with him (he audibly yells it at Petracca and Gawn IIRC), and who by and large accepted it given they didnt square up afterwards. Viney made a little show but calmed down rapidly when he realized none of his team mates felt reprisals were warranted.

I think most commentators who actually played the game also understood and agreed.

So you're right it's not some legal term, its not technical terminology but players use it as shorthand.

 

[sideswipe]

To be fair it's the term Maynard used on the night to describe his action to the Melbourne blokes who were filthy with him (he audibly yells it at Petracca and Gawn IIRC), and who by and large accepted it given they didnt square up afterwards. Viney made a little show but calmed down rapidly when he realized none of his team mates felt reprisals were warranted.

I think most commentators who actually played the game also understood and agreed.

So you're right it's not some legal term, its not technical terminology but players use it as shorthand.

This thread has seen a number of desperadoes try to question a Tribunal ruling. They need to use the correct terminology if they want to get close to a coherent argument.

Still no closer to understanding what "football act" might mean.

 

[sr36]

Its a very fair question. I think the AFL haven't led the evidence, which has been in for quite a while. When they do try to lead the fans were rightly suspicious given the shenanigans they get up to. Well I am, and perhaps I'm unfair.

There's still loopholes (i think the reason Maynard caused outrage was because its such a remote case that led to a retirement) and the changes have generally followed incidents.

I don't think the AFL could forsee a smother leading to a head hit, the result upset people which is understandable but to ban Maynard would have required they break the system.

People remember past incidents (Hall on Stakers getting a run in the Webster thread), maybe they jumble them up, and emotion is involved too so I understand why it's upsetting.

I'm old enough to remember when Magro cracked Jezza, 6 weeks these days (deliberate, left the ground, high impact etc). In my mind that's footy but it's got to change, or we lose more blokes like Murphy and Brayshaw.

100%.

I reckon 6 for Magro last year, but judging on the two cases this year - about 10 now. In today's terms it was a fair bit worse than Webster. It wasn't a bloke with the ball in general play - where you're allowed to bump if it's not in the head. Magro took off and braced before Jezza had marked it.

Yeah things have changed - there's a youtube video of big hits from the 80s. One shirtfront knocked someone back to 1914 and the commentator yelled out "You bewdy!" as he lay unconscious on the turf. And that horrible video of McCartin after his last concussion - unable to walk properly - would have been comedy back then.

 

[Rankine2Rachele]

100%.

I reckon 6 for Magro last year, but judging on the two cases this year - about 10 now. In today's terms it was a fair bit worse than Webster. It wasn't a bloke with the ball in general play - where you're allowed to bump if it's not in the head. Magro took off and braced before Jezza had marked it.

Yeah things have changed - there's a youtube video of big hits from the 80s. One shirtfront knocked someone back to 1914 and the commentator yelled out "You bewdy!" as he lay unconscious on the turf. And that horrible video of McCartin after his last concussion - unable to walk properly - would have been comedy back then.

Exactly. As you learn better, you do better, or at least try. You won’t get it perfectly right every time - we’re only human after all (some just barely).

 

[Cyclops]

Exactly. As you learn better, you do better, or at least try. You won’t get it perfectly right every time - we’re only human after all (some just barely).

Stop agreeing with me you blokes we're supposed to hate each other.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

I dont think anyone is denying that he started off trying to smother the ball. But anytime I ask Collingwood fans if they think Maynard would've knocked out Nathan Murphy in the same scenario if it was a Collingwood intra-club game they sheepishly and deliberately avoid answering the question because deep down they know that Maynard added some extra pepper on the bump that was suspension worthy.

No one would be attempting to stop a goal with a smother in an intra club match with that intensity. It's never even happened in a h&a game like that before.

What pepper to what bump? When he had to land? Was he meant to land spread eagled? They are trained to brace on impact. Hip & shoulder to hip & shoulder is a legal bump.

And for the record, Murphy hasn't been doing match sim since being tackled & his head hit the ground during training.

 

[sr36]

I dont think anyone is denying that he started off trying to smother the ball. But anytime I ask Collingwood fans if they think Maynard would've knocked out Nathan Murphy in the same scenario if it was a Collingwood intra-club game they sheepishly and deliberately avoid answering the question because deep down they know that Maynard added some extra pepper on the bump that was suspension worthy.

I don't know. How would anyone know the answer to that question?

Nick Daicos - about as aware and in control of his actions as they come - tackled Nathan Murphy at training this year and put his head into the turf - might have gotten a suspension if it was to an opponent in a game. AFL footballers have way more awareness and control over their body than most of us - but they're not video game avatars.

 

[sherb]

That's because it isn't a defined term. Just a made up phrase that commentators use and silly fans follow.

You should ask "silly fan" ElliottsMaggies for a definition. He's the one I quoted and someone who has been throwing the term around.