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

 

[Duckimus Prime]

It's never even happened in a h&a game like that before.

It happened in Freo vs Carlton in 2020 and led to Carlton (Newnes) having a shot on goal for the win, instead of Freo having a free for out of bounds on the full.

Said Freo player managed to do it though without smashing into Docherty's head though and forcing him into retirement.

 

[sideswipe]

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

Educating Pies supporters isn't that easy. Thought I might have had a chance with you.

 

[sherb]

Educating Pies supporters isn't that easy. Thought I might have had a chance with you.

Ask him. He's the one I was responding to. His definition can then be a starting point for further discussion as to what a "football act" comprises.

 

[sideswipe]

Ask him. He's the one I was responding to. His definition can then be a starting point for further discussion as to what a "football act" comprises.

So you don't have an idea? OK.

Doesn't really matter what she or you think it means. It isn't a term used in Tribunal Guidelines nor in the Laws of the Game. Try to make your point using the correct terms. Or don't enter into the discussion.

 

[sherb]

So you don't have an idea? OK.

So you won't ask him? OK.

 

[sideswipe]

So you won't ask him? OK.

No need to - she knows the Tribunal reached the right result. You seem to require further training. Once again, why not give it a try using the Tribunal terms?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It happened in Freo vs Carlton in 2020 and led to Carlton (Newnes) having a shot on goal for the win, instead of Freo having a free for out of bounds on the full.

Said Freo player managed to do it though without smashing into Docherty's head though and forcing him into retirement.

A smother? That was a charge. And late. Not front on, not even remotely similar to Maynard's smother.

 

[sherb]

No need to - she knows the Tribunal reached the right result. You seem to require further training. Once again, why not give it a try using the Tribunal terms?

But she has been using the term "football act" to justify the tribunal reaching the decision it did.

So why is she using a term she clearly doesn't understand and you are too chicken to ask her to define?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

But she has been using the term "football act" to justify the tribunal reaching the decision it did.

So why is she using a term she clearly doesn't understand and you are too chicken to ask her to define?

I'm here. You can ask me.

Smothering is a football act. Marking is a football act. Spoiling is a football act. Get it?

Deliberate or reckless acts of violence, such as striking, punching, tripping, kicking or endangering the head of an opponent, as well as misconduct such as abusing umpires or other players are NOT football acts.

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 charged at a player. It's never been allowed. He did not have eyes for the ball. And he got 7 weeks.

It's not rocket science.

 

[sideswipe]

But she has been using the term "football act" to justify the tribunal reaching the decision it did.

So why is she using a term she clearly doesn't understand and you are too chicken to ask her to define?

Why would I want to tussle with one of my own? Especially one as tough as ElliottsMaggies ?

It's this Side by Side ethos that produces flags.

But keep on trying to cope. You might one day come to terms with the correct decision.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

But she has been using the term "football act" to justify the tribunal reaching the decision it did.

So why is she using a term she clearly doesn't understand and you are too chicken to ask her to define?

Fyi : 'It was effectively determined Maynard wasn't careless in choosing to smother or in the way he landed, while he also didn't engage in the act of bumping. In other words, it was concluded that this was a football act and that, unfortunately, there's still scope for accidents to happen in such instances.' 13 Sept 2023

To appeal or not? The AFL’s cases for and against after landmark tribunal

Final hurdle in Maynard case explained as ‘injustice’ storm brews over AFL decision

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[sherb]

I'm here. You can ask me.

Smothering is a football act. Marking is a football act. Spoiling is a football act. Get it?

Deliberate or reckless acts of violence, such as striking, punching, tripping, kicking or endangering the head of an opponent, as well as misconduct such as abusing umpires or other players are NOT football acts.

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 charged at a player. It's never been allowed. He did not have eyes for the ball. And he got 7 weeks.

It's not rocket science.

The act of smothering did not collect Brayshaw's head. This is what collected Brayshaw's head, and it ain't a smother. It may have started out as a smother, but it didn't finish that way.



As I've pointed out before, it started out as a smother and ended up something very ugly indeed. The umpires viewed it as an act outside the laws of the game, because they paid a free kick downfield.

I've never seen a smother end up that way. Why Maynard executed it as he did is something only he will know. To me the logical way to execute a smother (once the smothering action is over) is to try to avoid the player - not raise your arms and crash into his head.

Good luck to Maynard for getting away with it. He got to play in a flag as a result. Pity about Brayshaw.

The funny thing about Collingwood supporters is that they are suddenly pretending that the Tribunal is somehow sacrosanct - as if it doesn't, and never has made mistakes. Of course, it has. And many think it got this wrong too. Of course, Pies' fans current view of the Tribunal will remain the case until the next case goes AGAINST a Pies player.

The fact is that the rules weren't cut and dried, evidenced by the fact that they have had to be changed, and there was a considerable amount of speculation at the time as to which way the Tribunal ruling would go. And it could have gone either way due to it being such a grey area - but the Tribunal ruled in Maynard's favour. Interpretation doesn't necessarily make for correctness.

The sudden Pies fans love of the Tribunal, and defence of its ruling, is solely down to the fact that their player got off the charge. As I've pointed out before, I can just imagine their response if the situation had been reversed. They would have been baying for blood.

Subjectivity doesn't make for compelling arguments.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

The act of smothering did not collect Brayshaw's head. This is what collected Brayshaw's head, and it ain't a smother. It may have started out as a smother, but it didn't finish that way.

View attachment 1920860

As I've pointed out before, it started out as a smother and ended up something very ugly indeed. The umpires viewed it as an act outside the laws of the game, because they paid a free kick downfield.

I've never seen a smother end up that way. Why Maynard executed it as he did is something only he will know. To me the logical way to execute a smother (once the smothering action is over) is to try to avoid the player - not raise your arms and crash into his head.

Good luck to Maynard for getting away with it. He got to play in a flag as a result. Pity about Brayshaw.

The funny thing about Collingwood supporters is that they are suddenly pretending that the Tribunal is somehow sacrosanct - as if it doesn't, and never has made mistakes. Of course, it has. And many think it got this wrong too. Of course, Pies' fans current view of the Tribunal will remain the case until the next case goes AGAINST a Pies player.

The fact is that the rules weren't cut and dried, evidenced by the fact that they have had to be changed, and there was a considerable amount of speculation at the time as to which way the Tribunal ruling would go. And it could have gone either way due to it being such a grey area - but the Tribunal ruled in Maynard's favour. Interpretation doesn't necessarily make for correctness.

The sudden Pies fans love of the Tribunal, and defence of its ruling, is solely down to the fact that their player got off the charge. As I've pointed out before, I can just imagine their response if the situation had been reversed. They would have been baying for blood.

Subjectivity doesn't make for compelling arguments.

Read the Tribunal findings.

They are very clear.

It was a smother. A football act. He had to land at some point. He braced for contact. It was an unfortunate accident. Was he meant to fly off into another direction? Land spread eagled into Brayshaw?

And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Webster's charge.

Players attempt to mark & sometimes make contact with a player's head..do you want those players also suspended? Because the football act they were attempting, a mark, did not end up being a mark? Wtf?

 

[KissKiss]

I'm here. You can ask me.

Smothering is a football act. Marking is a football act. Spoiling is a football act. Get it?

Deliberate or reckless acts of violence, such as striking, punching, tripping, kicking or endangering the head of an opponent, as well as misconduct such as abusing umpires or other players are NOT football acts.

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 charged at a player. It's never been allowed. He did not have eyes for the ball. And he got 7 weeks.

It's not rocket science.

A tackle is a football act but if you get it wrong, fail your duty of care and hurt the opposition, you can be suspended.

A spoil is a football act but if you get it wrong, fail your duty of care and hurt the opposition, you can be suspended.

So it makes sense that if an attempted smother goes wrong and you knock someone out, you could be suspended.

But it seems the rules weren't quite up to it last year. So I hope with the rules being updated we never have that sort of situation again

 

[demondavey]

Is your previous president still carrying on with legal proceedings against your incumbent?

Hard to get news on the small clubs.

Nice try. I think there’s been enough. They can’t all be fat red faced Shiraz guzzling Victorian biased pigs like Eddie. Oh, and racist as well.

CAAAAAAWLINGWOOD - Do better

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

A tackle is a football act but if you get it wrong, fail your duty of care and hurt the opposition, you can be suspended.

A spoil is a football act but if you get it wrong, fail your duty of care and hurt the opposition, you can be suspended.

So it makes sense that if an attempted smother goes wrong and you knock someone out, you could be suspended.

But it seems the rules weren't quite up to it last year. So I hope with the rules being updated we never have that sort of situation again

No one has said players don't sometimes get it wrong in a football act & there won't ever be any accidents.

Tackling is a perfect example & it's still very murky as to what constitutes accidental contact & whether it deserves a suspension. I fear for the rundown tackle. It's one of my favourite types of tackles, but often it's just down to good/bad luck how the player getting tackled lands.

Bumping & spoiling are others. It's a football act, but if you get it wrong, then you can be reported.

It's why the AFL have clarified the rules going forward for smothers. It's why Maynard was sent to the Tribunal.

Charging, as in Webster's case, was not a football act. It's never been allowed. There is no grey area.

 

[sideswipe]

Nice try. I think there’s been enough. They can’t all be fat red faced Shiraz guzzling Victorian biased pigs like Eddie. Oh, and racist as well.

CAAAAAAWLINGWOOD - Do better

If we are talking previous presidents, your guy was either a liar, or your current coach had some serious problems. Pick one?

 

[demondavey]

If we are talking previous presidents, your guy was either a liar, or your current coach had some serious problems. Pick one?

Do you think I am so wedded to the MFC that I give a *? Melbourne are s**t.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Wow! 254 pages and nearly 6 months, and this thread is still going. Who would have thought this would still be a topic of such hot debate, particularly after the tribunal comprehensively exonerated Maynard under the AFL’s own guidelines in place at the time?

Seriously, some of the obsessive compulsive characters on here need to let it go. It’s been, it’s done, it’s gone. Agonising over it interminably means SFU.

And here I am, just adding to this never ending circus.
Silly me.

 

[sideswipe]

Do you think I am so wedded to the MFC that I give a *? Melbourne are s**t.

Nothing like a dees supporter in full self-loathing mode. Love it.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

A smother? That was a charge. And late. Not front on, not even remotely similar to Maynard's smother.

Keep clowning it up.

Its more of an attempt at the smother than the piss poor excuse of Maynard's that the Tribunal accepted.

He even does what many people said Maynard should've done to reduce the impact on Brayshaw, put his hands out to cushion the collision, rather than turn his shoulder into Docherty's head.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Keep clowning it up.

Its more of an attempt at the smother than the piss poor excuse of Maynard's that the Tribunal accepted.

He even does what many people said Maynard should've done to reduce the impact on Brayshaw, put his hands out to cushion the collision, rather than turn his shoulder into Docherty's head.

And neither got a suspension.

Aren't you sick of whining over an incident from 6 months ago?

Your club puts concussed players back on the field.

 

[demondavey]

Nothing like a dees supporter in full self-loathing mode. Love it.

Self loathing? No, not at all. That would imply I dislike myself. I am simply a realist about the MFC. Think of it as a dislocation of interest and being at peace knowing they are not very good.

 

[sideswipe]

Self loathing? No, not at all. That would imply I dislike myself. I am simply a realist about the MFC. Think of it as a dislocation of interest and being at peace knowing they are not very good.

I hope you like skiing.

 

[danster168]

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

Once again, avoiding the question right on cue.