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

 

[Gavin Excell]

Most wins.

Fair enough

 

[Rankine2Rachele]

Did you put a lot of weight on school reports that gave you “A for effort”?

We won the Greatest Grand Final in history.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Own the moment.

 

[FireKrakouer]

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.

Not to single you out m8 because many have made this claim, but what is the evidence for this? We had Cloke miss out on a Granny in 2002 to suspension and Anthony Rocca miss the following granny with suspension. Both fairly high profile players for a high profile club. IIRC not many other teams have had a player miss a GF from suspension this century, so the conspiracy theories of Collingwood being given some kind of "big club discount" have no merit.

The result was tragic and I feel for Brayshaw and the Dees but it's completely incomparable to whatshisname playing the man and lining up Simpkin in a practise match, a week after the SPP thing and with all the headlines regarding concussion. And then smiling and showing no remorse, unlike Maynard who apologised to Brayshaw on the ground and the following day in person.

 

[sr36]

lol 'moved the way he did'. you're just regurgitating the same bulldust that the pies legal team used. have your own opinion. you're making it sound like brayshaw moved 5m. lol

So Brayshaw had the time to move a significant distance in a nanosecond yet Maynard couldn't do anything like put his arms out to avoid bumping? massive double standards. Brayshaw didn't move anyway. it's just an agenda pies fans like to pretend happened.

Maynard is big, but how wide do you actually think he is? He doesn't have to have deviated much to go from a non-collision to a collision. However, I actually don't think it matters whether he deviated anyway under the rules. He elected to jump from quite a long way away, when he made that decision there was a fair lateral range of where Brayshaw's upper body could end up - wider than Maynard. So even if they were on a direct collision course when he jumped. I don't think he could reasonably foresee where brayshaw was going to be when he landed.

However, if you watch it, it's pretty clear that when Brayshaw's kicking foot landed, he lost balance a bit to the right resulting in him both pivoting and leaning to the right resulting in him ending up directly in the firing line - the AFL didn't have a case of that being reasonably foreseeable - anyone who gets it knows that they only went to the tribunal because the outrage of his acquittal without a tribunal hearing would have been far greater. At least this way, they could convince a few who could be bothered or are able to understand the rules and ruling that it wasn't rigged.

And yes I know some nuffies will say that I'm blaming Brayshaw, I'm not. It didn't meet the reasonably requirement of the rules - it wasn't reportable, as Brayshaw's future body position was well and truly in considerable doubt when Maynard chose to jump.

 

[Carringbush2010]

nah no conspiracy. just a wrong decision.

If you think oppo supporters aren't claiming conspiracy then you're being naive.

 

[Erakor]

If you think oppo supporters aren't claiming conspiracy then you're being naive.

It’s not a conspiracy, just systematic incompetence.

Other than Collingwood being a big club, it has little to do with Maynard playing for the pies.

More to do with AFL just making things up and trying to manufacture the best possible outcome for itself. Secret herb and spices I think they refer it to.

Which results in inconsistency and laughable results.

 

[sr36]

It’s not a conspiracy, just systematic incompetence.

Other than Collingwood being a big club, it has little to do with Maynard playing for the pies.

More to do with AFL just making things up and trying to manufacture the best possible outcome for itself. Secret herb and spices I think they refer it to.

Which results in inconsistency and laughable results.

Try googling AFL Tribunal Guidelines. Those spices aren't so secret and they're not complicated - they're written for the football players who sit on the tribunal - with a QC to help them to follow them.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It’s not a conspiracy, just systematic incompetence.

Other than Collingwood being a big club, it has little to do with Maynard playing for the pies.

More to do with AFL just making things up and trying to manufacture the best possible outcome for itself. Secret herb and spices I think they refer it to.

Which results in inconsistency and laughable results.

I know it's not a conspiracy, many claiming it is though.

 

[Erakor]

Try googling AFL Tribunal Guidelines. Those spices aren't so secret and they're not complicated - they're written for the football players who sit on the tribunal - with a QC to help them to follow them.

Ticking boxes on some graph that is open to their interpretation is meaningless.

Some no name player will be graded a lot harsher in round 16 than some star about to play finals . Just tick careless instead of intentional and put out some word salad memo and you get your star playing.

But hey, it’s all above board, because you have some graph and a QC on your payroll that backs your decision.

Much like how certain rules will be followed strictly for the first 4 rounds, then completely disappear by round 22.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Some no name player will be graded a lot harsher in round 16 than some star about to play finals . Just tick careless instead of intentional and put out some word salad memo and you get your star playing.

Conspiracy right?

 

[Erakor]

We all knew the AFL would make an example out of the next idiot that decided to jump into some guys head with no intention of going for the ball.

Just the comparison between zero and 7 weeks is laughable, even by afl standards.

 

[sideswipe]

It’s not a conspiracy, just systematic incompetence.

Other than Collingwood being a big club, it has little to do with Maynard playing for the pies.

More to do with AFL just making things up and trying to manufacture the best possible outcome for itself. Secret herb and spices I think they refer it to.

Which results in inconsistency and laughable results.

The word you are looking for is systemic.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gavin Excell]

We all knew the AFL would make an example out of the next idiot that decided to jump into some guys head with no intention of going for the ball.

Just the comparison between zero and 7 weeks is laughable, even by afl standards.

Yes but the Maynard case was different

 

[Erakor]

The word you are looking for is systemic.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Congrats, you picked up on an autocorrect on an internet forum.

 

[Erakor]

Yes but the Maynard case was different

Yeah, nothing similar at all about it.

 

[sideswipe]

Congrats, you picked up on an autocorrect on an internet forum.

Thanks. It’s these 1 per centers that win flags.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Professor Knowall]

… Some no name player will be graded a lot harsher in round 16 than some star about to play finals . Just tick careless instead of intentional and put out some word salad memo and you get your star playing...

Oh, you must be referring to this -

Judd: Cotchin Would've Been Suspended During The Year

AFL legend says MRP made right call

www.triplem.com.au

 

[sr36]

Ticking boxes on some graph that is open to their interpretation is meaningless.

Some no name player will be graded a lot harsher in round 16 than some star about to play finals . Just tick careless instead of intentional and put out some word salad memo and you get your star playing.

But hey, it’s all above board, because you have some graph and a QC on your payroll that backs your decision.

Much like how certain rules will be followed strictly for the first 4 rounds, then completely disappear by round 22.

The fact that you chose careless instead of intentional as the box to tick shows how little you get it.

 

[Erakor]

The fact that you chose careless instead of intentional as the box to tock shows how little you get it.

Yeah, you’re right, no inconsistency’s at all in the current game.

 

[sr36]

Yeah, you’re right, no inconsistency’s at all in the current game.

That's some odd reading comprehension there. Admittedly I miss typed tick, but surprised it threw you out by so much.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Maynard case was different

 

[Vankri]

Wonder if one day the more rational AFL watchers will realise or remember that the reason Brayshaw was so completely knocked out by an attempted smother is mostly due to the head knock he got from a knee while contested the ball on the ground 3min earlier. Seems to have been forgotten in the media so far at least.

Not to mention all the dozens of previous incidents likely contributing to a vulnerability progressively.

Really? Where's this reported?

Sorry very late to respond but the head knock to Brayshaw happened with 18:52 left in the first quarter, three minutes before the collision with Maynard. Brayshaw is in a scramble and ends up getting pushed into Tay Adams’ knee. Kinda similar to how Murphy got hit in the GF. Brayshaw gets up and looks fine but with his history you can’t tell me it didn’t play a role. In fact I’d go as far as to say that I don’t think many players at all would have gotten actually concussed from the collision with Maynard. I know it sounds like victim blaming but it’s not, I just think Brayshaw and a few other players like Collingwood’s Murphy have an extreme vulnerability to concussion which clouds judgement on accidental hits like this one.

Also while I’m here there is an incredible amount of revisionism happening in this thread. Or perhaps too much emotion or bias against Collingwood. There is absolutely no way someone can watch the incident in normal speed and conclude that Maynard intentionally went to put body work onto Brayshaw. I reckon he ‘thought’ they wouldn’t collide at all. Too far out, not straight in front of each other. Maynard was dumb to even attempt the smother as it was unrealistic but it’s ridiculous to think he even thought he’d initiate body contact.

Just look at the footage from behind the goals, 7:44 into the game on the afl.com.au replay. It’s clear that Maynard stays on his line while brayshaw doesn’t, is still attempting his smother when the ball leaves Brayshaw’s boot and then and only then braces for impact. The incident has really nothing to do with your classic bumps like Webster’s or dangerous tackles where the intent necessarily is to put body contact into the opposition.

 

[KissKiss]

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.

Oh I definitely agree that the Webster case and Maynard case are not alike.

I just dont like the line that something is a football act and therefore you cant be suspended off it. Like you said there is a lot of grey in where the line between suspension or not falls though.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Oh I definitely agree that the Webster case and Maynard case are not alike.

I just dont like the line that something is a football act and therefore you cant be suspended off it. Like you said there is a lot of grey in where the line between suspension or not falls though.

I never said anywhere that you can't be suspended from a football act. Tackling, bumps, smothers, spoils etc are all football acts. Get them wrong & you can be suspended.

Webster was not performing a football act when he charged and hit Simpkin high. That's why there there was no grey area & why he received 7 weeks.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Try googling AFL Tribunal Guidelines. Those spices aren't so secret and they're not complicated - they're written for the football players who sit on the tribunal - with a QC to help them to follow them.

The law is easy to to read and understand but it is the application that causes the issue.

It was the right call to let him play as it was not unreasonable of an action for Maynard to take.