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

 

[HairyO]

Correct.

Imagine Daicos running with the footy and Sam Powell Pepper just charges at him jumps just before he kicks and nails him.

Or Greene on Naicos in the Prelim and GWS win and make the Grand Final.

Pies supporters and the Vic media would go absolutely ****ing mental.

 

[Tonythetiger]

It's interesting that no-one seems to be commenting on how Maynard and Brayshaw are actually really good mates. Surely that at least goes some way to proving that there was no malice in the incident?

Maynard even said post match 'I'm shattered for him...I absolutely love that guy.' Not the comments you make when you're just being a thug.

Problem for Maynard though is the grading system is pretty clear, and I'm not sure how he gets any less than 2 weeks. Definitely didn't mean it though, when you add everything up.

I don't think that's really relevant when you look at whether an action was reasonable or unreasonable. The view in most cases should be that players are legitimately contesting the ball without intentionally trying to injure their opposition, however the specific action that took place this time and the result is not within the rules and therefore a citable offense and because he had alternative options is an unreasonable action.

There is so much responsibility put on the players that any action that contests the footy needs to have a duty of care for their opposition. Mis-timing and being late to the ball (even by such a small margin in the Mansell case) are treated the same, it's on the responsibility of the player to ensure that the action does not cause injury.

I don't necessarily agree with all of this mind you, but it does seem to be the precedent set and the AFL's strategy to try to discourage and penalise actions resulting in head injuries.

If you look at it away from all the above, the optics, the need to protect the head and just consider the action, he was a bit late with the smother and accidental contact occured. More likely we will get the legal mumbo jumbo and bullshit of "Maynard left the ground, he was unreasonable as he reduced his options to ensure duty of care to the opposition player."

If this isn't a suspension, then it's just another example of their inconsistency.

 

[loki04]

So instead of maybe accidentally hurting Brayshaw he chose the safer option of deliberately hurting Brayshaw.

When he had other options.

Lawyers' feast in here.

No instead of doing a clumsy action whilst off balance in the air and with another player moving off his original line and into him he chose to brace for the impact to protect himself.

Brayshaw made no attempt to lessen, try avoid the impact himself or brace for it.

You are acting like only Maynard has the option to change the outcome.
Where his options once committed to the original smother/ pressure attempt were much more limited then the bloke who was still on the ground.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Apparently Collingwood supporters would be perfectly fine with one of their players being on the receiving end of an incident like this.

They wanted Finn Maginness suspended a few weeks ago when he came within a few feet of Little Nicky and he hurt himself. They aren’t reasonable people.

 

[Coasters7]

They don't play in slow motion mate. Every decision is split second and one to try and smother a kick is not a bad decision

It is when you do it like that. Surely he can see that the likely outcome is that they make contact if he jumps in that direction? It’s not his fault he got the head but it’s his fault for putting himself in that position so he’s liable.

Just like all the sling tackles, and all the bumps that have gone high that are millimetres from being good hits. You chose to engage so anything that happens afterwards is your fault.

 

[loki04]

Correct.

Imagine Daicos running with the footy and Sam Powell Pepper just charges at him jumps just before he kicks and nails him.

If it was the same way Maynard did it, I'd say bad luck and protect yourself better.

If it was whilst SPP momentum was driving straight at him, upwards and forwards still then you'd have an argument.

The fact is Maynard jumps off center to him and is on the downward part of the momentum ie the real force has fallen off from his end, Brayshaw is the one who deviates into Maynard and then didn't brace for impact (behind the goals footage displays this). It is a free kick at best.

 

[lilJeffyG]

Mate, if Brayshaw is getting knocked out cold from a hit like that he should not be playing the sport. Any other player gets hit like that and they are not concussed. Brayshaw likely has a soft spot, which if hit, he goes out cold.

This is the funniest, most delusional excuse I've heard. Take responsibility for his action. Once he left the ground the responsibility to do what's next was his.

 

[Tjblues]

If it was the same way Maynard did it, I'd say bad luck and protect yourself better.

If it was whilst SPP momentum was driving straight at him, upwards and forwards still then you'd have an argument.

The fact is Maynard jumps off center to him and is on the downward part of the momentum ie the real force has fallen off from his end, Brayshaw is the one who deviates into Maynard and then didn't brace for impact (behind the goals footage displays this). It is a free kick at best.

They literally have rules around moving off your line when kicking a set shot because of how common it is. A majority of players move towards their preferred side when kicking the ball.

Stop acting as if Brayshaw was playing for it. It’s pathetic

 

[Chadwiko]

Nothing sums up AFL tribunal arguments more than a still shot devoid of actual context.

It's not without context. It shows;

• Maynard left the ground
• Led with the shoulder
• Collected Brayshaw in the face

All of which is relevant to the MRO.

 

[Tonythetiger]

No instead of doing a clumsy action whilst off balance in the air and with another player moving off his original line and into him he chose to brace for the impact to protect himself.

Brayshaw made no attempt to lessen, try avoid the impact himself or brace for it.

You are acting like only Maynard has the option to change the outcome.
Where his options once committed to the original smother/ pressure attempt were much more limited then the bloke who was still on the ground.

Brayshaw had just kicked it though, like he was in possession of the ball only a millisecond earlier, it's not as if it's two players running for a ball in dispute and both having a duty of care to their opposition. Brayshaw was infringed upon. The Selwood duck into a tackle to draw a free was removed as it was drawing the infringement rather than it being an act of the opposition player, but to try to put this on Brayshaw as not protecting himself is a bit much.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It is when you do it like that. Surely he can see that the likely outcome is that they make contact if he jumps in that direction? It’s not his fault he got the head but it’s his fault for putting himself in that position so he’s liable.

Just like all the sling tackles, and all the bumps that have gone high that are millimetres from being good hits. You chose to engage so anything that happens afterwards is your fault.

Yes that is a now thing, but accidents should be accidents. If I am playing a contact sport and I tackle you as you say and do it legally and you get hurt then that in my view is your bad luck.

Your fault in a contact sport doesn't make sense.
Just make it totally non contact and all of this will be gone.

 

[loki04]

They wanted Finn Maginness suspended a few weeks ago when he came within a few feet of Little Nicky and he hurt himself. They aren’t reasonable people.

Because he ran straight at him well after the mark was taken looking to go through him.

What you I suspect deliberately are ignoring is
A) The intent.
B) The action Maynard is on the downside of his jump not using his momentum to go into him (or lined him up jumped off center to brayshaw) as he was NOT bumping.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

This is the funniest, most delusional excuse I've heard. Take responsibility for his action. Once he left the ground the responsibility to do what's next was his.

Out of context, I was replying to a moron.

 

[bungalow_bill]

First time seeing this. IMO kind of looks like his intention was to take out Brayshaw under the guise of an "attempted smother". Even if it was you can't have players flying through the air like this to attempt a smother. Deserves a few weeks

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think in the bolded part of your post you are looking at the most crucial question. Who caused the collision to occur in the way it did? If it was deemed to be as a result of Brayshaw falling unpredictably to his right then any guilt on Maynard's part is at least partially mitigated. I have a couple of queries with this type of finding though.

1. Maynard's action in bracing for impact clearly shows the collision is not unpredictable to him

2. Brayshaw's late movement to his right is fairly slight and probably within an expected range of motion for a player kicking a football in this manner

3. You can see by watching Maynard's feet in his last 2 steps he orientates his body toward the line Brayshaw is running(also obviously toward the line the ball will be kicked to try to effect the smother.)

View attachment 1796992

View attachment 1796993
View attachment 1796994
View attachment 1796997
View attachment 1796998
View attachment 1797000

Don't necessarily disagree with any of that.
A couple of counters though.

1. Maynard's brace was late and split second. I don't think he could have predicted impact at the time that he jumped.
If either of them start their respective actions a step earlier or later, it's likely they avoid collision.

2. 100% agree that it's a natural range of motion for Brayshaw, but I think it's possibly the most important mitigating factor.

3. Agreed. Not sure how/if it contributes to any culpability on Maynard's behalf though.

 

[Obeanie1]

It’s a contact sport where accidents happen.

He tried to smother the ball and Brayshaw got injured.

No clue where it all sits with the MRP but hopefully common sense prevails and he gets off

Except he smothers Brayshaw's head with his sholder after electing to jump off the ground to smother, changed mid air and bumped him head high.

If it was a bump he's gone. No issues.

But it was initially a smothering attempt. If this is OK it's another loop hole.

Dangerfield said 'what else could he do?.

Well. Not bracing into a bumping motion and knocking a player out with ashoulder to the face perhaps?

Continue going through with the smother arms extended?

Now yes that may result in Maynard getting hurt but he elected to jump and smother. Then he elected to protect himself, braced and the opposition copped a pretty nasty head high hit as the offending player elected to protecte himself from a nasty situation he created.

It's not black and white. ( no pun intended).

 

[Coasters7]

Everyone who has played football knows what he was trying to do. He wanted to flatten him but not hit him in the head. Eyes were on the target the whole time with a token hand thrown up in disguise.

Yeah the head contact was accidental but he fully intended to attempt a smother then make him earn it in the follow through when he realised contact was imminent. Which is fair game.. until you knock him out.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Because he ran straight at him well after the mark was taken looking to go through him.

What you I suspect deliberately are ignoring is
A) The intent.
B) The action Maynard is on the downside of his jump not using his momentum to go into him (or lined him up jumped off center to brayshaw) as he was NOT bumping.

So Maginness deserved weeks but Maynard is completely fine?

And you want people to take you seriously with that opinion?

 

[loki04]

Brayshaw had just kicked it though, like he was in possession of the ball only a millisecond earlier, it's not as if it's two players running for a ball in dispute and both having a duty of care to their opposition. Brayshaw was infringed upon. The Selwood duck into a tackle to draw a free was removed as it was drawing the infringement rather than it being an act of the opposition player, but to try to put this on Brayshaw as not protecting himself is a bit much.

He had time to brace for impact, he even takes another step and turns into Maynard more instead of edging out away.
I'm saying he contributes to the contact not solely responsible for it. He chooses to not protect himself he knew Brayden was coming before he even kicked it.
Some of you guys are saying Maynard is solely responsible for the concussion and its a deliberate act.

Brayshaw has a habit of it on stoppages as well he attacks the ball in contested situations where he will get hit high unless the opponent litterally stops or jumps out the way.

 

[ChristianBoy]

If it was the same way Maynard did it, I'd say bad luck and protect yourself better.

If it was whilst SPP momentum was driving straight at him, upwards and forwards still then you'd have an argument.

The fact is Maynard jumps off center to him and is on the downward part of the momentum ie the real force has fallen off from his end, Brayshaw is the one who deviates into Maynard and then didn't brace for impact (behind the goals footage displays this). It is a free kick at best.

Maynard had a choice and he chose to turn and bump. Takes him head high and knocks him out.

What part of that do you not understand.

 

[loki04]

So Maginness deserved weeks but Maynard is completely fine?

And you want people to take you seriously with that opinion?

Maginness should of been a 50m penalty and that is it.

I was merely stating the difference in intent and action.

 

[Vindicater]

No instead of doing a clumsy action whilst off balance in the air and with another player moving off his original line and into him he chose to brace for the impact to protect himself.

Brayshaw made no attempt to lessen, try avoid the impact himself or brace for it.

You are acting like only Maynard has the option to change the outcome.
Where his options once committed to the original smother/ pressure attempt were much more limited then the bloke who was still on the ground.

Sigh.

What an absolute shit take.

 

[Chief]

Some of you guys are saying Maynard is solely responsible for the concussion and its a deliberate act.

All of his actions were deliberate.

He wouldn't have been trying to deliberately hurt Brayshaw.

 

[Erakor]

Because he ran straight at him well after the mark was taken looking to go through him.

What you I suspect deliberately are ignoring is
A) The intent.
B) The action Maynard is on the downside of his jump not using his momentum to go into him (or lined him up jumped off center to brayshaw) as he was NOT bumping.

A. You cant just claim intent was not there so therefor no nothing to answer.
B. Because he was on the downside of his jump does not take away from the hit. He did use his momentum to go into him, which is how he KO him. He jumped and that's what caused the momentum. There was no other force behind him. He was bumping, because he bumped Brayshaw in the head.

You are trying to argue 2+2 doesn't = 4 because 3+4= 7.

Just saying it wasn't a bump, doesn't change the fact that his shoulder bumped into Brayshaw's head.

 

[Xtreme]

If this isn't a suspension, then it's just another example of their inconsistency.

AFL are consistently inconsistent