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

 

[sr36]

Personally I'd be happy to see him get off but I don't buy the argument that in a 'split second' he had no other choice.

He clearly had his arms up to smother and then changed his position and lead with his shoulder. If he had time to make that decision he also had the same amount of time to make a decision to simply continue through with his arms extended and perform more of a tackling motion.

Footballers aren't much different to F1 drivers in this regard - they make dozens of split second decisions during a game.

Leading with the shoulder or turning his body away from the contact?

 

[Elixuh]

People arguing he had no other alternative are bozos. He should get 3-6 weeks. From the sounds of it Brayshaw is quite unwell.

 

[_Mike_]

Pies will argue this is bracing by Maynard as a duty of care to himself - which is farcical.

There's no such thing as a "duty of care to yourself", although considering the actions of Maynard in flight, with forward momentum, the issue becomes the action at the moment of impact.

If Maynard had simply continued without altering his body position, meaning he leapt towards Brayshaw maintaining his body position and Brayshaw was still concussed, I'd argue it was a case of very bad luck on Brayshaw. In this event I'm of the opinion that Maynard's brace was careless at the time of impact.

I'm going to refer to an awful event that happened back in 2010, when Harbrow and Lewis collided with Lewis leaving the field on a stretcher. He did return to the field, but that would not happen today due to concussion protocols that no club doctor would sign off. The video shows the moment of collision in which Harbrow had leapt into the air running at Lewis. Harbrow was not cited for the clash which left the Hawks defender out cold.

Clarkson was commenting after Western Bulldogs defender Jarrod Harbrow laid out Hawks midfielder Jordan Lewis with a sickening bump late in the second term of Sunday's game at Docklands stadium. Lewis was running with the flight of the ball when the two collided at high speed.

Hawks ruck coach Damian Monkhorst, sitting on the interchange bench, told Clarkson the impact looked like a train wreck. Lewis was concussed and stretchered off the field, but returned to the game in the final term. Clarkson said he had not seen a replay of the incident, but it appeared Harbrow was making a legitimate attack on the ball.

"I haven't seen the incident, but if Harbrow's elbow is up even just slightly and he (Lewis) has been hit in the head, he's probably got a six-week holiday coming," Clarkson said. Harbrow backed over high-speed hit

 

[Carringbush2010]

So to get to the crux of it.

• The AFL want to protect the head and other parts of the body because they're averse to future litigation
• So they attempt to legislate incidental contact out of the game < impossible. That is not up for debate
• So penalty is what is viewed as a deterrent, in this case deter players from jumping off the ground.
• In any event Brayshaw may in future sue the AFL and or Melbourne FC regardless of the penalty to Maynard.

It goes one of 3 ways for the AFL to achieve its objective of avoiding serious injury / concussion.

• Remove contact from the game altogether, obviously this is not an option
• Accept that it is impossible to avoid serious injury / concussion from a contact sport, incidental contact cannot be legislated away. So accept that and have the players sign an indemnity also accepting the risk.
• Continue the hypocrisy and accept that future litigation against them and the clubs is imminent, and accept that suspending players for non intentional contact will not avoid future litigation. < That is not up for debate.

It really comes down to this, forget about the Maynard incident, this is the big picture. Suspending Maynard or anyone else for incidental contact will not deter players from jumping and / or incidental contact in the future. Over to you AFL.

 

[_Mike_]

So to get to the crux of it.

• The AFL want to protect the head and other parts of the body because they're averse to future litigation
• So they attempt to legislate incidental contact out of the game < impossible. That is not up for debate
• So penalty is what is viewed as a deterrent, in this case deter players from jumping off the ground.
• In any event Brayshaw may in future sue the AFL and or Melbourne FC regardless of the penalty to Maynard.

It really comes down to this, forget about the Maynard incident, this is the big picture. Suspending Maynard or anyone else for incidental contact will not deter players from jumping and / or incidental contact in the future. Over to you AFL.

Bingo

 

[Elixuh]

So to get to the crux of it.

• The AFL want to protect the head and other parts of the body because they're averse to future litigation
• So they attempt to legislate incidental contact out of the game < impossible. That is not up for debate
• So penalty is what is viewed as a deterrent, in this case deter players from jumping off the ground.
• In any event Brayshaw may in future sue the AFL and or Melbourne FC regardless of the penalty to Maynard.

It goes one of 3 ways for the AFL to achieve its objective of avoiding serious injury / concussion.

• Remove contact from the game altogether, obviously this is not an option
• Accept that it is impossible to avoid serious injury / concussion from a contact sport, incidental contact cannot be legislated away. So accept that and have the players sign an indemnity also accepting the risk.
• Continue the hypocrisy and accept that future litigation against them and the clubs is imminent, and accept that suspending players for non intentional contact will not avoid future litigation. < That is not up for debate.

It really comes down to this, forget about the Maynard incident, this is the big picture. Suspending Maynard or anyone else for incidental contact will not deter players from jumping and / or incidental contact in the future. Over to you AFL.

Bruv signing a waiver doesn't just magically make this issue go away.

Incidents like Maynards are completely avoidable. He had other options available to him. He was trying to put a hit on to make a statement and got it wrong. No one actually thinks Maynard intended to hurt him. But he got it wrong.

You can't get rid of these incidents out of the game, but punishing players for incidents like these change behaviour to an extent. You can't quantify to what extent, but it does. Kozzi made the same action later in the game and moved his body to avoid contact.

 

[Raging Blue]

"This has never happened before, how can it be sanctionable" is clutching at straws.

There's no precedent

I think we can refer to the Plowman against O'Meara incident and verdict as a guide. Look at the series of frames below to support points below:

• Plowman was given 2 wks for rough conduct and it was upheld on appeal. If it was deemed intentional, he would of obviously got more weeks
• On the below picture frames we see at all times he has eyes for the ball in a position to punch the ball (footy act)
• At the last second he braces for collision. Just like Maynard. This is even after O'Meara has outstretched arms and Plowman hand touches ball before main collision. In real time this appears as an accidental collision.
• This is less damning than the Maynard incident as Maynard had more time to assess coming from directly in front rather than the Plowman O'Meara incident which was approach from 90 degrees.
• Maynard failed in his duty of care. If Maynard gets off it could also set the precent that players can disguise a bump by putting arms up in the air to smother. The AFL you imagine don't want this.
• There was great debate at the time whether this incident was a contest and accidental collision. But how the tribunal assessed it means we can draw similarities with the Maynard incident.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

The other side to that argument is that they only jump when they know they can make it without launching themselves at an opponent. If Maynard had to leave the ground at full pace to get close then was it really a realistic attempt on the ball?

Also not true...

Why do people just make stuff up when they clearly don't know?



As for Maynard, are you not entitled to smother the ball by leaving the ground? There would be no smothers if not.

Just a weird post.

 

[RuFiO]

Simon Goodwin

Simon Goodwin

Age

47

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.9

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

8.8

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.5

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.2

4star

saw this incident, so Maynard should definitely go based on that.

 

[JoondalupJ]

All time meltdown

You gotta love it though .

 

[hawkman]

Bruv signing a waiver doesn't just magically make this issue go away.

Incidents like Maynards are completely avoidable. He had other options available to him. He was trying to put a hit on to make a statement and got it wrong. No one actually thinks Maynard intended to hurt him. But he got it wrong.

You can't get rid of these incidents out of the game, but punishing players for incidents like these change behaviour to an extent. You can't quantify to what extent, but it does. Kozzi made the same action later in the game and moved his body to avoid contact.

It was a late hit. The reason this is so rare is most players are smart enough to realise that charging at the kicker like he did is going to result in a downfield free and cost his team

The fact that it is late and high makes it even worse and why he is looking at 3 weeks

 

[sr36]

He has the right to do that without being taken out from the top rope from a known thug

Or in other words, you're not basing your judgement on the incident, but on a preconception of Maynard.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Bruv signing a waiver doesn't just magically make this issue go away.

Nothing can remove contact from a contact sport, that's the point. The AFL however seem to think that deterrents will magically remove incidental contact. Obviously that has not worked and will not work in the future

Incidents like Maynards are completely avoidable.

If he elected not to jump, but then he wouldn't have been able to smother or impede the oppositions intent to move the ball

He had other options available to him.

Again, not jumping, in which case we'd all be saying he squibbed it, in mid air he's braced for contact i:e self protection.

Would you expect him to just leave arms open? In which case both players get injured regardless.

So now Bruz is now suspended AND injured as well as Angus.

He was trying to put a hit on to make a statement and got it wrong.

No, he was trying to smother.

You can't get rid of these incidents out of the game,

Exactly my point, HQ however seem to think that deterring unintentional incidents will somehow make them magically disappear

but punishing players for incidents like these change behaviour to an extent

Behaviour is not the issue here, and to be honest bad intentional behaviour as far as intending to harm in the game these days is so exceptionally rare it's not even worth bringing up.

Penalties should apply to intent, not outcome, the Van Rooyen incident is the 'behaviour' you're talking about, not Maynards attempt to smother. Penalize away for intention, not outcome.

It can't be argued.

Because it's a contact sport, you can not legislate / deter incidental contact from the game. You've agreed to this.

Punishing Maynard for a non intented contact will not stop Angus coming back in 20 years time and litigating against the AFL and / or Melbourne FC.

It will also not stop incidental contact in the future, because it is not an issue of bad behaviour. You can't 'deter' accidents away.

All it does is give an unwarranted penalty to Maynard while Angus is free to sue the AFL and / or Melbourne in the future.

 

[Elixuh]

Nothing can remove contact from a contact sport, that's the point. The AFL however seem to think that deterrents will magically remove incidental contact. Obviously that has not worked and will not work in the future

If he elected not to jump, but then he wouldn't have been able to smother or impede the oppositions intent to move the ball

Again, not jumping, in which case we'd all be saying he squibbed it, in mid air he's braced for contact i:e self protection.

Would you expect him to just leave arms open? In which case both players get injured regardless.

So now Bruz is now suspended AND injured as well as Angus.

No, he was trying to smother.

Exactly my point, HQ however seem to think that deterring unintentional incidents will somehow make them magically disappear

Behaviour is not the issue here, and to be honest bad intentional behaviour as far as intending to harm in the game these days is so exceptionally rare it's not even worth bringing up.

Penalties should apply to intent, not outcome, the Van Rooyen incident is the 'behaviour' you're talking about, not Maynards attempt to smother. Penalize away for intention, not outcome.

It can't be argued.

Because it's a contact sport, you can not legislate / deter incidental contact from the game. You've agreed to this.

Punishing Maynard for a non intented contact will not stop Angus coming back in 20 years time and litigating against the AFL and / or Melbourne FC.

It will also not stop incidental contact in the future, because it is not an issue of bad behaviour. You can't 'deter' accidents away.

All it does is give an unwarranted penalty to Maynard while Angus is free to sue the AFL and / or Melbourne in the future.

I'm happy for you or sad that happened to you.

Of course suspensions deter behaviour. We have seen it with the tackling.

But your point is because we can't eliminate 100% of incidents then we shouldn't bother. Lol.

Take your Pies glasses off. If everyone did what big bruz did, you'd have multiple concussions every week. As the Hawks supporter above said, the reason you don't see players doing what big bruz did is because they're smart enough to know the outcome.

 

[Go_Roos!]

3 weeks for knocking Brayshaw out upped to 5 weeks for the tough guy act and hsircut

 

[Wazza69]

I can’t see Maynard being free to play his teams next game if Brayshaw can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RandB]

So to get to the crux of it.

• The AFL want to protect the head and other parts of the body because they're averse to future litigation
• So they attempt to legislate incidental contact out of the game < impossible. That is not up for debate
• So penalty is what is viewed as a deterrent, in this case deter players from jumping off the ground.
• In any event Brayshaw may in future sue the AFL and or Melbourne FC regardless of the penalty to Maynard.

It goes one of 3 ways for the AFL to achieve its objective of avoiding serious injury / concussion.

• Remove contact from the game altogether, obviously this is not an option
• Accept that it is impossible to avoid serious injury / concussion from a contact sport, incidental contact cannot be legislated away. So accept that and have the players sign an indemnity also accepting the risk.
• Continue the hypocrisy and accept that future litigation against them and the clubs is imminent, and accept that suspending players for non intentional contact will not avoid future litigation. < That is not up for debate.

It really comes down to this, forget about the Maynard incident, this is the big picture. Suspending Maynard or anyone else for incidental contact will not deter players from jumping and / or incidental contact in the future. Over to you AFL.

This is a cop-out.

Your implication is that Maynard turning and lowering his right shoulder into Brayshaw's head was an inevitable result of his spoiling attempt. Contact is one thing, maximum impact is another. He didn't have to turn his shoulder and he certainly didn't have to lean over - which ensured head high impact.

Part of this process is looking at what a player could reasonably do to avoid the severity of the impact. Take a sample of 100 players in the same situation, IMO the overwhelming majority don't seek out Brayshaw's head with their shoulder. Maynard plays the enforcer physical game, he screwed up this time.

 

[Elixuh]

The problem is he will either need to get no weeks or about 5 weeks. And he ain't getting 5 weeks.

 

[sherb]

Nothing can remove contact from a contact sport, that's the point. The AFL however seem to think that deterrents will magically remove incidental contact. Obviously that has not worked and will not work in the future

It's not the AFL trying to remove incidental contact, it's about the AFL trying to change behaviour which will, accordingly, remove avoidable outcomes which involve the head (in particular) from the game. This doesn't happen overnight though.

Eg - how many shirtfronts do you see in modern AFL? And, going into the future, sling tackles will become less and less prevalent until they end up going the way of the shirtfront, because they will be trained out of players' games as they come through.

Given that, re this particular incident, the question is - was it was incidental, unavoidable contact (ie did Maynard have options) or was it otherwise? I don't think it was the former.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course suspensions deter behaviour. We have seen it with the tackling.

Again, the Bruz incident is not intended bad behaviour, you cannot 'deter' the unintended, you can only deter bad behaviour.

Bad behaviour, deter away to your hearts content, attempting to deter accidents is folly and impossible

But your point is because we can't eliminate 100% of incidents then we shouldn't bother. Lol.

Where did I say that, you're obviously not reading or comprehending my posts

Take your Pies glasses off.

If you think this is a bias thing then read my posts in this thread, has zero to do with being my team.

I'd argue the same for the Sicily incident, unintentional.

If everyone did what big bruz did, you'd have multiple concussions every week.

Again, it was a desperate lunge to smother, not many would attempt it. An exceptionally rare incident, none the less unintentional.

Penalizing the unintentional achieves zero, because unintentional will continue to happen.

the reason you don't see players doing what big bruz did is because they're smart enough to know the outcome.

The question is then should Bruz be penalized for something unintentional? Ok, to be blunt you're saying it was unrealistic and I agree it was but shouldn't equate to such a harsh penalty.

If it was intentional then yeah life ban in my book, but it wasn't intentional, at worst unrealistic and careless. A free kick and a 50 for stupid. That's as far as it should go IMHO

 

[Maddo11]

Or in other words, you're not basing your judgement on the incident, but on a preconception of Maynard.

Calling him a known thug doesn't mean he didn't do what he did. I don't think he deliberately ko'd him but he was careless and could have mitigated the amount of damage dealt

 

[Elixuh]

Again, the Bruz incident is not intended bad behaviour, you cannot 'deter' the unintended, you can only deter bad behaviour.

Bad behaviour, deter away to your hearts content, attempting to deter accidents is folly and impossible

Where did I say that, you're obviously not reading or comprehending my posts

If you think this is a bias thing then read my posts in this thread, has zero to do with being my team.

I'd argue the same for the Sicily incident, unintentional.

Again, it was a desperate lunge to smother, not many would attempt it. An exceptionally rare incident, none the less unintentional.

Penalizing the unintentional achieves zero, because unintentional will continue to happen.

The question is then should Bruz be penalized for something unintentional? Ok, to be blunt you're saying it was unrealistic and I agree it was but shouldn't equate to such a harsh penalty.

If it was intentional then yeah life ban in my book, but it wasn't intentional, at worst unrealistic and careless. A free kick and a 50 for stupid. That's as far as it should go IMHO

Bad behaviour lol. We are really clutching at straws now.

If I run and jump at you while you're completely open to me and tuck my shoulder in so that it will hit you in the head, what will that do to you? My bad bro just trying to smother!

The question you're really asking is, because 99.99% of players are smart enough not to do what big bruz did, should we penalise big bruz for being braindead. The answer is probably still yes.

 

[sr36]

Calling him a known thug doesn't mean he didn't do what he did.

No it doesn't, but it makes your judgement of it irrelevant.

 

[sherb]

If it was intentional then yeah life ban in my book, but it wasn't intentional, at worst unrealistic and careless. A free kick and a 50 for stupid. That's as far as it should go IMHO

Careless can result in suspension though. It's only a matter of opinion as to whether the sanction stops at a free kick/50 or extends to a report and suspension.

If you applied the AFL Tribunal matrix to this incident - careless/severe impact/high contact = 3 matches

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not the AFL trying to remove incidental contact, it's about the AFL trying to change behaviour which will

Behaviour isn't the issue in this case, the Van Rooyen elbow is the behaviour you're talking about.

Penalize intent not outcome

(ie did Maynard have options)

Yes, he could've has chosen not to jump, in which case he would've had no chance to smother, which was his intent - nothing else.

sling tackles

Sling tackles are a deliberate intent.

The whole point of my posts in this thread is to explain you can't deter away the unintended, it is not possible.

We're talking about a full contact sport, accidents happen and no amount of deterring will change that. Somehow HQ are desperately hoping that deterrents for accidents will magically make incidental contact disappear.

I agree Maynard's smother attempt was dumb and unrealistic but not as stupid or as impossible what HQ are trying achieve.