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

 

[Tulip]

Most players are smart enough to step out of the way or avoid contact, not Brayshaw though, he's special.

You seem like a nice, balanced person.

 

[YeoShuey]

Interesting people are bringing up hypotheticals i.e. if it were a teammate he hit instead

None of that matters as a) it wasn’t, and b) there is no proof that anything would be different if it were.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Interesting the tide is turning slightly now.

All this ‘Good Bloke Bruz’ stuff probably got laid on a bit thick. They probably needed to be a little bit more…measured…with the spin on that one. The popping round with flowers and wine was probably a step too far - you don’t even have to be that cynical to see that as self-serving PR work.

Plus this isn’t the Brayshaw family’s first rodeo.

Talk of career over etc (as if, he’s 27, the league/club will let him hang on for another 2-3 years if he wants).

I reckon he’ll get 2 now….and Collingwood will appeal anything that’s thrown up regardless.

 

[eddiesmith]

The fact 95% of the football media thinks there is nothing in this, 95% of ex players think there is nothing in this.

The only people pushing suspension are Caro, Laura, Melbourne and Brisbane who both have a vested interest in Maynard missing the GF.

 

[Elixuh]

if we have outlawed fly kicking from the game then Maynard’s action needs to be stamped out because it is worse

 

[sr36]

Saying true is a double down baby.

Trying to find a hole in someone pointing out it was gibberish is doubling down. Stop being silly and own your poor judgement.

 

[sr36]

Interesting people are bringing up hypotheticals i.e. if it were a teammate he hit instead

None of that matters as a) it wasn’t, and b) there is no proof that anything would be different if it were.

Yep and frankly the safety training that you'd give for someone who is about to be in a collision would be the same regardless of teammate or opponent. Turn and drop our head away from the impact - aka what Maynard did - and hope the other person does the same. It's just ridiculous that what you'd be advised to do is what people think he should be suspended for.

 

[PieLebo87]

When I put my head over the ball to win a ground ball I expect someone might be coming the other way to do the same thing.

When I stand in front of a marking contest I expect I could get cleaned up from behind.

These are risks we’re all aware of in footy.

I don’t expect that if I kick the ball on the run well before a player gets near me they’re going to crash into my face at speed. I reckon that’s a reasonable expectation.

You don’t expect anyone to crash into you whilst you’ve got possession of the footy or soon after you’ve disposed of it?

Come on man.

I’m not potting you btw, but you sound like you play footy. You know full well you’re expecting contact when you’re in possession and very soon after.

It’s 2-3 seconds after you’ve disposed of the pill you relax knowing you’ve avoided contact. Also, I’m not blaming the victim here, I’m just pointing out we play a contact sport, and there are players that have never been concussed despite playing hundreds of games, then you’ve got others who have had multiple concussions in fewer games. There’s an element of luck, then there’s those that just mightn’t be up for the speed of the game of footy.

 

[I Love Lamb]

The fact 95% of the football media thinks there is nothing in this, 95% of ex players think there is nothing in this.

The only people pushing suspension are Caro, Laura, Melbourne and Brisbane who both have a vested interest in Maynard missing the GF.

Media think nothing in this, so must be true

 

[sherb]

Yep and frankly the safety training that you'd give for someone who is about to be in a collision would be the same regardless of teammate or opponent. Turn and drop our head away from the impact - aka what Maynard did - and hope the other person does the same. It's just ridiculous that what you'd be advised to do is what people think he should be suspended for.

The hypothetical with the most obvious answer is "how would Pies supporters be reacting if an opposition player did this to Nick Daicos?"

 

[PieLebo87]

Putting aside the argument on whether Maynard’s attempted smother was a football act, are you forgetting that dozens of players have been suspended for what were previously regarded as great tackles in the last 12-18 months alone?

It’s honestly a travesty.

I feel for anyone that gets injured. Whether it’s a concussion, or an ACL, but that’s the risk we run by playing Aussie Rules.

There is no sport in the world that shifts it’s goal posts as wide as the AFL has in the last 10-20 years purely on the back of what has happened in Australia with basketball and soccer with the younger generation.

Do you believe we’d have all these rule changes if kids were choosing footy over soccer and basketball?

I’m not saying one way or the other is right. I’m talking as a purist of the game that I’ve grown up loving.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

And the champion won a Brownlow
Legendary !

 

[RandB]

He didn't have to steer his right shoulder into Brayshaw's head. He chose to.

What started as a football act when he left the ground ended as an absolute cheap shot.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

if we have outlawed fly kicking from the game then Maynard’s action needs to be stamped out because it is worse

Unsure why a club hasn’t recruited Anderson Silva as a CAT B rookie yet.

Teach him how to smother like Maynard and you wouldn’t lose a game.

 

[sr36]

The hypothetical with the most obvious answer is "how would Pies supporters be reacting if an opposition player did this to Nick Daicos?"

There'd be a heap of ranting.

And some Collingwood supporters would be talking rubbish about cushioning the blow by putting two arms out - a hand on each shoulder maybe - imagine how hard he'd have to whack him to knock him backwards to avoid a head clash. And some would be talking rubbish that turning and dropping your head in a collision to protect against concussion is an inappropriate act. Etc. Etc. it'd be different supporters with the same shit arguments.

There's a case to be made against the launch, but the AFL or anyone saying that Maynard shouldn't have turned and braced has completely lost sight of the big picture. You don't reduce consussions by encouraging players to go wide open, front on, head first into collisions. It a crazy argument and downright negligent from the AFL. Their duty of care to players isnt just law enforcement after a collision, it's to train players with a technique to keep their head out of collisions - not to discourage that technique - keep your head in a place it is likely to get whacked son.

 

[YeoShuey]

He didn't have to steer his right shoulder into Brayshaw's head. He chose to.

What started as a football act when he left the ground ended as an absolute cheap shot.

A few flaws in this post that are not based on actuality.

The main flaw being that the MRO charged him with careless rather than intentional conduct.

 

[Suspense]

The bizarre focus on this case about Maynard turning to brace for contact is nonsense - Maynard isn't capable of making a conscious choice whilst he is in the air and moving at that speed - and the bracing is purely instinctual at that point. Not bracing may have resulted in the same, or even a potentially worse outcome.

The sole point of contention is whether Maynard's conscious choice to leap forward to attempt to smother the ball, given the pace and direction that both he and Brayshaw were moving at, was careless rough conduct. Given the very wide interpretation of 'rough conduct', I could definitely see that Maynard is likely not to play again in 2023.

 

[PieLebo87]

The hypothetical with the most obvious answer is "how would Pies supporters be reacting if an opposition player did this to Nick Daicos?"

This type of post is a classic example of your views on this being based on the colour of Maynard’s jumper, and not the action.

 

[sherb]

This type of post is a classic example of your views on this being based on the colour of Maynard’s jumper, and not the action.

Actually it's about the inability of a club's supporters (or the vast majority of them) to objectively view an incident involving the club they support.

I don't have an issue with Collingwood at all by the way, how could I dislike a club that brought me so much joy back in the day?

 

[RandB]

A few flaws in this post that are not based on actuality.

The main flaw being that the MRO charged him with careless rather than intentional conduct.

I don't give a **** what he got charged with.

IMO he deliberately and unnecessarily dropped his shoulder which caused maximum impact to the head.

They can charge him with larceny, treason or double parking. As long as the dog doesn't play again this season, all good.

 

[Lingsface]

If you dive to smother and they kick you in the head are they up for suspension? when they say if you choose to bump even though its not a deliberate act to hurt you are rubbed out, what about if you choose to kick but dont mean to and kick them in the face?
Same thing yeah?

 

[rye]

The fact 95% of the football media thinks there is nothing in this, 95% of ex players think there is nothing in this.

The only people pushing suspension are Caro, Laura, Melbourne and Brisbane who both have a vested interest in Maynard missing the GF.

how has brisbane pushed for a suspension?

 

[PieLebo87]

Actually it's about the inability of a club's supporters (or the vast majority of them) to objectively view an incident involving the club they support.

I don't have an issue with Collingwood at all by the way, how could I dislike a club that brought me so much joy back in the day?

Stop trying to make it about Collingwood. Also, try posting in threads and stay on topic instead of turning everything about Collingwood and Collingwood supporters everywhere you go.

Never seen a club and it’s supporters live so rent free in someone’s head.

 

[YeoShuey]

If you dive to smother and they kick you in the head are they up for suspension? when they say if you choose to bump even though its not a deliberate act to hurt you are rubbed out, what about if you choose to kick but dont mean to and kick them in the face?
Same thing yeah?

No idea but there are other things you can raise to.

What if a player is in a marking contest, another player runs up, knees them in the head while taking a speccy and now they are concussed. Is that worthy of suspension or not?

Our questions are not very relevant to this incident though.

 

[sherb]

Stop trying to make it about Collingwood. Also, try posting in threads and stay on topic instead of turning everything about Collingwood and Collingwood supporters everywhere you go.

Never seen a club and it’s supporters live so rent free in someone’s head.

I do that everywhere I go? That's a big statement. And patently wrong of course (as is the final sentence).

You've clearly got the wrong person in mind.