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]

He had eyes for the ball till he realised he was too late, then he looked down and made sure to contact daicos without making high or low contact. It was a split second late. That is never 50. Every single game has a dozen contacts half a second after a mark. It is never, ever 50.

Had Maynard done what blanck did, there would be no debate, and no tribunal. It is exactly what players must do from now on.

Fair enough - I'd have to watch it again to argue any of that. I was yelling for 50 at the time and haven't watched it retrospecively - less passionately.

 

[Roby]

OTC Lyon was obviously wanting to go in to bay for the Brayshaws, but was notably reserved in what he put forward and was extremely careful not to tread on any toes. Brown and especially Buckley were vigorously defending and really stretching the truth at times.

On 360 Whateley was a bit more forthright, but Robinson was also going in to bat for Maynard.

In an era where we are so aware of the long term damage of concussions, player health and even recent suicides it is crazy that the action is being defended.

Sounds like you didn’t watch it to be honest.

But my response was to your post in which you said this

"The agenda has been peddled on AFL360 and On The Couch, including direct use of “football act” mentioned by Maynard post game. So that’s step one done."

So this was not accurate and you've gone on to say as much in your subsequent post.

 

[Simche]

The writing was on the wall with a number of incidents earlier this year (Sicily tackle where he was falling over, Mansell protecting himself etc.) Maynard will go for 3 and this is the new normal.

It is no longer about the hit, the sanction is almost exclusively based on the outcome.

May as well just say 'any forceful contact with the head, or an action that results in forceful contact to the head results in a suspension'.

I don't personally like it, but that's the way it apparently is going to be.

 

[Caligo]

Fair enough - I'd have to watch it again to argue any of that. I was yelling for 50 at the time and haven't watched it retrospecively - less passionately.

It is worth watching again. He is clearly late, and it is big contact. I wouldn't even have an issue with it getting 50 (although similarly half second late contacts never get 50). They central point is that Blanck does a really good job not tunnelling and not making high contact.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

How did they know they had CTE?

Because he died

 

[GoPies1]

What????

The Martin thread isn't "pinging" because everyone seems to be in agreement that he deserves to get suspended... Same for JVR...

Rohan was on a teammate FFS... The discussion about what might have happened if it was an opponent has been done to death.

Whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not, the tribunal has been moving to a "result based" method for determining culpability/suspension for many years now. The argument will come down to duty of care as to what Maynard could/should have done.

Martin is appealing, should be vigorous discussion due to Carlton going down that path so not everyone agrees.
It has to stand at 2 weeks.

JVR was light, should have been 2 because McStay was on rubber knees for a moment but Melbourne smart enough to get him back for the preliminary final.

Rohan was careless because he missed the oppo player that was his target and got his own, it was the intent is my point.
It should have gone up for review.

My points are about consequences which drive the tribunal.

Inconsistent results that have been going on since i started understanding footy back in 1979 as a kid.
The tribunal is and will always be a circus

 

[Gavin Excell]

PPV! 20 bucks a pop!

Hosted by Larry Emdur

 

[Go_Roos!]

Of course you should be allowed to run flat out direcly at a player, jump up and into them and knock them out, it is the 1950s isn't it?

 

[Soggy2112]

But the AFL's goal is to avoid future litigation, allowing incidental contact for marking contests will still attract future litigation.

Being ok for a marking contest but not ok for something else is inconsistent and does not achieve what the AFL wants.

That’s an interesting question.

However we know that if you put your knee through someone’s head in a situation other than a marking contest it’d be a free kick and potentially a suspension, but it’s okay if you’re jumping for a mark.

Maybe long term that changes but for now that’s the ruling.

 

[Checksider]

But my response was to your post in which you said this

"The agenda has been peddled on AFL360 and On The Couch, including direct use of “football act” mentioned by Maynard post game. So that’s step one done."

So this was not accurate and you've gone on to say as much in your subsequent post.

It was peddled by a majority of those on those programs quite enthusiastically, and the defence was more withdrawn. I think we’re splitting hairs.

 

[Roby]

Yes, clearly Maynard's only option from that position was to do what he did. No other choices whatsoever.

A convincing implication on your part.

* me Sherb, are you really this kind of disingenuous individual?

It's obvious from my post I did not mention that he had no other options.

My post simply asks the question, and here your are trying to misrepresent my post.

So either own up and offer us what his other options are or don't bother replying.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

I think it will be upheld tonight and then to the appeals board where it is 50/50 if it gets dismissed. Whatever happens this week, what Maynard did would be

The writing was on the wall with a number of incidents earlier this year (Sicily tackle where he was falling over, Mansell protecting himself etc.) Maynard will go for 3 and this is the new normal.

It is no longer about the hit, the sanction is almost exclusively based on the outcome.

May as well just say 'any forceful contact with the head, or an action that results in forceful contact to the head results in a suspension'.

I don't personally like it, but that's the way it apparently is going to be.

I think this is about right although in the context of the current rules Maynard will get off.

Rule 18.5 will need to be redrafted as the appeals board interpretation is that it deems rough and unreasonable conduct/contact to not warrant a suspension.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Carn The Berries]

Martin is appealing, should be vigorous discussion due to Carlton going down that path so not everyone agrees.
It has to stand at 2 weeks.

JVR was light, should have been 2 because McStay was on rubber knees for a moment but Melbourne smart enough to get him back for the preliminary final.

Rohan was careless because he missed the oppo player that was his target and got his own, it was the intent is my point.
It should have gone up for review.

My points are about consequences which drive the tribunal.

Inconsistent results that have been going on since i started understanding footy back in 1979 as a kid.
The tribunal is and will always be a circus

The Blues are having a throw at the stumps to see if they can get him off... I don't know too many people (anyone?) who believes he should (though with the chook lotto that is the tribunal, who knows).

Are you suggesting Rohan should have been reviewed for something that "might" have happened to an opponent if he didn't miss???? or that it should be reviewed because he injured a teammate?

Yes - the outcome now drives how the tribunal acts. That's just life. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[Roby]

Yeah he should of gathered it and sold Maynard some candy and drilled it from 50 on the run. Maynard looks like a DH and Brayshaw lifts his team into a prelim. Game changing

Lol. Is BF Tiger responding to my posts? They asked me to put them on ignore two days ago. They have no scruples if they've been replying to my posts.

 

[sherb]

* me Sherb, are you really this kind of disingenuous individual?

It's obvious from my post I did not mention that he had no other options.

My post simply asks the question, and here your are trying to misrepresent my post.

So either own up and offer us what his other options are or don't bother replying.

Your implication was clear.

 

[NSWCROW]

" Melbourne are filthy " ( with the media campaign ) according to Caro


ME - Well now they know how Crows fans felt when Viney broke Tom Lynch's jaw and the melbourne media threw a shitfit !

 

[sherb]

Because he died

I'm very sorry.

 

[sr36]

But the AFL's goal is to avoid future litigation, allowing incidental contact for marking contests will still attract future litigation.

Being ok for a marking contest but not ok for something else is inconsistent and does not achieve what the AFL wants.

AFL are responsible for taking reasonable action to reduce concussions. In the context of AFL footy is it reasonable to take jumping for marks out of the game. No it isn't.

 

[Soggy2112]

The smart thing to do would be to lean away from the contest or smotherer.

Jesus, so it’s unreasonable to expect Maynard to extend his arms and push Brayshaw because it’s too quick, but Brayshaw is supposed to break the laws of physics and lean away from Maynard?



Look where his body weight is going, how does he lean in the opposite direction?

 

[GoPies1]

The Blues are having a throw at the stumps to see if they can get him off... I don't know too many people (anyone?) who believes he should (though with the chook lotto that is the tribunal, who knows).

Are you suggesting Rohan should have been reviewed for something that "might" have happened to an opponent if he didn't miss???? or that it should be reviewed because he injured a teammate?

Yes - the outcome now drives how the tribunal acts. That's just life. You might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Rohan should have been reviewed because the results were evident on his teammate.
If had hit the oppo instead of missing the damage would have been no different.
Tried to sandwich him as we used to do in the old days, a team mate would usually push the oppo in your path and goodnight.

 

[10571z]

Brayshaws need to get a grip… acting like Maynard did a Barry Hall.

 

[Roby]

He had eyes for the ball till he realised he was too late, then he looked down and made sure to contact daicos without making high or low contact. It was a split second late. That is never 50. Every single game has a dozen contacts half a second after a mark. It is never, ever 50.

Had Maynard done what blanck did, there would be no debate, and no tribunal. It is exactly what players must do from now on.

What are you actually arguing? That Blanck wasn't careless, or he couldn't avoided contact if he decided to not contest earlier? Isn't this what people are pinning Maynard for?

 

[sr36]

Rohan should have been reviewed because the results were evident on his teammate.
If had hit the oppo instead of missing the damage would have been no different.
Tried to sandwich him as we used to do in the old days, a team mate would usually push the oppo in your path and goodnight.

I tend to agree, if you are going to supend someone for accidents that are careless. It shouldn't matter which jumper you knock out if the action is decided to be careless.

 

[sherb]

Brayshaws need to get a grip… acting like Maynard did a Barry Hall.

It's pretty understandable why they are upset.

 

[Roby]

I don't think you understand. If you make contact the right way (for example not putting your shoulder through somebody's head) you don't get cited.