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

 

[Spectore]

They have fudged their consideration of this question totally, by answering questions that do not exist in the Tribunal guidelines.

The question that needed to be answered by them about this was more like whether Maynard could reasonably foresee that that it was realistic possibility would make forceful high contact with Brayshaw if he launched at speed and height in the general direction Brayshaw was travelling towards.

If they were considering the correct question and not one they invented themselves out of thin air, then it is difficult to see how they could conclude the collision and head contact were not one of the reasonably foreseeable potential outcomes of Maynard's actions.

My understanding is there are two exclusionary clauses in relation to careless rough conduct as it pertains to high bumps and only one needs to be met. If they find Maynard was contesting the ball and it was reasonable to contest the ball in the manner he did, then it's not careless. Don't their findings answer this question of reasonableness?

I mention high bumps only as it seems the most applicable officially recognised form of rough conduct, but a similar provision exists when considering rough conduct more generally.

 

[Kappa]

No more risking a week or 3 tackling, just jump and drop a shoulder.

Then draw some lines. Its enough to baffle former players on the Tribunal.

Brayshaw should lodge his lawsuit now.

Yeah, if you are looking at the ball then jump purely to smother, then the opposition player veers in front of you.

Do you seriously not understand the details?

 

[revo333]

Bang on.

It seems so weird that this has to be explained or that Maynard's actions are being described as a "footy act". It's not a footy act. It was a clear downfield free kick, so it's already against the rules. Modern football defence is all about closing down the player disposing of the ball to apply pressure, but we haven't seen a similar incident before. Why is that?

It's really disturbing that it's been confirmed as a footy act. When he hit the head it was no longer a smoother.

Watch for the next player to do it and get 4 weeks.

Glad I barely have any interest in this sport anymore.

 

[Wargreymon90]

No matter where you sit on this incident. Phrases that need to stop being used when discussing a player being suspended:

1. “Football act” - football acts get players rubbed out all the time

2. “We want our best players playing” - what? So Bontempelli should be treated more favourably than poor Jed mcentee?

3. That a player’s “remorseful” - we aren’t dealing with serial killers, they will ALL be remorseful.

4. Any reference to them missing a “final” - all games are equal

I’m sure there a more. But these arguments are completely irrelevant.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Yeah, if you are looking at the ball then jump purely to smother, then the opposition player veers in front of you.

Do you seriously not understand the details?

But he wasn't looking at the ball when it sailed over his head he was looking directly at Brayshaw .... if he was looking at the ball his head would have been tilted upwards which it wasn't ..... Brayshaw was always in his sights ..... even if Brayshaw hadn't moved slightly offline Maynard still would have cannoned into his head region

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Mods need to pin a notice atop the thread, reminding Collingwood supporters to show some decency.

Asking Collingwood supporters to show some decency?

 

[Go_Roos!]

So it's now ok to hit an opposition player in the head and knock him out

 

[Sub_Zero]

What a horrible *mcguire is doing that in a greasy spoon..
Stay the same you horrible scumbag.

What?

 

[The Plowking]

I don't really have a problem with Maynard's act on the field. What I have a problem with is Maynard doing the "good bloke" routine and turning up at Brayshaw's recovery bed on the day before his tribunal hearing. He should have just left it alone until after the tribunal decision before going to see him. It just reeks of optics, and when you add to that the fact that there were Melbourne teammates in the room when he arrived who didn't want him there, one of which had to remove himself because he didn't want to cause an incident, but he insists on doing the visit. Once Maynard saw the room was occupied, he should have walked away and come back after the hearing. Sure, he might feel sorry for what happened, but if his conscience is as clear as he says it is about the incident itself - and he has every right to feel that way - he should just wait until the appropriate time. The fact that he didn't makes me feel like he was there to influence the tribunal and influence public opinion, because they always hear the rumours before they sit. Even if it didn't affect the decision, it just looks average.

Maynard was thinking of himself first and foremost. If he just waited it out and contacted Brayshaw later, I wouldn't have anything against him because I do think it was a football incident. But making a guy you knocked out listen to you when he's feeling very crook and has his actual friends there - it's very selfish.

You could have just said it was perhaps misguided and inappropriate.
Fair enough.
But all that extrapolation...

 

[The Plowking]

Melt thread

 

[Ando727]

You could have just said it was perhaps misguided and inappropriate.
Fair enough.
But all that extrapolation...

Glad you enjoyed it.

 

[adammania9]

One of the all time great threads. Certified legendary.

 

[Captivating]

Really don't get people blaming Brayshaw for this. Utterly ridiculous.

He's not being blamed. They are saying that he contributed to the collision. There is no blame as it was an accident.

 

[Captivating]

Hopefully Brayshaw sues the afl.

For what?

 

[mcgarnacle]

A lot of energy and focus on this. Pressure is on Collingwood to capitalise on this good fortune now. Let’s hope for them, they don’t wobble.

 

[mcgarnacle]

So it's now ok to hit an opposition player in the head and knock him out

YES! How good is it!

 

[ChristianBoy]

A big * next to any success Collingwood have.

Yeah, if you are looking at the ball then jump purely to smother, then the opposition player veers in front of you.

Do you seriously not understand the details?

If only that applied to all players and clubs.

 

[btdg]

Charging, dangerous tackles and striking are all specifically identified as reportable offences which have had many cases over recent years to (attempt to) establish where the duty of care lies.

A 'dangerous smother' is not explicitly identified as a reportable offence and the tribunal found, in this instance, Maynard's smother attempt didn't meet the threshold for 'unreasonable conduct' (as required for it to be classified as 'rough conduct').

Expect the AFL to tighten up on this over the summer.

How is this not charging?

From the rules of the game "the act of colliding with an opposition player where the amount of physical force is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the player is in possession of the football..."

Brayshaw ended up unconscious for 2 minutes after a late, high hit. Seems a pretty clearcut example of unreasonable force to me.

 

[Horaceg]

I believe it was an accident but careless nonetheless.

Poor tackles are these days a suspension. Poor spoils and poor shepards have always been a suspension. But for some reason a poor smother cannot be a suspension. If your smothering technique involves a player getting knocked out cold it should not be a legitimate attempt.

It doesn’t make sense. But the tribunal never has made sense which is what causes all of this debate.

It was an accident, it is a contact game, you have very fit, athletic guys running and colliding at speed, Maynard jumped at the ball and caught Angus on the way down. I get someone got hurt but blame the game not the person doing what they have always done.

Society these days always needs someone to blame, in my eyes and those of many experts, this was purely an unfortunate accident as the tribunal has now adjudicated.

if the rules need to change, then make the action illegal like they have done with sling tackles.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

One of the all time great threads. Certified legendary.

It is okay that you are too slow for this thread. People are raising some great points and it is certainly an interesting discussion on what is acceptable and where the game is going.

I’m sure the Maynard thread on the Collingwood board is far more basic and easy to follow.

 

[FIGJAM]

Unfortunately s**t can’t just happen when they’re about to be sued into oblivion.

Same with the NFL.

I don’t know why collision sports getting injuries is such a shock.

You either ban them outright or just do the best you can with some common sense in mind.

 

[Horaceg]

Maybe re read as in just for the record , tackling/bumping etc are footy acts now punishable by suspension if not executed in way that doesn’t cause head injury or even potential to

Why ALL OF A SUDDEN is a footy act a
get of jail free card because it was smothering??

His objective was the ball not the player, the contact as unfortunate as it was and as adjudicated by the tribunal was purely accidental, with no malice, no intent to harm, he was playing the game.

Accept that accidents happen, move on.

if the rules need to change then make the action illegal.

 

[sobrave]

I'm not reading 200 pages but are there any Collingwood supporters who actually think it's complete BS that Maynard got off?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

It was an accident, it is a contact game, you have very fit, athletic guys running and colliding at speed, Maynard jumped at the ball and caught Angus on the way down. I get someone got hurt but blame the game not the person doing what they have always done.

Society these days always needs someone to blame, in my eyes and those of many experts, this was purely an unfortunate accident as the tribunal has now adjudicated.

if the rules need to change, then make the action illegal like they have done with sling tackles.

You can be suspended for an accident if you did not show enough duty of care for your opponent in a contest where a collision would be expedted ie a careless tribunal grading.

You can be suspended for acts that are considered football acts.

The game will most certainly be blamed when the actual courts get involved.

 

[Gough]

It's going to take a billion dollar pay out for the AFL to take head injuries seriously. They're just play acting at the moment.