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

 

[Horaceg]

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.

Splitting hairs

 

[Go_Roos!]

Look out for the karma bus coming

 

[CarterS]

Might be worth going back over the season and looking at every incident the tribunal has previously deemed careless and suspended someone as a result.

 

[Kappa]

A big * next to any success Collingwood have.


If only that applied to all players and clubs.

Can you give an example of when it didn't?

 

[Scodog10]

I don't think tonights was clear though.
I did think he was always likely to get off but was one of those too where I didn't know where it was really heading. The AFL is also prone to modify these things somewhat by stealth though the year tackles that were let go pre season and early on became sustainable somewhere along the line but then became fairly consistant From memory earlier in the year the AFLs own pre season video of what was a suspension a fine changed could have easily put some of the suspensions side by side with what they said was a fine. But as I said after they started it remained relitivly consistant with the odd exception

Was it due to the strength of the argument presented by the AFL? Reading the proceedings through Zita tweets on our board suggested that Woods’ performance was soft.

It’s possible we’ll see a tightening of rules over the off-season to address the outcome, but based on the way it was prosecuted, the current rules and the transcript of the tribunal findings it was pretty clear, IMO. The problem I think is going to be that any change to the rules around leaving the ground to smother will still leave grey for some when it comes to an incident like Tom Lynch’s.

 

[CarterS]

Hate the term "football act" as there would be very few things on a football field that wouldn't be a football act, short of cleaning up a player off the ball or something that would be a straight up act of thuggery.

 

[Kappa]

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.

Ah, thanks for disproving your own point.

Maynard running full speed to smother the ball is not unreasonable. The fact as he jumps Brayshaw veers to the right and right into his path is an unfortunate accident. The fact Brayshaw also does not protect himself at all is also unfortunate.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Might be worth going back over the season and looking at every incident the tribunal has previously deemed careless and suspended someone as a result.

Or the opposite.

Google “Van Rooyen Ballard” and you’ll see this all played out earlier this year with the same outcome.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Captivating]

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

The AFL made this decision, the AFL will lay in their own bed. Not much else you can do.

Players these days know the risks of head trauma. By playing they are accepting the risks. Players can chose not to play if they are worried about concussions.

 

[ChristianBoy]

Can you give an example of when it didn't?

Maynard 12/09/2023

Check out multiple suspensions where the player was performing a football act and was suspended. Paddy Ryder last season on Will Day.

 

[sr36]

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.

Which part of the Tribunal Statement did you disagree with?

 

[smasha]

Imagine the uproar in here if Maynard was a Tiger lol.

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

Precedent set - no more suspensions for players who accidentally cause concussions when doing 'football acts', such as tackling and bumping.

 

[Turbochook]

Players these days know the risks of head trauma. By playing they are accepting the risks. Players can chose not to play if they are worried about concussions.

You can't actually remove duty of care simply by acknowledging the risks, it doesn't work like that.

 

[Kappa]

Maynard 12/09/2023

Check out multiple suspensions where the player was performing a football act and was suspended. Paddy Ryder last season on Will Day.

Paddy Ryder chose to bump, Maynard did not. How can you not grasp this yet?

 

[Captivating]

Precedent set - no more suspensions for players who accidentally cause concussions when doing 'football acts', such as tackling and bumping.

Go and read the tribunal findings.

 

[Kappa]

You can't actually remove duty of care simply by acknowledging the risks, it doesn't work like that.

If you want genuine duty of care then all contact sports really need to stop immediately.

A football place is a very dangerous place.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Precedent set - no more suspensions for players who accidentally cause concussions when doing 'football acts', such as tackling and bumping.

Precedent was set earlier this year with the Van Rooyen outcome.

Period for precedent is three more weeks. AFL will change rules for sure in off season - I’ve got an earlier post on this thread that provides a sense of the wording.

People need to stop making this about Collingwood and/or finals.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[AmericanMustard]

Hate the term "football act" as there would be very few things on a football field that wouldn't be a football act, short of cleaning up a player off the ball or something that would be a straight up act of thuggery.

Unless it’s Hamish’s mate. Then it’s an accident

 

[deck]

Might be worth going back over the season and looking at every incident the tribunal has previously deemed careless and suspended someone as a result.

And surely the ones they have cleared too.

 

[ChristianBoy]

Paddy Ryder chose to bump, Maynard did not. How can you not grasp this yet?

Paddy Ryder did exactly Maynard did only he wasn't a Collingwood player.

 

[Turbochook]

The real problem here is liability insurance and it's costs. If the industry deems the sport is at a high risk of bringing large payouts the levies will go through the roof. Now the AFL itself can probably absorb such oncosts but can state and local leagues?

 

[sobrave]

Precedent set - no more suspensions for players who accidentally cause concussions when doing 'football acts', such as tackling and bumping.

You've just got to jump, at that point you're a "human frisbee" so can't be held responsible.

 

[Turbochook]

If you want genuine duty of care then all contact sports really need to stop immediately.

A football place is a very dangerous place.

No they need to modify to survive, look at Association Football were leagues in the UK are moving to banning heading the ball during training to decrease th incidents of head blows; and that's a non-contact sport.

 

[Burns2008]

Bruzzy and Bray down at the sandy cafe



On P650 2021 using BigFooty.com mobile app