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

 

[loki04]

Eddie would, I doubt the current board has the balls.

Yes does seem a bit of pleasing the outside world about the new model and I can already hear Mcrea now;
"winners don't take it to court they just wear it and look forward, we have bigger thing to concentrate on, someone goes out someone comes in N.Daicos is pretty handy in".
Etc.

 

[Maddo11]

Mate you are dillusional if you think Maynard's motive from outset was to cannon into his head.

I have quite literally never said it was deliberate.

Firstly he didn't even hit him that hard and secondly it was a choice to brace upon landing not going too him.

He was immediately KOd, because he got a shoulder to the jaw that he wasn't prepared for, because you don't expect your opponent to jump into your face with their shoulder, because it's not 1989. "Didn't even get him that hard" **** me that's a stretch.

 

[brutus76]

I would have lowered my hands from the smothering position to hands out in front of me to protect my head and face from hitting him (avoiding a potential clash of heads)



I reckon it happened a couple of times in my playing times - unlucky but a bloke was stretchered off

 

[jakson68]

You have to tackle, smother and shepherd within the rules. He ran directly at an opposition player and made late contact. It was a free kick downfield because that action itself isn't within the rules. Added to that it's high and he's knocked the player out cold, there really is no point arguing about whether he'll be suspended. How many weeks is the question. The tribunal minimum is three weeks, which seems right to me.

Actually, he flew at an opponent, as he was in the air.

It is going to the tribunal, that we can all agree on.

The outcome is where we differ.

 

[loki04]

You have to tackle, smother and shepherd within the rules. He ran directly at an opposition player and made late contact. It was a free kick downfield because that action itself isn't within the rules. Added to that it's high and he's knocked the player out cold, there really is no point arguing about whether he'll be suspended. How many weeks is the question. The tribunal minimum is three weeks, which seems right to me.

The action I assume you mean the last second choice to brace for impact?

Rather then jumping to smother and pressure the kick?

See you are arguing as if he chose to bump and lined him up with malicious intent.

We are arguing he braced for contact after doing a fair and legal jump to smother when he realised he was going to make full bodied contact.

 

[naysayer]

Mate you are dillusional if you think Maynard's motive from outset was to cannon into his head. Firstly he didn't even hit him that hard and secondly it was a choice to brace upon landing not going too him.

Maynard doesn't have the right to brace, because Maynard doesn't have the right to make forceful contact. The ball is gone, you're not allowed to crash into someone without the ball.

 

[loki04]

I would have lowered my hands from the smothering position to hands out in front of me to protect my head and face from hitting him (avoiding a potential clash of heads)

View attachment 1797390

I reckon it happened a couple of times in my playing times - unlucky but a bloke was stretchered off

Cripps tried that and put his elbow and forearm through the blokes head the whole way down.

 

[jakson68]

I would have lowered my hands from the smothering position to hands out in front of me to protect my head and face from hitting him (avoiding a potential clash of heads)

View attachment 1797390

I reckon it happened a couple of times in my playing times - unlucky but a bloke was stretchered off

How was Austkick.

 

[eddiesmith]

Sounds like Christian might have been willing to let it slide but the new boss is keen to make an example of him

 

[loki04]

Maynard doesn't have the right to brace, because Maynard doesn't have the right to make forceful contact. The ball is gone, you're not allowed to crash into someone without the ball.

Maynard has every right to brace and protect his rib cage and kidneys/liver.
The ball was not gone when he jumped.

Maynard can not change his flight path mid air, the only one who had that opportunity was Brayshaw when he saw Maynard come at him and then much much smaller window straight after kicking it.

 

[loki04]

Sounds like Christian might have been willing to let it slide but the new boss is keen to make an example of him

Rocca all over again.
Rocca was initially ok impact that slid up after contact.
They were trying to outlaw that style bump back then and what better chance then a pie out for a GF.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Nope. Perfect opportunity to build suspense and then send to tribunal to drag it out. Cos ratings/exposure. Don’t think this is how the afl works? You haven’t been paying attention

 

[Down the throat]

Maynard has every right to brace and protect his rib cage and kidneys/liver.
The ball was not gone when he jumped.

Maynard can not change his flight path mid air, the only one who had that opportunity was Brayshaw when he saw Maynard come at him and then much much smaller window straight after kicking it.

Wow. Brayshaw fault for Maynard's reckless attempted smother.

Shocking call.

 

[hawkman]

Nope. Perfect opportunity to build suspense and then send to tribunal to drag it out. Cos ratings/exposure. Don’t think this is how the afl works? You haven’t been paying attention

Or dull the outrage by dropping it at 7.49

 

[maskmcgee]

 

[beema limapep]

Maynard doesn't have the right to brace, because Maynard doesn't have the right to make forceful contact. The ball is gone, you're not allowed to crash into someone without the ball.

Laughable.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

We can talk about both if you'd like. But don't act pious when 90000 pies fans spent the night cheering any time the bloke who ko'd someone with a shoulder to the face went near the ball.

They are a different breed that’s for sure.

 

[loki04]

I have quite literally never said it was deliberate.


He was immediately KOd, because he got a shoulder to the jaw that he wasn't prepared for, because you don't expect your opponent to jump into your face with their shoulder, because it's not 1989. "Didn't even get him that hard" * me that's a stretch.

You litterally keep repeating those exact words that he cannoned into his head and chose to bump.
That turn of phrase does not read that it was an accident.
And if you think it was an accident then what's your issue?

He got KO'd yup, he has a history of it. Any other player other then our own N.Murphy would of bounced right up.

 

[SC_Power]

Maynard has every right to brace and protect his rib cage and kidneys/liver.
The ball was not gone when he jumped.

Maynard can not change his flight path mid air, the only one who had that opportunity was Brayshaw when he saw Maynard come at him and then much much smaller window straight after kicking it.

So you are putting this collision solely on Brayshaw? WTF seriously.
Give it up, please, this attempt at victim blaming doesn’t put you in a good light.

You’re the kind of person who would have argued that Dermott Brereton was to blame for his broken rib when he failed to get out of the way of Mark Yeates‘ legal shepherd. Or Peter Caven should have known that Tony Lockett had every right to attack the contest and hence is responsible for his own broken jaw.

 

[beema limapep]

Sent straight to the Tribunal.

Absolute joke.

 

[SC_Power]

Wow. Brayshaw fault for Maynard's reckless attempted smother.

Shocking call.

It’s scary, isn’t it? A special type of supporter is a Collingwood fan.

 

[loki04]

Wow. Brayshaw fault for Maynard's reckless attempted smother.

Shocking call.

Brayshaws part to blame for teh outcome, for not protecting himself which he does often in games.
The benefit of a down field free or in stoppages a free out the center or def50, is massive, many players do it and I've seen him do it for a long time now.

I don't think it's anyone's fault and that it's ridiculous it's even being looked at.

 

[loki04]

It’s scary, isn’t it? A special type of supporter is a Collingwood fan.

What's scary is plebs thinking in a contact game there shouldn't be contact, and that the onus is on the opponent to look after you!

It's actually laughable.

 

[maskmcgee]

 

[smasha]

I love this man.