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

 

[Mr Lizard]

The three frames before impact are all in the same plane.
He obviously got to a position and lept vertically

I like ms paint. I had to guess slightly for the fourth frame, it should perhaps run through Brayshaw's right eye.




up and to the right. up and to the right. up and to the right...

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

Zero weeks

 

[The Sultan]

watching the replay for the 100th time in the footy talk shows... IF Maynard wanted to take him out he wouldve "gone thru" him, rather than bounce off to the side.

 

[Madas]

Could have just as easily put his hands out to brace for impact and cushion the blow instead of shoulder and elbow to the head

At least 1-3 weeks

 

[Checksider]

That this is up for debate is mind boggling, in the context of the head being sacrosanct. That is until you realise it’s a big Vic player in finals.

But you can’t have it both ways. Players have been suspended all year for hits to the head.

“Football action” is such contrived bull**** as well. Collingwood’s PR department has clearly gotten in the ear of AFL media to repeat the words used by Maynard post game. We know the media influence these outcomes. A bump is a football action FFS, so is a tackle. Why is it only certain teams that the media trots this line out for.

What he was doing before the bump is entirely irrelevant. He chose to bump when he didn’t need to, and hit the head. Bradshaw was out cold for two minutes. This is really an easy one, unless you’re taking the view of wanting to get Maynard off.

2-3 weeks. Open and shut.

 

[DonsRule]

If Maynard goes its going to set a massive precedent that will ruin the game. What's to say a player jumping for a mark, putting up there knee, knocking someone out, won't get suspended.

Don't agree at all. Same argument has been used about the bump even to an extent the tackle and here we are players for the most part have learnt to adjust if Maynard gets suspended then the same will happen "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"

If hes cleared so be it too perhaps the AFL adjust things for next years and maybe thats what this case is about

 

[banzai]

If Maynard goes its going to set a massive precedent that will ruin the game. What's to say a player jumping for a mark, putting up there knee, knocking someone out, won't get suspended.

I dont think Maynard should go and dont expect him to, but you can guarantee in 5 years that scenario where a player knees someone in the head in a marking contest will be weeks. It will get to a stage where any concussion will be a suspension unless the concussed player caused it.

 

[Madas]

Zero weeks

And the dog won a Brownlow
Disgraceful !

 

[DaddyMac80]

Nathan Brown

22

Nathan Brown

Age

35

Ht

196cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.8

2star

K

3.9

2star

HB

4.9

4star

M

2.7

3star

T

1.8

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.4

2star

K

3.2

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.8

5star

..
Said, on duty of care,
"How would he have braced and tried to land if it was a teammate under him?"

The tuck n turn ...

He's gone.

 

[Elixuh]

You posted true. Then looked for a silly point to make when I pointed out it was gibberish.

Damn, you got me bro. You interpreted my true absolutely correctly and seriously and are too smart for me.

Will they let Bruz go on holiday straight away or will he have to stay and help out around the club during his suspension?

 

[sherb]

Zero weeks

Because of a procedural error by the tribunal chairman.

 

[doppleganger]

Still any vision of another occurence in open play in the last 45 years at VFL/AFL level with a forward thrust as well?

Cant think of any.

Probably all more reason that ge gets off, this waant a player who chose to bump and got it wrong or tackled to hurt and just happened to drive the head into the ground.

This was an attempted smother, and Gus also moved right which contributed to contact.

 

[Elixuh]

David Mundy

16

David Mundy

Age

39

Ht

192cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.1

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

11.8

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.3

5star

CL

5.1

5star

D

15.7

4star

K

6.7

3star

HB

9.0

4star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.7

4star

CL

3.7

5star

D

27.8

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

12.4

5star

M

5.8

5star

T

6.2

5star

CL

7.2

5star

, whom I trust and respect, has spoken. This doesn't look good for bruz.

 

[BF Tiger]

Zero weeks.

Lynch’s was a pack-type marking situation with an incoming aerial ball. Maynard had an open opponent in his kicking motion.

Maybe look at the Mansell-Aish ruling.

Short version:
After a relatively short deliberation, Tribunal chairman Gleeson sided with Lynch, saying he did not bump or engage in rough conduct.

"We find that Lynch intended to fly for the mark, realised he had misjudged it, saw a Bulldogs player in his peripheral vision and rotated and braced for contact.

"Lynch did not have clenched fists, did not follow through with force and tends to pull his body in in a way consistent with a brace for contact and not a bump."



Extended Version…

Reasons via Tribunal:

On certain views of this vision, Lynch's actions appear quite problematic. He did not ultimately attempt to mark the ball and his shoulder came into forceful contact with Alex Keath’s head, causing a concussion.

Considering all of the evidence, including importantly Lynch's cogent and emphatic evidence, including all of the various angles of vision, we are not clearly satisfied that this was rough conduct.

The vision supported Lynch's evidence that his eyes never left the ball and that his line towards the ball never deviated. We find Lynch intended to fly for the mark, realised he had misjudged at the moment he was committed to jumping, saw a Bulldogs player in his peripheral vision and rotated and braced for contact. This version of events is supported by the fact Lynch did not have clenched fists, not follow through with force and intends to pull his body in, in a way consistent with a brace for contact, not a bump.

Marking contests such as this present a number of challenges for players. The ball was kicked in long and high. Players are all aware there will be a pack-type aerial contest. All flight can be misjudged and leaps mistimed.

It is not careless for a player to do no more than brace for contact in those circumstances.

As we’ve repeatedly said, players must do all that they reasonably can to minimise the risk of head injuries to other players. If we found Lynch had not genuinely braced for contact, had not had eyes for the ball, likely deviated, we would have had little hesitation in upholding the charge.

In the event, he did not bump. He did not engage in rough conduct.

 

[hawkman]

Because of a procedural error by the tribunal chairman.

Really needs to be stickied so it doesn't get brought up every 5th page

 

[sr36]

Damn, you got me bro. You interpreted my true absolutely correctly and seriously and are too smart for me.

You doubled down. But well done, you've finally realised it was a load of rubbish and we're pretending you knew all along.

But seeing that you automatically agreed with that gibberish because it had an anti-Collingwood bent, it says about about your judgement on this.

 

[BF Tiger]

I like ms paint. I had to guess slightly for the fourth frame, it should perhaps run through Brayshaw's right eye.

View attachment 1800431

View attachment 1800459
up and to the right. up and to the right. up and to the right...

Like Maynard did?

 

[Go the Guts]

I could wear him getting suspended for the launch. But turning and dropping his head away from the collision?

It's bat s**t crazy that the AFL are going to argue that he shouldnt have turned and dropped his head. It's ridiculously negligent and telling players to not try to keep their head out of an inevitable collision. Just nuts. If they're already worried about litigation, imagine if they win this case discouraging players from trying to keep their head out of collisions

Imagine if Maynard put his hands out to reduce or even negate the majority of impact, instead of choosing to slam into his face with his shoulder.

Imagine that?!

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Nathan Brown ..
Said, on duty of care,
"How would he have braced and tried to land if it was a teammate under him?"

The tuck n turn ...

He's gone.

Of all the ridiculous hypotheticals in this situation - this one is actually really valid and worth taking into account.

This is why marking contests are incidental damage - players just fly in and hurt teammates as often as opponents. But I don't think this situation would have happened if a collingwood players was there instead (or as well?)

 

[Elixuh]

You doubled down. But well done, you've finally realised it was a load of rubbish and we're pretending you knew all along.

But seeing that you automatically agreed with that gibberish because it had an anti-Collingwood bent, it says about about your judgement on this.

Saying true is a double down baby.

 

[Go the Guts]

If Maynard goes its going to set a massive precedent that will ruin the game. What's to say a player jumping for a mark, putting up there knee, knocking someone out, won't get suspended.

Rubbish. The precedents for this kind of thing have already been set many times before. He's gone. As he should be.

The AFL needs to grow some balls and stop with this "Cotchin can't miss the Grannie" type of MRO finals crap - the same rules must apply regardless of what games are on the end of their decision. Maynard must not play again in 2023.

 

[Mich0]

If Maynard goes its going to set a massive precedent that will ruin the game. What's to say a player jumping for a mark, putting up there knee, knocking someone out, won't get suspended.

Is that you Kane?

 

[sr36]

Imagine if Maynard put his hands out to reduce or even negate the majority of impact, instead of choosing to slam into his face with his shoulder.

Imagine that?!

I'm imagining a head to head collision. Arms out to negate the majority of impact of two 90 kg blokes moving quickly at each other? Are we on a different planet? Perhaps one without gravity?

 

[Dees 87]

Is that you Kane?

Kane lost what little credibility he had sticking up for the Port doctor after the Aliar incident.

 

[eddiesmith]

Rubbish. The precedents for this kind of thing have already been set many times before. He's gone. As he should be.

The AFL needs to grow some balls and stop with this "Cotchin can't miss the Grannie" type of MRO finals crap - the same rules must apply regardless of what games are on the end of their decision. Maynard must not play again in 2023.

Except if this wasn’t finals and everyone watching, the MRO dismisses it on Friday and the newly appointed footy boss doesn’t feel the need to step in to protect the games image.

He is only going to the tribunal because it is finals.