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

 

[_Mike_]

Finally some sanity

Everyone can now move on and focus on this week's semi finals

 

[Mr Magic]

Anyone notice that the 2 most controversial "passes" to clear cut suspensions involve 2 very powerful clubs in the vfl coterie?

Cripps Carlton
Maynard Collingwood

You could start a train of thought here that there might be some money and power at play.......

It is all about Collingwood, Geelong and the Labor party by the looks of it.

Makes zero sense

Now you are allowed to knock players out high with hip and shoulder??

The smother is irrelevant, open season hip and shoulder to the head but a tackle that looks iffy, six weeks!!!

 

[iGNITER]

Glad Maynard got off. Hope Brayshaw is ok.
But geez we have uncovered another peanut - Hamish Brayshaw take a bow.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

It is all about Collingwood, Geelong and the Labor party by the looks of it.

Makes zero sense

Now you are allowed to knock players out high with hip and shoulder??

The smother is irrelevant, open season hip and shoulder to the head but a tackle that looks iffy, six weeks!!!

Go and read the decision for starters

 

[Mr Magic]

Glad Maynard got off. Hope Brayshaw is ok.
But geez we have uncovered another peanut - Hamish Brayshaw take a bow.

Can't agree, AFL look like a laughing stock

Brendon Gale dodged a bullet

Has the AFL ever been in a greater mess??

 

[faible]

Glad Maynard got off. Hope Brayshaw is ok.
But geez we have uncovered another peanut - Hamish Brayshaw take a bow.

Wait... the brother of the bloke that was knocked unconscious isn't happy about it? That's so surprising.

 

[DonsRule]

Yep, much like I suspected.


Like the decision or not I'm not sure the AFL really had much grounds for appeal other then doing it for an appeals sake. Think the incident just his an area they really had no clear definition of and maybe they will change next year but think it was the only call they had

 

[Vindicater]

I reckon if Melbourne do make it to the grand final it will be spicy as hell.

Viney, Gawn and Petracca will bring alot of heat.

 

[stormskye]

the hypocrisy in here has no limits

 

[Mr Magic]

AFL missed the opportunity to say you can smother, but you cannot hip and shoulder to the head

Down the track AFL will probably go bankrupt from lawsuits due to politics

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Well, we just witnessed genuine hysteria.

A lot of people in the media and in this thread made complete fools of themselves.

 

[sr36]

AFL missed the opportunity to say you can smother, but you cannot hip and shoulder to the head

Down the track AFL will probably go bankrupt from lawsuits due to politics

For all those who claim that the AFL needed to make a statement:

Do you understand that it is a Tribunal that has to follow the tribunal guidelines and process? They can't just choose a result in order to make a statement - unless they want their decision to be laughed at in the appeals process.

And the ironic thing is that those who want the AFL to make a statement are the ones most likely to carry on about a result and call the tribunal a kangaroo court.

 

[DonsRule]

For all those who claim that the AFL needed to make a statement:

Do you understand that it is a Tribunal that has to follow the tribunal guidelines and process? They can't just choose a result in order to make a statement - unless they want their decision to be laughed at in the appeals process.

And the ironic thing is that those who want the AFL to make a statement are the ones most likely to carry on about a result and call the tribunal a kangaroo court.

Yep like I said in the thread I just don't get the feeling the AFL had the grounds for an appeal even if they wanted to such an unknown area where careless probably isn't as well defined as they'd like - wonder if the afl tightens down on guidelines next year this case was in a lot of knowns - not helped by the poor case they presented. I'm not sure there is much that wrong with the decision even if we think it should be suspended its not too far out of line of other tribunal calls. But maintain too I don't think I've seen an incident I would saw was that simular and why I think we were in such unknowns on where it would go move on call has been make

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think they will simply because I am not so sure there is a real clear grounds for it, I don't think it was really out of line with other decisions this year although probably nothing that is very similar to it either. There were a lot of unknowns. I wouldn't be surprized if next year there are some guidelines bought in to advide it happens again and you are gone inda of things and maybe thats what this was setting up seeing where things were at.

You can bet your bottom $ the rules will be re written so incidents like this will garner a penalty.

 

[chestbrah]

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.

Incredibly biased take layered with assumptions.

It is common practice across the league to reach out with well wishes. Notwithstanding the fact they are mates from their junior footy days.

My concern is with who leaked it. With Footy Classified (and the narrative of the leak) in particular suggesting it was the Melbourne camp. Talk about turning a molehill into a mountain.

 

[BEEG]

Wait... the brother of the bloke that was knocked unconscious isn't happy about it? That's so surprising.

He was pretty happy to set up a sit down with Gaff and the little brother after a king hit though.

Maybe trying to get the Eagles to give him another game at the expense of his brother?

 

[ChristianBoy]

Still waiting for examples of all these Collingwood players getting let off at the tribunal.

Maynard.

 

[FreoRicci]

The Lawyer is not Brayden Maynard

It's important to get facts right in a legal discussion

The lawyer represents Maynard therefore it is Maynard’s best interest and opinion.

That’s facts.

 

[Sleepy_Drop_Bear]

By the time the ball made contact with Brayshaw’s boot, both of Maynard's feet had already left the ground.

Maynard was still on the ground when Brayshaw dropped the ball.

We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible.
We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

If a player could foresee, impact, your not permitted to make forceful contact with a player after disposal, any contact was going to be forceful and late, therefore be illegal. How is he not responsible for it.
“Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location”. They reversed the obligation of Maynard to avoiding Brayshaw onto Brayshaw to avoid Maynard. Maynard being airborne doesn’t change his responsibility no to contact a player who has disposed of the ball. Maynard expected Brayshaw not to have the ball when he jumped.

 

[sr36]

Yep like I said in the thread I just don't get the feeling the AFL had the grounds for an appeal even if they wanted to such an unknown area where careless probably isn't as well defined as they'd like - wonder if the afl tightens down on guidelines next year this case was in a lot of knowns - not helped by the poor case they presented. I'm not sure there is much that wrong with the decision even if we think it should be suspended its not too far out of line of other tribunal calls. But maintain too I don't think I've seen an incident I would saw was that simular and why I think we were in such unknowns on where it would go move on call has been make

People who think it was the wrong decision might be right in terms of a sense of natural justice, but they're not right in terms of the Tribunal guidelines.

Bracing isn't bumping
Brayshaw did change course, as much as people don't want to see it, and it's not reasonable to think that Maynard should have foreseen that Brayshaw would change course to end up directly in Maynard's drop zone.

Thus it was not careless under the Tribunal guidelines.

It was a pretty clear case under the guidelines - hence the MRO not classifying it as careless.

I do think he would have gone down if Brayshaw hadn't have changed course - meaning he would have launched directly into his running line - but he didn't. Case closed. I think they'll change the guidelines and introduce an at fault classification that is below careless.

 

[Vindicater]

Interesting that the chairman made comment on this being a long trial because Brayshaw might not play again and Maynard may miss some important games as if the two are comparable.

 

[HotPiesWithSauce]

Glad Maynard got off. Hope Brayshaw is ok.
But geez we have uncovered another peanut - Hamish Brayshaw take a bow.

On radio this morning, he completely took back everything he said about the AFL-collingwood conspiracy & even said it was a good thing for Maynard to have visited Angus the next day, and to have called and explained himself to their mum

I can forgive a guy for what he says in the heat of passion, especially when he owns up to it and takes it back

 

[Sleepy_Drop_Bear]

People who think it was the wrong decision might be right in terms of a sense of natural justice, but they're not right in terms of the Tribunal guidelines.

Bracing isn't bumping
Brayshaw did change course, as much as people don't want to see it, and it's not reasonable to think that Maynard should have foreseen that Brayshaw would change course to end up directly in Maynard's drop zone.

Thus it was not careless under the Tribunal guidelines.

It was a pretty clear case under the guidelines - hence the MRO not classifying it as careless.

I do think he would have gone down if Brayshaw hadn't have changed course - meaning he would have launched directly into his running line - but he didn't.

I think most players head would be in a similar position to Brayshaw after making that kick. Head move away from direction of the kick, basic physics. Would be interesting to put a montage together. If that's the case they could have established the course change was predictable.

 

[OniAu]

Smothering normally isn't. In this case it involved substantial contact.

When Nathan Brown snapped his leg from smothering , was that reportable ?