Absolutely 100% unrealistic attempt to smother. reality : jumped in air, braced shoulder, hit unprotected opponent in head and concussed senseless. should not be available until about rd 3 or 4 next year. I fear as normal a compromise will be orchestrated by AFL, Maynard will miss prelim and be available if Pies make GF. God I hate the people who run the AFL !
News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 May 2023
- Messages
- 1,084
- Likes
- 3,821
- AFL Club
- Richmond
It's amazing how the views on the Maynard - Brayshaw incident diverge so much. It seems like you are in one of two camps:
Camp NO SUSPENSION: Braynard instinctively braced for contact and Brayshaw's injury was a pure accident.
or
Camp SUSPENSION: Braynard braced for contact in a dangerous fashion thereby breaching his duty of contact to Brayshaw. The Brayshaw injury was due to a poor decision by Braynard.
I'm just taken aback by how differently we all see the game.
Camp NO SUSPENSION: Braynard instinctively braced for contact and Brayshaw's injury was a pure accident.
or
Camp SUSPENSION: Braynard braced for contact in a dangerous fashion thereby breaching his duty of contact to Brayshaw. The Brayshaw injury was due to a poor decision by Braynard.
I'm just taken aback by how differently we all see the game.
The way I see it, if the AFL want to have any credibility in their pursuit of making the head sacrosanct, then he will get weeks.
Any less and it's an insult to those who have been penalized during the season.
To those that posit that he had no choice, the choice is jump or not jump.
As soon as he jumped, there was only one outcome, he was going to crash into Brayshaw.
The only doubt was where and how he was going to collect him.
I'm not fussed either way, as long as the AFL start to become consistent.
Any less and it's an insult to those who have been penalized during the season.
To those that posit that he had no choice, the choice is jump or not jump.
As soon as he jumped, there was only one outcome, he was going to crash into Brayshaw.
The only doubt was where and how he was going to collect him.
I'm not fussed either way, as long as the AFL start to become consistent.
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 4,919
- Likes
- 11,253
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think there is two decisions, one to jump (was it a legitimate attempt, didn't touch the ball, although this isn't a fact that will have any sway) and did he need to turn his should to protect himself as some are claiming.
This is not two players going for the ball, one clearly has it.
Anyone who has played football and been in a similar situation, I cannot say turning the body is a natural instinct. Putting your hands out are. If you were crashing to ground, do you turn your shoulder, never.
If he is let free could you imagine how much hype of incident would ramp up. Several times I went back with the ball to spoil, unable to see the ball and manage to spoil or closely spoil without injuring the player I was running head first into,. it is a choice.
This is not two players going for the ball, one clearly has it.
Anyone who has played football and been in a similar situation, I cannot say turning the body is a natural instinct. Putting your hands out are. If you were crashing to ground, do you turn your shoulder, never.
If he is let free could you imagine how much hype of incident would ramp up. Several times I went back with the ball to spoil, unable to see the ball and manage to spoil or closely spoil without injuring the player I was running head first into,. it is a choice.
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 458
- Likes
- 2,880
- AFL Club
- Bulldogs
I am usually in favour of suspensions for these head knock situation, but in this case I really don’t think that Maynard was intending to make contact at all. He was legitimately trying to spoil a player running towards goal. Both players were moving at pace towards each other and it was just an ugly collision that neither expected.
I get it that there was a serious head injury and that every effort must be made to reduce these incidents.
I think the rule changes and consequent suspensions have been for the better, but don’t know how far we will have to go..
If for example we say that you are responsible for whatever happens when you leave the ground, going up for a speccy will have to be banned as well.. plenty of knees in heads when that happens..
I get it that there was a serious head injury and that every effort must be made to reduce these incidents.
I think the rule changes and consequent suspensions have been for the better, but don’t know how far we will have to go..
If for example we say that you are responsible for whatever happens when you leave the ground, going up for a speccy will have to be banned as well.. plenty of knees in heads when that happens..
My two cents -
Maynard was running a full pace towards a player with the ball. At that point he has a duty of care to avoid high contact. He's entitled to smother (which is clearly a football act) but he can't be careless in doing so and the fact that something is a football act does not obviate the duty of care. He was running flat out and head on at Brayshaw. In those circumstances his choice to jump in the air to effect a smother was a careless act. He has to bear the consequences of everything after that.
Maynard was running a full pace towards a player with the ball. At that point he has a duty of care to avoid high contact. He's entitled to smother (which is clearly a football act) but he can't be careless in doing so and the fact that something is a football act does not obviate the duty of care. He was running flat out and head on at Brayshaw. In those circumstances his choice to jump in the air to effect a smother was a careless act. He has to bear the consequences of everything after that.
It is truly amazing, especially as both sides are generally pretty convinced one way or the other & it's also not just pro-Collingwood or anti-Collingwood biases (although I am sure there is a bit of that both ways too)
In my opinion, based on 2023, it's clear the AFL have been heavily results-based in their decision making. There have been suspensions that have really annoyed me (Sicily, Boyd etc) but the pattern is clear that the result is what matters to the AFL, so rightly or wrongly they have been pretty consistent with that.
I would be shocked (and annoyed) if Maynard got off on that basis alone. If we want to change the interpretation going forward (suspensions not being results based) - the fresh precedent starts the next year, with some confirmation that the action is going to be punished more then the result.
Unfortunately, for both Maynard and future suspensions, I'm pretty sure the AFL will continue with their logic that the result is more important than the action.
In my opinion, based on 2023, it's clear the AFL have been heavily results-based in their decision making. There have been suspensions that have really annoyed me (Sicily, Boyd etc) but the pattern is clear that the result is what matters to the AFL, so rightly or wrongly they have been pretty consistent with that.
I would be shocked (and annoyed) if Maynard got off on that basis alone. If we want to change the interpretation going forward (suspensions not being results based) - the fresh precedent starts the next year, with some confirmation that the action is going to be punished more then the result.
Unfortunately, for both Maynard and future suspensions, I'm pretty sure the AFL will continue with their logic that the result is more important than the action.
I haven't actually seen the incident, so this doesn't come with any bias at all 
Echoing what @Athomas said above, this year the AFL has suspended based heavily on the resulting impact. This has lead to what can seem like some ridiculous suspensions or non-suspensions (justice for Gary Rohan!!!) but if they stick to the interpretation, then Maynard gets time off.
That said, the AFL and consistency are not usually words you'd put together in a sentence, especially at finals time so who knows
Echoing what @Athomas said above, this year the AFL has suspended based heavily on the resulting impact. This has lead to what can seem like some ridiculous suspensions or non-suspensions (justice for Gary Rohan!!!) but if they stick to the interpretation, then Maynard gets time off.
That said, the AFL and consistency are not usually words you'd put together in a sentence, especially at finals time so who knows
- Joined
- 7 May 2023
- Messages
- 1,084
- Likes
- 3,821
- AFL Club
- Richmond
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/09...nard-should-avoid-ban-for-brayshaw-collision/
Why Buckley believes Maynard should avoid ban for Brayshaw collision
By Andrew Slevison
Nathan Buckley does not believe that Brayden Maynard could have done anything else in his power to avoid contact with Angus Brayshaw last Thursday night.
The Collingwood defender has been sent directly to the Tribunal after leaving Melbourne’s Brayshaw unconscious when collecting him with a shoulder to the head in the Magpies’ narrow Qualifying Final win at the MCG.
Maynard was attempting to smother a Brayshaw kick when he made contact in mid-air.
Brayshaw was stretchered from the ground and will not play in this weekend’s Semi Final clash with Carlton due to the AFL’s concussion protocols, while Maynard faces a nervous wait as he and the club strive to clear his name for the Preliminary Final in a fortnight and perhaps even the Grand Final a week later.
Maynard’s former coach Buckley does not believe there was much else the player could do in that moment.
He also suggests that we must look at this from all sides of the fence and hope a judgment is made based on the speed of the game, rather than any recklessness within the incident.
“Imagine if (Jack) Viney did this,” Buckley said on SEN Breakfast.
“Viney is the type of player (who is the comparison). He’s uncompromising at the contest and he would have been absolutely desperate to get a fingertip to that kick.
“Jack Viney would have found himself in that situation, mid-air, headlong, to try to smother a ball, and then working out what he’s going to do in that split-second when he lands on the opposition player. If in fact he had time to do that.
“So it’s a fair comparison and I don’t know what the answer is.
“I certainly hope that we take the colours of the guernseys out of it.
“That we look at the circumstances of the matter and that we’re actually fair to these guys that are playing football at break-neck speed.”
Kane Cornes is in the same boat as Buckley, attempting to work out what exactly Maynard could have done to avoid making contact with Brayshaw.
“That’s it for me in a nutshell,” he said.
“You watch it frame by frame, he is running flat out and he’s jumping in the air. He cannot disappear.
“I haven’t seen any past player of note come out and say he shouldn’t be suspended because you are understanding in that moment that this is finals football and if you’re not going flat out you’re going to be criticised.
“When you do go flat out you can’t just disappear. You actually have to brace and half protect yourself otherwise you both get knocked out.
“There’s always going to be accidents. We see knee to the head in marking contests all the time and no one cares about it. The AFL doesn’t care about that from a legal perspective. You can jump up, drive your knee into someone’s head running back with the flight of the ball, and as long as you’re looking to take a mark you’re fine. But you can’t jump and try to smother the football.
“I’m really fired up about it. It’s unfair to think he could have done anything else in that circumstance.”
Buckley continued, referencing other actions in season 2023 in which a player has escaped a suspension.
He raised the point around ‘duty of care’, suggesting this whole facet of the game is a ‘grey area’.
“I think we’ve got to understand that there have been players that have been suspended this year for acts that I don’t think are outside what you would expect a footballer to do,” he added.
“This idea of duty of care and this idea of protecting the head has had this groundswell of focus around it. We’ve seen players, in my view, that have been penalised and suspended for acts that I think that others have been let go of.
“Tom McCartin got off what looked like it was a bump and Shane McAdam was somewhat concussed and had a depressed cheekbone. There were another couple that have taken place recently.
“Yes, we do get head contact that’s not penalised. We get some that is. There’s a lot of grey area here for me.
“Because if you went all-in on this duty of care and this medico legal issue around concussion and head knocks, you’d be rubbing out five or six players on potential damage to the head every week.”
Cornes concluded: “The game is in trouble if you want to go down that line.”
Maynard faces the Tribunal on Tuesday night.
Both Buckley and Cornes firmly believe Maynard should avoid suspension.
Why Buckley believes Maynard should avoid ban for Brayshaw collision
By Andrew Slevison
Nathan Buckley does not believe that Brayden Maynard could have done anything else in his power to avoid contact with Angus Brayshaw last Thursday night.
The Collingwood defender has been sent directly to the Tribunal after leaving Melbourne’s Brayshaw unconscious when collecting him with a shoulder to the head in the Magpies’ narrow Qualifying Final win at the MCG.
Maynard was attempting to smother a Brayshaw kick when he made contact in mid-air.
Brayshaw was stretchered from the ground and will not play in this weekend’s Semi Final clash with Carlton due to the AFL’s concussion protocols, while Maynard faces a nervous wait as he and the club strive to clear his name for the Preliminary Final in a fortnight and perhaps even the Grand Final a week later.
Maynard’s former coach Buckley does not believe there was much else the player could do in that moment.
He also suggests that we must look at this from all sides of the fence and hope a judgment is made based on the speed of the game, rather than any recklessness within the incident.
“Imagine if (Jack) Viney did this,” Buckley said on SEN Breakfast.
“Viney is the type of player (who is the comparison). He’s uncompromising at the contest and he would have been absolutely desperate to get a fingertip to that kick.
“Jack Viney would have found himself in that situation, mid-air, headlong, to try to smother a ball, and then working out what he’s going to do in that split-second when he lands on the opposition player. If in fact he had time to do that.
“So it’s a fair comparison and I don’t know what the answer is.
“I certainly hope that we take the colours of the guernseys out of it.
“That we look at the circumstances of the matter and that we’re actually fair to these guys that are playing football at break-neck speed.”
Kane Cornes is in the same boat as Buckley, attempting to work out what exactly Maynard could have done to avoid making contact with Brayshaw.
“That’s it for me in a nutshell,” he said.
“You watch it frame by frame, he is running flat out and he’s jumping in the air. He cannot disappear.
“I haven’t seen any past player of note come out and say he shouldn’t be suspended because you are understanding in that moment that this is finals football and if you’re not going flat out you’re going to be criticised.
“When you do go flat out you can’t just disappear. You actually have to brace and half protect yourself otherwise you both get knocked out.
“There’s always going to be accidents. We see knee to the head in marking contests all the time and no one cares about it. The AFL doesn’t care about that from a legal perspective. You can jump up, drive your knee into someone’s head running back with the flight of the ball, and as long as you’re looking to take a mark you’re fine. But you can’t jump and try to smother the football.
“I’m really fired up about it. It’s unfair to think he could have done anything else in that circumstance.”
Buckley continued, referencing other actions in season 2023 in which a player has escaped a suspension.
He raised the point around ‘duty of care’, suggesting this whole facet of the game is a ‘grey area’.
“I think we’ve got to understand that there have been players that have been suspended this year for acts that I don’t think are outside what you would expect a footballer to do,” he added.
“This idea of duty of care and this idea of protecting the head has had this groundswell of focus around it. We’ve seen players, in my view, that have been penalised and suspended for acts that I think that others have been let go of.
“Tom McCartin got off what looked like it was a bump and Shane McAdam was somewhat concussed and had a depressed cheekbone. There were another couple that have taken place recently.
“Yes, we do get head contact that’s not penalised. We get some that is. There’s a lot of grey area here for me.
“Because if you went all-in on this duty of care and this medico legal issue around concussion and head knocks, you’d be rubbing out five or six players on potential damage to the head every week.”
Cornes concluded: “The game is in trouble if you want to go down that line.”
Maynard faces the Tribunal on Tuesday night.
Both Buckley and Cornes firmly believe Maynard should avoid suspension.
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 39,519
- Likes
- 128,646
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
That was a long piece with a lot of quotation marks, if it's a "results based" system, he gets suspended, if they actually take it case by case and are not results based, maybe he gets off. I don't think he should be suspended, maybe he should've wrapped his legs around his face instead or what he did?...lol, maybe that would've cushioned the blow more.
