News Injuries & Suspensions

Joined
13 Mar 2016
Messages
1,806
Likes
5,962
AFL Club
West Coast
Did you notice Brayshaw changing direction after he kicks? Clearly this contributes to it being head related impact rather than shoulder to shoulder impact

Bracing for impact - did you notice Brayshaw does exactly the same? Tucks his right arm to brace for impact? It's the natural instinctive reaction for both.

I'm not saying he'll get off or suspended, I'm saying there is a lot more to consider
I'm with you on this - it looks like when Brayshaw kicks the ball he is off balance and his next step to straighten up puts him squarely in Maynard's flight path.

The caveat for me is that Maynard does like to play physical so it isn't out of character for him to 'make someone earn it' but I just don't see it here.
 
Joined
9 Feb 2015
Messages
9,140
Likes
55,915
AFL Club
West Coast
Did you notice Brayshaw changing direction after he kicks? Clearly this contributes to it being head related impact rather than shoulder to shoulder impact

Bracing for impact - did you notice Brayshaw does exactly the same? Tucks his right arm to brace for impact? It's the natural instinctive reaction for both.

I'm not saying he'll get off or suspended, I'm saying there is a lot more to consider
Just seen the vision of how Brayshaw veers right after he kicks the footy, then collides with Maynard - didn't notice how far right he actually went till now so that certainly changes things.

Must say that the pies legal representative Ben Ihle has done a very good job in defending Maynard.
 
Joined
6 Jun 2013
Messages
4,108
Likes
13,630
Just seen the vision of how Brayshaw veers right after he kicks the footy, then collides with Maynard - didn't notice how far right he actually went till now so that certainly changes things.

Must say that the pies legal representative Ben Ihle has done a very good job in defending Maynard.
It's a 15-20 degree change in direction.

Unfortunately for Gus this contributes hugely to the impact point and severity of the impact
 
Joined
15 Mar 2019
Messages
14,557
Likes
56,020
AFL Club
Hawthorn
SO MANY posted (on all social platforms) views that have been now proven to be incorrect

Only question is - how many will own their error
This is as close to social media as I get. I'll own that I said here Maynard should get 3 weeks purely based on previous incidents this year where players have had concussion symptoms (and some where they haven't) from an impact. It looks like they didn't place as much importance on outcome being the key factor this time as they usually do.

I don't have a strong opinion on if it is the right decision that was made, but it possibly does seem a bit inconsistent with other incidents. I didn't see a lot wrong with this incident myself, so I would have cleared him, but I could say the same about many other incidents where a player has copped multiple weeks this year alone, so I did expect he would have been rubbed out on recent history.
 
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
387
Likes
1,795
AFL Club
Richmond
SO MANY posted (on all social platforms) views that have been now proven to be incorrect

Only question is - how many will own their error
I don't think it really matters to be honest. Collingwood get their guy off and focus on the rest of their finals campaign.

I imagine this is what should be at the forefront of all Collingwood supporters minds.
 
Joined
5 Feb 2014
Messages
1,349
Likes
6,793
AFL Club
Carlton
SO MANY posted (on all social platforms) views that have been now proven to be incorrect

Only question is - how many will own their error
Depends what error you are referencing.
People's views/opinion's are not neccecarily correct or incorrect.

If they've said "Maynard will definitely get suspended and not get off at tribunal" then yes, they are incorrect ;).

The AFL will make a decision tomorrow morning around appealing tonight's verdict too, the whispers are they are leaning to not appealing though.
 

Rowsus

Statistician
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
28,994
Likes
64,268
AFL Club
Melbourne
Everyone's opinion is valid, unless it verges on the ridiculous.
I would think a lot of people might agree with most of these points, except maybe the last one ......
I think the Maynard result shows that the AFL definitely treats offences in the finals differently to during the season offences. The punishments this season have appeared to be mainly results driven. "What else could he do .......?" has not been a very successful defense in recent times. If this had happened in Round 3, and Maynard got 3 weeks, a lot of people would be talking differently about it, than they are now.
Jack Martin being downgraded from 2 to 1 match also adds weight to the finals are handled differently approach.
I guess the AFL is just trying to avoid a players availability being decided in the courts, or other similar bodies.
Now for the unpopular opinion. Why is it accepted, that it is ok for Maynard to brace for impact, by tucking his elbow, and rolling his shoulder towards Brayshaw? We have seen more than once, a taller player, particularly Ruckmen, brace for impact from an incoming smaller player. The smaller player has literally run head first into the bracing, near stationary, Ruckman's shoulder, but the Ruckman get's a week or two. Why has no one asked, if Maynard wanted to avoid, or lessen the impact, didn't he roll his left shoulder forward? My mind is, Maynard was happy to collect Brayshaw, but wasn't expecting the outcome that occurred in this case. Brayshaw was actually not presenting any significant impact threat to Maynard. Maynard could have stayed front on, and "bear hugged" Brayshaw. He could have rolled his left side forward instead of his right, to try and avoid or lessen impact to a glancing collision. I think Maynard wanted some impact, but got a lot more than he bargained for. An error in judgement, more than being malicious. I think if he had his time over, he might make a different choice, than what he made this time.
Bottom line is, the AFL has further increased the notion, that results of offences are a lottery, and have no consistency whatsoever.
 
Joined
3 Feb 2021
Messages
2,389
Likes
12,933
AFL Club
Essendon
Depends what error you are referencing.
People's views/opinion's are not neccecarily correct or incorrect.

If they've said "Maynard will definitely get suspended and not get off at tribunal" then yes, they are incorrect ;).

The AFL will make a decision tomorrow morning around appealing tonight's verdict too, the whispers are they are leaning to not appealing though.
They've got an easy out here and that's the factual finding on Brayshaw's movement after Maynard left the ground. No point appealing that. I'll admit I had analysed it in terms of Maynard's conduct and felt it was careless based on the fact that he was running directly at Brayshaw. But if it was shown that at the point he jumped in the air a reasonable player expected to miss Brayshaw, then the element of carelessness is not so certain. Very borderline but I'm willing to concede that the Tribunal has probably got that right.

Having said that, I'm with @Rowsus that there still appears to be an element of AFL stink over this.
 
Joined
8 Mar 2012
Messages
629
Likes
1,559
AFL Club
Collingwood
They've got an easy out here and that's the factual finding on Brayshaw's movement after Maynard left the ground. No point appealing that. I'll admit I had analysed it in terms of Maynard's conduct and felt it was careless based on the fact that he was running directly at Brayshaw. But if it was shown that at the point he jumped in the air a reasonable player expected to miss Brayshaw, then the element of carelessness is not so certain. Very borderline but I'm willing to concede that the Tribunal has probably got that right.

Having said that, I'm with @Rowsus that there still appears to be an element of AFL stink over this.
How do you not run directly at a player when trying to smother?
When front on you run directly at the ball. Unfortunatly from front on the player with the ball will always be behind the ball.

I don't remember this level of coverage for the Mitch Duncan "bump" on Aaron Hall:
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1383685908310880258

MRO said it wasn't unreasonable
 
Joined
8 Jan 2015
Messages
914
Likes
1,654
AFL Club
Sydney
Amateur hour, not one of the afl's finest moment. Pre-conceived positions (including mine) will not change despite a "verdict." And now we are now told the basis of the verdict will be reviewed at season's end.

In a statement released on Wednesday afternoon, the League said while "the Tribunal’s decision was not the outcome the AFL sought when it issued its Match Review findings, the AFL respects the reasoning of the Tribunal Panel".


"The AFL has actively taken action to minimise the incidence of concussion in our game and has continued to make considered decisions to protect the health and safety of our athletes, including by making further rule changes to deter avoidable forceful head high contact in our game as has been done in over 30 instances over the past two decades," the statement read.


Footy boss Laura Kane later added the League is "comfortable and respectful of the Tribunal's decision", saying rules are reviewed at the end of every season as part of regular process.

"This incident was unique," she said. "We will review all rules and regulations, as we do every single year at the end of both of our seasons in AFL and AFLW. I won't comment on one particular rule of the game. I'll reiterate that this situation was unique.


"People are passionate about football, that includes people that work here. It includes people that work at clubs, and it includes the fans. That's all part of it.


"It's a hard decision and a hard situation, because of the incident that occurred. But it's hard for everywhere. Yes, it's a baptism of fire. But it's nothing that's unexpected in our game.


"The debate was a passionate one, and it was a really difficult situation. It's a difficult incident. It's really challenging for everybody involved. But we didn't feel there were grounds to appeal. That's it put, plain and simply. If we did think there were grounds to appeal, we would have."


What a load of BS.
 
Joined
9 Feb 2015
Messages
9,140
Likes
55,915
AFL Club
West Coast
ST KILDA captain Jack Steele will undergo surgery next week to deal with an ankle issue he carried across the second half of 2023, while Max King is booked in for his third shoulder operation in less than 12 months following last Saturday's elimination final loss to Greater Western Sydney.

Steele is one of eight players at Moorabbin that require surgery ahead of the start of the pre-season, with the two-time All-Australian finishing his season with a brilliant 38-disposal performance against the Giants at the MCG.

The 27-year-old missed a month early in the season due to a broken collarbone but struggled with an ankle issue in the middle of winter which prevented him from reaching the form that saw him win consecutive Trevor Barker Awards in 2020 and 2021.

Explains his poor form 2nd half of the season
 
Joined
13 Jun 2022
Messages
4,874
Likes
16,061
AFL Club
St Kilda
ST KILDA captain Jack Steele will undergo surgery next week to deal with an ankle issue he carried across the second half of 2023, while Max King is booked in for his third shoulder operation in less than 12 months following last Saturday's elimination final loss to Greater Western Sydney.

Steele is one of eight players at Moorabbin that require surgery ahead of the start of the pre-season, with the two-time All-Australian finishing his season with a brilliant 38-disposal performance against the Giants at the MCG.

The 27-year-old missed a month early in the season due to a broken collarbone but struggled with an ankle issue in the middle of winter which prevented him from reaching the form that saw him win consecutive Trevor Barker Awards in 2020 and 2021.

Explains his poor form 2nd half of the season
Don't think I can pick him again based on that, the fact that he'd rather play with an injury like that, and or be allowed to play through, instead of just taking some time off and getting it fixed. It's not the first time either, not getting the most out of your SC player doesn't translate to their best scoring.
 
Joined
9 Aug 2012
Messages
39,437
Likes
148,209
AFL Club
Carlton
MELBOURNE forward Kysaiah Pickett has been offered a one-match ban for his high bump on Carlton captain Patrick Cripps during the Demons' semi-final loss.

Pickett caught Cripps high with a bump during the second quarter of the Blues' thrilling two-point win at the MCG on Friday night.

The Match Review Officer graded the incident as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact, resulting in the one-match suspension.








00:47
21 hrs
Pickett in hot water after ferocious bump on Cripps
Kysaiah Pickett may find himself under MRO scrutiny after collecting Patrick Cripps high in this action
Pickett was also fined $2,500, reduced to $1,500 with an early plea, for striking Carlton defender Mitch McGovern in the opening term.

He was one of three Demons cited following the semi-final.


Tom Sparrow can accept a $1,000 fine with an early plea for misconduct after slinging Sam Walsh into the fence in the last term.








00:36
20 hrs
Tense moments as Dee slings star Blue into fence
Tom Sparrow may find himself in hot water after this action causes Sam Walsh to hit his head on the fence
Jack Viney is facing a $3,000 fine with an early plea for rough conduct against Lachie Fogarty.

There were no MRO worries for the Blues, who will travel to Brisbane to face the Lions in a preliminary final next week.

 
Joined
28 Feb 2015
Messages
1,754
Likes
6,754
AFL Club
St Kilda
Don't think I can pick him again based on that, the fact that he'd rather play with an injury like that, and or be allowed to play through, instead of just taking some time off and getting it fixed. It's not the first time either, not getting the most out of your SC player doesn't translate to their best scoring.
SC aside, it really is a false economy for teams to play underdone players!
While he had a good final can’t help but wonder how many games he played where he was undersone and didn’t really contribute in a meaningful way. Playing Bytel, if he was fit, Byrnes or someone else for a month would help the club overall more than playing Steele. As for it being the saints I hope this not an ongoing Ross Lyon thing, playing his favourites ahead of others leaving a gapping hole in the list down the track, something we have already lived through with Ross!
 
Top