It always shocks me whenever anybody tries to use precedent as a defence in the AFL.
If the league has proven anything in the last few years, it’s that they have no template for any facet of the game. The biggest example, in this regard, is the Tribunal.
How many sling tackles have been penalised and how many have been overlooked? How many bumps have been pinged and how many have been cleared? Sure, there will always be some rationale behind why incidents are different, but to us punters watching, that explanation treads a line between justification and fictionalisation so fine that it’s anorexic.
You just have to watch the way Jack Ginnivan was umpired last year to know that it’s not one rule for all. Charlie Curnow is the recipient of some free kicks that other key forwards just don’t get. Obviously, Charlie is a terror, and umpires may be hypersensitive to defenders engaging in illegal contact – but as a Collingwood supporter, I’ve had to watch Mason Cox be zealously blocked, grabbed, had his arms held down, and scragged for five years, for very, very, very little reward.
We know players are treated differently, even though they shouldn’t be. Every football fan has an example of their team suffering inexplicable inconsistencies that the AFL will constantly ameliorate.
Naturally, we don’t challenge it, the media rarely question it, and we all just move on, because we know that not only can you not fight city hall, but they’re a bunch of condescending aristocrats who don’t care what we, the minions, think.
The Brayden Maynard collision with Angus Brayshaw should be a benchmark case in footballing administration. Aside from Simon Goodwin, Garry Lyon and Melbourne supporters, most accept that Maynard genuinely attempted to smother, then only turned and braced himself for impact to protect himself, rather than:
a) plummet face first into Brayshaw, or
b) change the laws of physics by defying gravity and floating over Brayshaw.
This is the thing I hate about football, and particularly the AFL’s specialisation in reactions that are so constantly knee-jerk that they’ve become nervous tics: we just don’t accept that sometimes, just sometimes, players are going to get hurt and there’ll be no malice, premeditation, or irresponsibility behind it.
I’m sorry Brayshaw got knocked out and missed the bulk of the game, and will miss the Demons’ semi-final. I’m sorry for the players who have gotten injured, or suffer from concussion, or who’ve been forced to retire from the game, or who played years ago and are now suffering from severe complications after a career’s worth of head knocks.
Jack Viney and Brayden Maynard fight. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
It’s great that we’ve become more aware of the dangers of concussion and are trying to protect the players of today to the best of our ability by either outlawing, or at the very worst, minimising risks that we have some control over.
But that doesn’t change the fact that we have athletes in excess of 80 kilograms barreling in at brutal speeds and making split-second decisions; occasionally, they will run into one another and unwittingly cause damage.
Like most, I played footy when I was young, and as a teenager broke my right arm in a social game – I suffered nerve damage to half my right hand. That took a year to recover from. If I was playing professionally, I would’ve missed over twelve months of football given there was nothing they could do with the nerve other than wait to see if it would heal.
I never look back on that incident with bitterness or regret or resentment. I chose to play, and while we spuriously believe we’re all invulnerable, once we run out to play, we sign an unspoken waiver with our bodies that getting hurt might just happen.
Anybody playing football knows the risks once they run out there. It’s not like the landscape changes spontaneously around them (as much as the AFL tweak interpretations from game to game).
Players pursuing careers as footballers know they have to train regularly, that they have to watch their diet, that they’ll live under the media microscope, and that they run out and play a game where they might get hurt, and sometimes seriously. Like Hyman Roth says in The Godfather Part II, “This is the business we’ve chosen”.
Most would have dealt with injury at some point in their footballing lives – it doesn’t even have to be at AFL level. They know that standing under a ball waiting for a mark involves the potential for an opponent to bullock into them; that they might be tackled and hit the ground awkwardly; that at some point, in contesting the ball, an opponent might collide with them and inadvertently hurt them.
This year there has been paranoia about football actions that have resulted in damage – especially concussion. We’ve tried to change the physics of the game. As far as tackles go, players can no longer sling an opponent.
Okay, sure, we can try to change the way tackles occur, just like we changed the rules around a player deciding to bump. But we also need to accept that a player can do everything right, that he/she can play entirely within the rules, and still might hurt an opponent; while it’s unfortunate, it’s also entirely accidental.
If we start mandating that genuine football actions will be illegal the moment they cause damage, it won’t be long before players start questioning all football actions and begin choosing not to contest. Then we may as well eliminate physical contact altogether.
There are no precedents for the Maynard case, as much as people try to draw comparisons. But there’s one thing I’m certain about: this will in no way become the standard-bearer as it should be for the way AFL contextualise collisions.
They will remain wonderfully and inexplicably inconsistent, and players and clubs will just have to continue to ride the roulette wheel of justice.
Take the chance.
And accept you never know what you’re going to get.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
It’s the right call Chanon
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Peter, Common sense prevailed, Maynard is free to play :thumbup:
Gilberto
Roar Rookie
2 minutes into the preliminary sam Powell pepper should attempt a smother make no contact with the ball and then polax daicos.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
by the way Les ,if you want the prime example of a player being blocked,held illegally by the jumper and the arm, illegally tackled and paid very few frees for the illegal attention, watch virtually the whole non-Carlton career of Josh Kennedy, a 700 goal champion, who played for a side you might not know a whole lot about. The 2018 Grand Final has a few glaring examples, if you dare watch it again...
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
Yes accidents can happen but players have a responsibility to one another. He elected to jump and he turned his body mid air both of which exacerbated the contact when he had little hope of affecting the contact. If they afl is serious they’ll rub him out for 2-3 weeks
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
That’s a truly awful story Macca. Very sorry to hear it. In regards to Maynard, I guess we will all know soon enough.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
True he looks to be in a spot of bother trying to worm his way out of this situation. His season looks over. Trying to over turn 3 into 1 at best.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
Having watched this several times, I now agree. IT WAS A FOOTBALL ACT. But like a bump, a fend,a high mark or a tackle, if you don’t do it right, there’s a sanction. If it’s careless,tick, high contact,tick, high impact,tick the consequence is a tribunal appearance. Never seen a smother attempt end up there before. Will the tribunal set an example? They can’t give a fine or a week, so he has to be exonerated or given three, on the criteria they’ve previously used. Remarks about Naitanui aren’t germane because Amon was trying to get away and Brayshaw’s motion was more or less up and down in the same place.
Macca
Roar Rookie
And if the judgement is off you cop a penalty, final or no.
Macca
Roar Rookie
PEter - you continue to ignore the fact players are already being rubbed out for despreate defenisve acts that lead to injury. "There’s close up vision Macca where his hand comes out."how far, was it a reflex or was it intentional, was it before or after the shoulder hit, does it really make a difference after he had turned to point his shoulder at him? I know a young bloke who was coming home from a weekend in Melbourne, travelling down a quiet country road heading west into the Sun can over a hill a hit and killed a cyclist - that young kid did 3 years because while it was an accident and he didn't intend to hurt anyone and he wasn't speeding or under the influence but he didn't exervise reasonable care in the circumstances.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
As a player in a final sometime’s our judgement can be off at times. He’s been graded as a three week suspension let’s see what transpires.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
There’s close up vision Macca where his hand comes out. I thing the game is in trouble if he is ruled out for a desperate defensive act with no intent apart from putting doubt in Brayshaw that he would smother his shot.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Its not a heinous crime to jump at a player to spoil the ball - yet Plowman copped 2 weeks becuase O'Meara got concussed. A similar thing can be said for the Acres incident against the Giants and he got a week. You could argue Martin's intention was to tackle Blakey and he accidentally hit him high. His intention may not have been to hurt (although all the talk for the last few year of Maynard playing on the edge paints a different picture) but his actions were always going to result in Brayshaw getting hurt - you can launch yourself at a player like he did and not anticipate that you would hit him while he is wide open. The players have a duty of care to act in a reasonable fashion to reduce the chance of injury as much as possible - launching yourself at a player in the manner Maynard did is not acting in a reasonable fashion, he had a 10% chance of impacting the ball and 100% chance of impacting the player.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
It’s only been graded careless cause Brayshaw was concussed in the incident. It’s not a heinous crime to jump at player about to kick the ball as a tonic to smother or negate his F50 kick. In a final’s desperate acts are seen as those 1percent incidents that can help a team win the game. His intentions was never to hurt him it was accident in a high pressured environment. Contact sports occasionally have incidence of this nature. He should get off.
junk
Roar Rookie
It’s not a bump, Very funny. You need to say with it a Peter Sellers French accent. e.g. It's not a boomp. Tell Angus that it wasn't a "boomp" to the head that whacked him into next week.
Macca
Roar Rookie
That is why his actions aren't being graded as intentional, but instead careless.
Snert Underpant
Roar Rookie
If you are running head on at a player and launch yourself into the air you would know a collision is inevitable. If the result is hitting a player in the head and knocking him out for 2 minutes which will likely end his season and maybe his career, he has to get games. Accidental contact or not, the head is now sacrosanct and the AFL will want to reinforce that stance. Anyone who doesn’t get that is dreaming…
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
Who do you barrack for again Les? Very illuminating given the severity of the action and the divided split amongst this forum and "fans" that Michael Christian wasn't even going to refer it to the senior authority. Joke (that's not funny). They talk a big game about protecting the head this mob. AFL will take it seriously when the lawsuits come in. The non suspension of Mitch Duncan for running thru a guys head with his hip was pretty ordinary. Dont shirtfont, jump off the ground into the player or use your elbows, go for the ball and the game can still be tough (dirty isn't tough btw) and the game can still have vigour and integrity
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
I love your articles Les, they're always good for a chuckle. The first half of the article is the usual blinkered dross (poor Collingwood are hard done by with the umpires!), but it pains me to write that I can't help but agree with the second half.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
1) you're right. AFL players should never jump...worst mental gymnastics ever...