- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Brayden Maynard is free to play in Collingwood’s preliminary final, after the AFL Tribunal ruled the Magpies defender had no case to answer for his controversial collision with Melbourne’s Angus Brayshaw.
Maynard had been sent to the Tribunal after the AFL, and new football operations boss Laura Kane, overruled Match Review Officer Michael Christian, who believed the Magpie had not constituted a suspendable offence in the incident, which left Brayshaw concussed.
After a more than three-hour hearing on Tuesday night, the Tribunal supported Collingwood’s argument that Maynard’s action was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
Maynard had been facing a ban of up to three weeks for the incident had it been graded as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact, which it likely would have in the event of a guilty verdict.
This would have ruled him out of both the preliminary final and a grand final should the Magpies have qualified.
“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,” Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson said of the verdict.
“We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position.
“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.
“The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.
“It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence. We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.”
Representing the Magpies at the hearing, legal counsel Ben Ihle argued Brayshaw’s movement into Maynard’s path a split-second before their collision is what caused the incident, rather than any undue action from Maynard, and said the concussion was ‘one of those unfortunate incidents that happen in a high intensity, high velocity sport’.
“It’s important to acknowledge Mr Maynard followed the ball and was surprised to see Brayshaw in the position he was in,” Ihle said.
“The question is not what could the player have done differently, but what should the player have done differently… this collision was one of those unfortunate incidents that happen in a high intensity, high velocity sport.
“This was unfortunate, this was an accident, but this was not unreasonable conduct on Mr Maynard’s behalf.”
Supporting Maynard’s case was evidence from biomechanist Professor Michael Cole, who said ‘once airborne, Mr Maynard had no opportunity to avoid the collision’, while also claiming the Magpie almost certainly had no time to contort his body to avoid colliding with Brayshaw.
“Based on the numbers and based on the research, it’s difficult to conclusively say Mr Maynard would have been able to make any conscious decision to reposition his body,” Professor Cole said when questioned.
“It’s [Maynard bracing to present his shoulder to Brayshaw] more an innate reflexive response.”
AFL representative Andrew Woods had earlier argued that Maynard’s actions were unsafe under the circumstances, calling for players to avoid action that ‘holds a key risk of badly injuring their opponent’.
“Leaping forward in the air with force to an opponent running in the opposite direction holds a key risk of badly injuring their opponent,” Woods said.
“It’s a dangerous action to undertake and it breaches the duty of care owed to the other player.”
“A player in this situation who wants to smother, it might just be too unsafe to do so, because of the forward trajectory.
“Other options that were available were he could have made a more upright jump… that’s an obvious example where you could lessen impact.
“Had his hands come down and braced, it would have logically cushioned the blow.”
Maynard had previously been questioned over his actions during the collision, with the Magpie arguing his bracing for contact, which saw Brayshaw’s head make contact with his shoulder, was ‘a flinch reaction’.
“I think, with all due respect, the same outcome would have happened [if he had outstretched his arms to lessen the impact of the collision, rather than turning his body],” Maynard said.
“It was a collision. It happened very quickly… I didn’t see him coming down my line. I saw him to the right of me.”
The Tribunal will next deliberate the appeal from Carlton regarding a two-match suspension for forward Jack Martin, for a blow to the head of Sydney’s Nick Blakey during Friday night’s elimination final.
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.