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.
Ray Williams
Roar Rookie
Not according to the Tribunal!
Chris
Roar Rookie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7H6ooZ44Kw The Princess Park Brawl-They all got let off on an umpiring technicality. Why? Because the Blue baggers stood to lose more players than we did.
Chris
Roar Rookie
What I am inferring is this: Get rid of the grey areas and create a fair and equitable tribunal system that will ensure both player safety and a better sporting spectacle. Carlton and Richmond have done very well over the last fifty to sixty years and they shouldn’t be preaching to anyone! Do you want me to enumerate their player indiscretions? Let’s just leave sleeping dogs lie. Our friends from the other leagues and expansion clubs are probably not cognizant of what I am saying, but fellow Victorians would know all too well what I mean.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
I reckon Tuddy should have been suspended for ironing out McKenna in the 1970 GF.
Macca
Roar Rookie
“They are a football club, not a top tier law firm,”They employed at top tier firm though didn’t they – Maynard wasn’t representing himself. “Why the AFL didn’t bring in a biomechanist to support their side of the argument is a clear strategic blunder by them.”Agreed and points to them not really wanting to win. Not ignoring the biomechanis, just saying his evidence is after the critical point
Ed Flanders
Roar Rookie
1. While it is true that every defence attorney can find an expert to agree with them, it also takes weeks to do. I find it unlikely that Collingwood had the time or the resource to carefully scour the opinions of all biomechanists in Australia/NZ to carefully screen for one who would say something favourable. Come on, Macca. They are a football club, not a top tier law firm, insurance giant or bank with untold access to resource to do this. 2. And as it is true for a defence attorney, it is also true for the prosecution. Why the AFL didn't bring in a biomechanist to support their side of the argument is a clear strategic blunder by them. The AFL would have had at least 36 hours notice that Collingwood were bringing in an expert. They could have responded in kind. 3. I'm not missing the point at all. The biomechanists testimony was explicity referred to in the tribunal findings. You are just choosing to ignore it. I don't actually think you are wrong about the decision, it's just your reasoning and conspiracy peddling is just getting old. The AFL botched it. They can't appeal. Move on.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
We’re very lucky to still be in it. Didn’t know Gawn had a broken toe. Good to know. Thanks :stoked:
ColinT
Roar Rookie
Not a according to the laws of physics he didn’t, as explained by Professor Michael Cole to the tribunal. I am sorry that our education system has failed so many of our commentators so dismally.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Go blues can’t believe your mob are underdogs, Gawn with broken toe :silly:
Stan_McCan
Roar Rookie
Of course Bretto. I agree. Only Collingwood would have appealed this... Right?
Stan_McCan
Roar Rookie
Yep. Makes sense. Always against the Adelaide teams. Always for the Vic teams... especially Collingwood haha
Macca
Roar Rookie
Come on Ed - every defence attorney can find an expert on any topic to support whatever theory. But again, you are missing the point, by the time the biomechanist's opinion is relevant the horse has bolted - the crticial point was the decision to jump
Stan_McCan
Roar Rookie
Good post. Agree with all this
Ed Flanders
Roar Rookie
I’ve never seen the AFL appeal a Tribunal decision, but if they were ever going to have crack…this is the case. They appealed Toby Greene’s walking into the umpire punishment as manifestly inadequate. They also appealed the Bachar Houli suspension as manifestly inadequate. They will find it hard to appeal this decision. The panel based it on expert testimony from the biomechanist. You can’t challenge it by bringing in another expert to refute…the time for that was the Tribunal. You can’t do it in an appeal. They’ve lost this. It was a poorly argued case by the AFL. They’ll have to change the rules in the off-season.
Ed Flanders
Roar Rookie
You have literally just said you don't want Collingwood players to be on the receiving end of "poor justice" and demanded that no Collingwood player be reported or suspended during finals. You have accused the panel of inconsistency to Collingwood players. Remarkable. You aren't even paying attention to what you are writing.
Ed Flanders
Roar Rookie
A biomechanist paid by the Magpies came up with an argument the Magpies wanted to hear – whoop de do. So now you are attacking the integrity of the biomechanist, and someone Collingwood, whom would have no trained biomechanists in their ranks, have trained the expert witness with the precise wording necessary. It's good stuff, Macca.
Macca
Roar Rookie
A biomechanist paid by the Magpies came up with an argument the MAgpies wanted to hear - whoop de do. And the Biomechanist claimed he couldn't alter his trajectory once he jumped - the point is that he jumped at all, once he decided to jump he decided to hit Brayshaw.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
Maynard and Brayshaw are close friends from junior footy days. The suggestion that he deliberately set out to hurt Brayshaw is despicable and not supported by the facts. Thank goodness for science. The laws of physics as explained in the scientific evidence at the tribunal has totally discredited the emotive and biased opinions of so many Collingwood hating commentators.
Ed Flanders
Roar Rookie
Ok great. So, tell me why then the biomechanists testimony should be discarded? What credentials do you possess to say that was wrong? And most importantly, share with me your argument that would convince an appeal panel that the testimony was wrong. And that's why an appeal would fail. The decision was based on expert testimony that cannot be challenged in an appeal. You may think that testimony is wrong. I think it's wrong. But it's think only. I'm not a biomechanist. I have no qualifications in that space. And an appeal can't challenge the testimony. It's over.
Jimmy
Roar Rookie
I reckon the brave commenters at Roar need to have a look at the rest of the AFL blogosphere just to see how far off the reservation some of these takes are. Some regular Roar posters are the Trump supporters of the AFL.