TOM MORRIS: Inside the AFL's call to overrule MRO on Maynard - and how Tribunal verdict will shape the game

It’s a myth Match Review Officer Michael Christian is independent.

He works for the AFL, serving the needs of the game on a weekly basis in one of the most difficult roles in football.

In his job, broad consensus is a waste of time. All he can do is make judgements based on the matrix he is obliged to operate under.

It’s hard to know the exact ratio, but based on the events of the past week, it seems most football fans do not understand the matrix. That’s OK, it’s pretty dry stuff – but incredibly important, nonetheless.

The same supporters who jeer MRO decisions for being too ‘outcome-based’ are now, in many instances, barracking for a hefty Brayden Maynard suspension for his collision with Angus Brayshaw, because ‘you can’t just knock a bloke out.’

It wouldn’t be football if fans weren’t hypocritically admonishing aspects of the game they adore. It’s in our DNA to criticise.

Let’s leave whether Maynard should be suspended or not to one side for the moment and walk back through the events of Thursday night.

Maynard, a fierce competitor boasting a self-proclaimed dose of white line fever, attacked Brayshaw front on. His attempted smother quickly became a failed smother, which evolved (mid-air) into a brace.

Did he elect to bump? Not in the traditional sense. Did he elect to brace? Of course, albeit in the blink of an eye and while floating a metre off the ground.

But he also elected to jump off the ground. While attempting to smother. Yes, it is complex.

Was he entitled to brace to protect himself at the expense of his one-time Hampton Rovers teammate Brayshaw? That’s a question for the Tribunal to consider on Tuesday night.

Brayshaw was concussed, stretchered off, out for the rest of the match, all of the next one, and potentially longer.

Christian was at the game. He saw the incident live, then on the scoreboard. He woke up the next morning and, as is always the case, was sent an array of possible offences by his staffers at AFL HQ.

His verdict was to clear Maynard and, according to a well-placed AFL source, Christian was unequivocal in his belief the Magpie had no reasonable alternative in the circumstances.

But remember: Christian works for the AFL. While many of his MRO outcomes are unilaterally determined, the occasional verdict is a joint effort.

His decision-making over six years has evolved with the growing demand to protect the heads of vulnerable players, closely intertwined with lawsuits related to allegations of historical brain trauma mismanagement.

It was in 2015 Bryce Gibbs drove Robbie Gray into the turf and received a two-week ban.

Gibbs’ tackle was a legal one according to the umpire, but would now be looked upon as an obvious chargeable offence, probably resulting in four weeks rather than two. Back then, there was an outcry of condemnation for the Match Review Panel, which predated Christian.

Three years later, Nic Naitanui drove Karl Amon into the Optus Stadium turf; although the tackle wasn’t high, it failed the ‘duty of care’ test and incurred a one-week suspension.

“Never before has a game which accepts players of all shapes and sizes asked its big players to go easy on its small players,” Naitanui said at the Tribunal. His argument fell on deaf ears.

This year, the AFL has taken it up a notch again. Now, players don’t need to be concussed or even rattled for suspensions to be doled out for dangerous tackles.

The ‘potential to cause serious injury’ clause is so wide-ranging and sweeping, it exists the moment you get into your car in the morning. Anything can cause serious injury. Therefore, the AFL can punish anything it deems remotely, potentially, possibly dangerous.

Jaeger O’Meara’s tackle on Charlie Spargo in May saw the Docker given a one-week holiday, even though Spargo got up, took his kick and played on as if nothing had happened.

A week earlier, Tom Jonas’ tackle on Tom McDonald earned Port’s skipper a free kick for holding the ball, but he was still banned for the following game for a dangerous tackle.

James Sicily’s tackle on Hugh McCluggage was a significant moment in the season. The Hawthorn captain pinned one arm, leaving his Lions opponent in a vulnerable position.

Despite a lengthy appeal, the three-week suspension was upheld.

The message from the AFL was clear: tackle with care and do not pin one arm while taking a player to ground.

The teething problems were painful; but, inevitably, players adjusted. They learned they couldn’t ride opponents face-first into the grass anymore, and across the past few months there has barely been a suspension for an unruly tackle.

While players have improved in this area, holding a tackle in a safe manner is entirely different to re-adjusting your position mid-air in a split-second, as the AFL will contend Maynard should have done on Thursday night.

How much should we really ask of players? At what point does the ‘protect the head’ mantra become all-consuming and, frankly, ridiculous and unmanageable?

This is for the Tribunal to decide on Tuesday night. And the way the game is played will be shaped whatever verdict is reached.

What’s clear is new footy boss Laura Kane and incoming CEO Andrew Dillon are aligned on their responsibilities to protect defenceless players such as Brayshaw, McCluggage, Spargo and McDonald.

There is precedent for the AFL sending an ungraded incident to the Tribunal ungraded – Steve Hocking’s decision to send the below collision between Adelaide’s David Mackay and St Kilda’s Hunter Clark in 2021 despite no MRO sanction, for which Mackay was cleared of all charges.

But the league was adamant last Friday Christian’s name should be alongside Kane’s in the media release.

When the AFL website published the findings, Kane’s name was nowhere to be seen. A quick phone call or two behind the scenes rectified things within a few minutes. But the sentiment was obvious: the prosperity of the game rests largely on liability and safety.

Traditionalists will scoff at this. They will say the sport is losing its lustre.

Really? They must not be watching the same game I am. It’s brutal, uncompromising, and as fast as ever.

So that’s how Maynard’s case got to the Tribunal: via Kane, despite Christian’s personal view.

For highly contentious incidents, the AFL is within its rights to step in. It’s their game and they control the charter.

The question now is: where to from here?

Maynard, via his bevvy of lawyers, will surely argue he had no time to change position and the clash with Brayshaw, while unfortunate, was entirely out of his control.

It’s a similar argument to Naitanui in 2018 and Sicily a few months ago.

Brayden Maynard and Jack Viney fight. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

The AFL’s legal team will dispute this. They don’t need to prove Maynard intentionally did what he did, only that he should have shown more care in the circumstances.

This lower threshold has seen dozens of players suspended over the past two years for incidents which never would have garnered any attention a decade ago.

Was Maynard entitled to charge at Brayshaw, then jump into his head, regardless of his smother attempt? And did Maynard exercise enough caution to minimise the possibility of significant head trauma to Brayshaw? Make up your own mind.

All we know for certain is that this case is a landmark moment in our game.

We know if players elect to bump or tackle and collect their opponent high, they are in trouble. But if Maynard is found guilty and handed an early summer vacation, it will then be reasonable to presume a smother attempts must also be conducted with a degree of care moving forward.

Aside from the fabric of the sport, what is riding on this? Oh, just the opportunity for Maynard to play in a premiership, a prize he may never have a better chance of attaining.

The stakes are lofty. Emotions are heightened. The discourse is fierce. As far as Tribunal cases go, this is as box office as it gets.

Here’s how I think it will play out.

Firstly, Maynard is cleared at the Tribunal. And then, the AFL re-adjusts its legislation in the off-season to outlaw against his specific action.