Brayden Maynard got his man, and lived to tell the tale.
The Maynard-Angus Brayshaw incident has been well-documented, and became one of the biggest tribunal hearings this century.
We all know what happened: Brayshaw is running towards the Melbourne 50m line and kicks the ball, Maynard is charging at him from the other direction, jumps up to smother, turns his shoulder upon landing, and knocks Brayshaw out.
Plenty of different reactions have dominated the media over the last five or six days. Most of it was along the lines of Maynard not having any choice once he had committed to the smother, up against the idea that the head is supposed to be sacrosanct, and the fact was Maynard left the ground, and bumped an opponent that was left concussed.
Very few people actually understood the heart of the matter.
Any person taking the line of “what else was Maynard supposed to do?” is either a borderline simpleton, running an agenda, or perhaps just lacks nuance and understanding of how a player like Maynard goes about his business.
No one in football can remember an incident like this, where a player jumping to smother has landed in such a way that it concussed the opponent that is kicking. Funny that, isn’t it?
Maynard is a player that likes to play on the edge. Some would call him a faux-tough guy for some of his in-your-face antics, but he is a hard player – he attacks the ball and man with courage and intensity, prepared to use his body as a battering ram and take the hits that come his way.
But remember, it was only last year he was suspended for two matches for striking.
He is happy to cross the line.
But players that play on the edge – others like Patrick Dangerfield and Toby Greene also come to mind – always have a mindset of making an opponent “earn it” when they can. And we’re not talking like it was yesteryear, with Tony Lockett or Gary Ablett Sr crushing the occasional opponent with a forearm, fist or elbow. We’re talking about using aggression in the contest to get away with just a little bit more.
We’ve seen Dangerfield be suspended in his career for both dangerous tackles and bumps, and it’s still laughable three years later that he avoided a 4-6 week suspension for his forearm to the jaw of Nick Vlastuin in the 2020 Grand Final, knocking him out cold.
Toby Greene has also made a career of several ungainly “accidents”, protested his innocence each time, yet still been found guilty on many occasions.
Isn’t it just amazing how many times these type of players are involved in “accidents”? Knock me over with a feather when Dangerfield and Greene both spoke publicly this week about how Maynard should get off under “what else was he supposed to do, nothing to see here”.
Make no mistake about it, Brayden Maynard was happy to cause a collision after attempting the smother last Thursday. Of course he was. He wanted to put a bit of hurt on a Melbourne opponent, because this was the opening minutes of a final, and a statement was going to be made.
Angus Brayshaw was knocked unconscious in a collision with Brayden Maynard. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Some posed that if it was Scott Pendlebury coming the other way, he would have found a way to avoid dropping his shoulder into the chin, knocking him out. Of course he would have! Same if it had been his mother or grandmother coming the other way. So, yeah, he wanted the collision.
Also ask yourself about why the Dangerfields, Greenes and Maynards of the world end up in these situations?
Why hasn’t Pendlebury ever “accidentally” concussed someone in a smother attempt across 381 games? Why hasn’t he ever “accidentally” knocked someone out with his attack on the ball and man? Why didn’t Marc Murphy in his career? Gary Ablett Jr?
Looking at a more inside bull, it’s funny how Christian Petracca has also never had any of these accidents.
Nope. Maynard wanted to hit. Maynard wanted to hurt. And most of all, he wanted to do it in a way that could be disguised as a football action. He performed it so brilliantly, he is free to play in the preliminary final next week, and could be wearing a premiership medal around his neck on September 30.
Whether football actions should lead to a suspension or what path the AFL must take on concussion, are complex issues in a 360 degree game that has an element of danger at its core. But don’t let that cloud this particular issue – Brayden Maynard knew what he was doing and got away with it.
sunnycoasttiger
Roar Rookie
And you have zero proof that it wasn't an intentional act. Hang on, you actually believe you know what Maynard was thinking!
ColinT
Roar Rookie
The issue is: was the shoulder movement an unconscious reaction or a conscious decision. The science says that in the given time it was unconscious. Unconscious competence has been well studied and is indisputable.
Tezza knows
Roar Rookie
Maynard could not change direction. That was the unequivocal finding of the bio mechanist, so your assertion is just that. So, you are wrong
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
I just have an image of Maynard suspend in mid air, defying gravity.
Bretto
Roar Rookie
I'd say attributing malicious intent to a player with zero proof for the sake of getting clicks is immature. I'd say it's disgusting.
BillyW
Roar Rookie
Thank godness we have such a footy Doyen as yourself to explain to the "simpleton's " and vast majority of people who have no idea the "heart of" matters such as these. Wow.......
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
My name is not Eddie, it is Mr Right. To be honest Barb, I was quite frankly disturbed that Eddie was not more humble when the decision has handed down. Eddie is a spanker; we all know that. But that cannot be the basis of how players are judged when they face the tribunal.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Class actions are here to stay. What l don’t understand & this may seem absurd but Chris Grant in 2002 had a congenital neck injury & an insurance wrangle over his remaining playing career. I wonder if players that are prone to regular concussion’s will fall into a similar situation. The AFL will prefer to protect future claims by meeting certain standards that in part from the outside protect a player welfare but also in all honesty protect the back pocket. The game is bigger than the individual & the AFL will concoct all sorts of messages & hidden agendas to prove that point.
Barb Dwyer
Roar Rookie
He launched himself at another player, under the guise of a smother. If it was a Gold Coast player in round 12 , he would have got 3-4 weeks - Maynard's behaviour was clearly reckless. I like Collingwood but find Maguire insufferable and he keeps lowering the standard for Collingwood (Eddie: you're opinion is no more important or interesting than anyone else's)
Barb Dwyer
Roar Rookie
If it was a Gold Coast player in Round 11, he'd get 3-4 weeks. But not Collingwood in the finals. We accept accidents but this was a player clearly avoiding his duty of care. Life is fraught with danger but that would mean Barry Hall should have no consequences for his assault on Darren Glass, as he knew what he had signed on for. The class actions will continue for the AFL and they are to blame.
Razzar
Roar Rookie
Yes I remember that. The brawl went Soo long, the pubs were closed by the time they got to them.
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Barb the circumstance was unfortunate but under current rules it was deemed not guilty. Life is fraught with danger no different to rule interpretation’s or as you have alluded to lack of :cricket:
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Barb, mind reading means you don’t require evidence. In what way did he misbehave? Diving to smother the ball? Are you a Demons fan or a Pies hater?
Jimmy Woods
Roar Rookie
John Greening was #22 I recall from old photos. In a coma for a week. Was in papers last 10 years lamenting the thuggery of his time and how much he appreciated the skills of today. Returned v Richmond the next year, kicked five goals and retired up north. Before his time and bashed out of the game. No way is this Maynard thing anything like that and the carry on is just so ridiculous. Maynard plays hard but is not dirty. Anyone who has played footy and has watched footy should know the difference. We celebrate the greats of our game and guess what, quite a few of them were thugs. It’s a much better game without the dog acts but to even remotely put this incident in that context is moronic, imo.
Chris
Roar Rookie
That was another incident! O´Dea´s hit on Greening at Moorabbin was even worse!
Macca
Roar Rookie
You levelled the same allegation at me just yesterday
Dusty does Danger
Roar Rookie
Of course it was, you could see from your lounge room and like the camera were in a better position than the goal umpire who only had a view from directly under the post. :shocked:
Rocky Island
Roar Rookie
Myself and a few mates reckon Brayshaw had the opportunity to side step or blind turn. A lack of spacial awareness on his part. Maybe his helmet interferes with his vision. Just throwing that out there.
Jimmy Woods
Roar Rookie
Still angry about it nonetheless????
sunnycoasttiger
Roar Rookie
A Mensa nominee would never reveal they are a Mensa nominee! Who are you kidding?