AFL proposes 'Maynard rule' amid careless contact crackdown: 'We were not content with the outcome'

By News / Wire

The Brayden Maynard tribunal case that sparked a firestorm of commentary and fallout has prompted the AFL to tighten its tribunal rules around smothers.

It’s the lead item on a raft of proposed rule changes and amendments sent to clubs on Thursday, ahead of the February AFL Commission meeting.

Maynard was referred to the tribunal after the Collingwood defender jumped off the ground to smother a kick from Melbourne onballer Angus Brayshaw in the first term of their qualifying final in September.

Brayshaw was concussed in the incident, ultimately ending his season.

After a marathon four-hour hearing, the Magpie defender was cleared and went on to play in their grand final win over Brisbane.

AFL football boss Laura Kane made it clear in September that the league was uneasy about the case and would review the relevant rule governing smothers of kicks or handballs in the tribunal guidelines.

“As I said at the time, it was borne out of us not being comfortable with that situation,” she said.

“Equally, we were not content with the outcome … not content with what question the tribunal had to determine or grapple with.”

AFL legal counsel Stephen Meade added: “We’re not comfortable that ultimately that conduct and that outcome has that result, in terms of there being effectively no disciplinary penalty there for the player.”

The proposed rule change effectively means that when a player leaves the ground to execute a smother, they must show a greater duty of care to the opponent.

Kane and Meade again noted at Thursday’s media briefing on the proposed rule changes that the Maynard case was unique.

“Where a player elects to leave the ground in an attempt to smother, and gets the opponent high, so long as at least the impact is low … that will be deemed to be careless,” Meade said.

“Then it will be careless unless a player can demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to avoid the contact or to minimise the force of the contest.”

Another important proposal for the tribunal guidelines is to tighten up on run-down tackles, where a player catches an opponent from behind with so much momentum that “the tackling player significantly increased the force with which the tackled player was driven to ground”.

The AFL also wants to cut down on tribunal hearings, with this year’s crackdown on dangerous tackles meaning a dramatic increase in direct referrals to the tribunal.

There were 11 charges rated as severe this season, meaning a direct referral – last year there was one.

The league wants to give a charged player the option to accept the penalty in these cases, provided the AFL only wants the minimum suspension.

That option would only be at the AFL’s discretion.

Thursday’s memo features more than 20 proposals for the tribunal guidelines and AFL regulations, with clubs also asked for feedback on when they name their substitute players before games.

One of the more curious proposals is a ban on coaches and other staff whistling “or making any other such noises” from the interchange bench to get the attention of players on the ground.

The AFL says this “interrupts the audio of match broadcasts”.

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

KEY FEATURES OF PROPOSED AFL RULE CHANGES

* The AFL emailed a raft of rule changes to clubs on Thursday afternoon, with a deadline of January 19.

* Any agreed changes will go the AFL Commission for final approval in February.

* There are more than 20 proposals, covering the AFL Tribunal guidelines and regulations, plus the AFL rules.

COURT

* A tightening of the rough conduct rules for when a player leaves the ground when attempting to smother an opponent’s kick or handball. This was prompted by the Brayden Maynard tribunal case during the finals series.

* Amendment to dangerous tackles, taking into account run-downs where “the tackling player significantly increased the force with which the tackled player was driven to ground”.

* Changing the structure for player fines.

* Giving the AFL the option of not sending a charge rated as severe straight to the tribunal, if the league is only seeking a minimum penalty or doesn’t want the case tested. This follows a dramatic increase in tribunal cases this season because of the dangerous tackles crackdown.

* Increasing the club fees for tribunal hearings and appeals, to deter unnecessary challenges.

* Tightening the striking rule for when a player is trying to fend off an opponent away from the ball.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

OTHER AFL RULES

* Clarifying how teams are ranked in the AFLW finals series, to help determine who hosts the grand final.

* Banning coaches from the interchange bench if they have been guilty of repeated breaches of AFL rules there.

* Charged players could be excused from attending their tribunal hearing, if they are injured or have mental health issues.

* Seeking feedback from clubs on when they announced their substitute before games, and how the substitute rule operates.

* Gloves only to be worn during games for medical reasons.

* A ban on coaches and other club staff whistling “or making any other such noises” from the bench to get the attention of players on the ground.

The Crowd Says:

2023-12-19T04:15:22+00:00

Munro Mike

Roar Rookie


#Mr Right Not so much Maynard.....although elements in the media did. And certainly social media. I thought his defence made the point about Brayshaw's lurch to his right as he completed the kick as being something Maynard couldn't anticipate. But yes - the 'intent' vs 'outcome' which is also reflected in the old "attempted striking" charge. How hard should anyone go on intent alone if there's no outcome. The 'reckless' clause SHOULD have covered a lack of intent. And sheesh - - I always wonder just what Maynard's idea of 'success' was ever going to be in that incident. Surely he knew he couldn't avoid illegal front on contact. And that's the thing about defining a 'reckless act' as a 'legitimate football act'. Because.........many a legitimate footy act is executed poorly and concedes at least a free kick or if executed too poorly......a suspension. I still don't understand how the tribunal ended up getting shunted down the path they took.......other than; an unwillingness.

2023-12-19T00:15:02+00:00

WCE

Roar Rookie


Must have been at the game

2023-12-19T00:13:45+00:00

WCE

Roar Rookie


Doesn't sound strange just ridiculous. He closed his fist swang it blindly how is that an accident? Also Barry Hall and Glass? Wrong again there Not sure you can judge someone's character by watching them play sport on TV once a week but yeah.

2023-12-18T15:17:26+00:00

Doc Disnick

Roar Guru


I actually think that incident was an accident, as strange as it sounds. He had a brainfade but I don’t think his intention was to hit his opponent in the face. It was out of character for him too. He paid a severe penalty and rightfully so. The last really bad deliberate act of thuggery was Hall on Glass. I was at that game. It was a disgrace.

2023-12-18T09:06:07+00:00

Chanon

Roar Rookie


Pete you know it l know it. The AFL want to remove NCBI.

2023-12-18T04:20:12+00:00

Mr Right

Roar Rookie


Maynard didn't victim blame Angus Brayshaw. Let's not spark ugly debate over this tragic incident all over again. All I am saying is that Maynard used the defence at the hearing that he was attempting a legitimate spoil. The majority of footy fans strongly disagreed with this statement at the time & believe he should have got 4-6 weeks. The jury let him off because they couldn't conclusively prove his intent. In this situation going forward under the new proposed rules, his intent will be of no relevance. He will receive a medium to long-term suspension if a player is injured like Angus Brayshaw was last year.

2023-12-18T03:50:46+00:00

deadly demon

Roar Rookie


totally agree thug act

2023-12-17T23:30:23+00:00

Munro Mike

Roar Rookie


#Mr Right There's a very good reason we don't see Duncan and Maynard incidents all the time. That's because the VAST majority of players do the right thing. The notion of a traditional smother is to smother the ball directly off the boot. Not to slam into the head. Trying to touch/impact the ball after someone has kicked it is not strictly a 'smother'. It's a separate act. Generally you're just trying to force the kick to go higher (over you) and to 'hurry up' the kicker. The vast majority of players don't leap reckless AT the ball carrier and then 'victim blame' to get off.

2023-12-17T21:07:58+00:00

Chanon

Roar Rookie


He wouldn’t hurt a fly ?

2023-12-17T12:11:03+00:00

Yattuzzi

Roar Rookie


Big bad Barry only number three thug on my list. Soft?

2023-12-17T03:39:12+00:00

Chanon

Roar Rookie


Not sure he would have any recollection of that by Big Bad Barry. Hall was a wonderful player for the Swans & a tremendous player for the Dogs. :boxing:

2023-12-16T23:59:40+00:00

Jack

Roar Rookie


That hit would have been a red card in Rugby. High, late, direct contact with the head, no mitigation. Off. He would have to show reason why it wasn’t deliberate. 3 to 5 weeks.

2023-12-16T05:25:24+00:00

PeteB

Roar Rookie


Actually just looked at what cost Corey McKernan a Brownlow in 1996. That looked unavoidable. Terrible decision even by today’s standards. Have we regressed in player protection over the last 27 years ? Embarassing stuff.

2023-12-16T04:37:56+00:00

Mr Right

Roar Rookie


Don't talk about Eddie McGuire like that thank you!!!

2023-12-16T04:10:43+00:00

PeteB

Roar Rookie


Cripps should have been suspended but hey there was a Brownlow on the line :stoked: . Cripps 2-3 weeks, Maynard 4-6 weeks.

2023-12-16T04:09:22+00:00

PeteB

Roar Rookie


Players can claim whatever they like but the probability of successfully smothering the ball almost zero v probability of knocking player out very high which should have made a lengthy suspension. Players need to adapt and use greater skill at dispossessing, smothering, tackling without severely injuring their opponent. Those claiming it was a reasonable act are still living in last century.

2023-12-16T02:25:23+00:00

Mr Right

Roar Rookie


Now it is set in ink & becomes black & white. Lesser incidents are not going to fall in the grey area. No one is going to waste the appeals board time once this defining rule is implemented. Players & coaches are now on full alert as to the outcomes for these sort of incidents.

2023-12-16T02:17:54+00:00

Mr Right

Roar Rookie


We all know Maynard's act was reckless, dangerous & overaggressive. But he claimed he was going for the smother & that there was no intent. That’s what got him off. Going forward now, a player can say that there was no intent, but that will not matter. They need to keep in reasonable control of their actions or they could end up getting 2-6 weeks.

2023-12-16T02:02:09+00:00

Mr Right

Roar Rookie


How would you compare it to the Patrick Cripps decision? https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=5147305318715021

2023-12-15T22:57:47+00:00

Chanon

Roar Rookie


Rubbish he only scratched & he didn’t have nails. The bleeder just bled cause he was sensitive to touch. :laughing:

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar