Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
1 of 1
Brayshaw suffered ‘clear concussion’
Angus Brayshaw suffered “clear concussion” and a loss of consciousness, according to the medical report from Melbourne.
He went to hospital to under precautionary scans for his “significant headaches”, and is expected to miss one game, the report said.
It is unclear when he will be able to return to play given his concussion history, but his symptoms have mildly improved as of Friday.
Maynard’s plea
Ben Ihle is representing Brayden Maynard. He is pleading not guilty to rough conduct, and they are challenging the grading of careless conduct.
The AFL’s legal counsel
Representing the AFL is Andrew Woods. Most of you will not be overly familiar with Woods’s professional work. He’s been a counsel for the AFL at the tribunal since 2011. In his day job, he is a barrister who advises and appears in commercial, administrative and other disputes.
Tribunal watchers and footy fans may be more familiar with him for upsetting Sydney last year in a case against Lance Franklin. The Swans believed he had tarnished Franklin’s reputation by describing his strike on Richmond’s Trent Cotchin as “cowardly”.
It’s not just Maynard facing the tribunal’s judgment
While we wait, have a read of my colleague Greg Baum’s analysis of what is at stake at the tribunal.
AFL GIFCredit: Channel Seven / Getty Images
It is not this column’s intention to trawl over the pros and antis of the Brayden Maynard/Angus Brayshaw case all over again. Barassi knows, enough pixels and printer’s ink have been expended on them already. The footy community’s verdict is split between unavoidable accident, avoidable accident and not in the least accidental.
Beyond Maynard’s immediate fate and its implications for Collingwood’s premiership mission, what the tribunal – and perhaps the appeals board in turn – will determine is where the line presently lies between acceptable and unacceptable risk of injury in footy.
Read more
Collingwood’s strategy
Firstly, a disclaimer. As you may have gathered, I’m no legal eagle, but to me Collingwood will have difficulty contesting the severe impact of the hit on Angus Brayshaw, who was out cold for two minutes, or that high contact was made, and that it was careless conduct.
They will have to argue it was not a reportable offence because it was reasonable for Maynard to contest the ball in that manner.
As for the AFL, I’m tipping they will argue Brayden Maynard needed to show a greater duty of care to Brayshaw when contact was made.
‘What else can he do’: Maynard’s hit on Brayshaw
In case you’ve missed it, this is the reason why we’re here today with Brayden Maynard.
Welcome
Good afternoon,
I’m Andrew Wu. Thanks for joining me today for the trial of the century. Well, maybe not, but it’ll certainly feel like it if you’re Brayden Maynard or have black and white blood running through your veins.
Maynard is the first case up today. He’s been sent directly to the tribunal for his hit on Angus Brayshaw in Thursday night’s qualifying final.
The charge has been graded as careless conduct, high contact and severe impact for a sanction of a minimum of three matches.
The second case is Carlton’s Jack Martin, who is appealing a two-match ban for striking Sydney’s Nick Blakey in last Friday night’s elimination final. The strike was graded as careless conduct, high contact and high impact.
1 of 1
Most Viewed in Sport
Source: Read Full Article