Maynard didn’t jump off the ground to knock Brayshaw out | Graham Cornes

When family, friends, team-mates and hostile media want to have their say, the reality of the situation is distorted, writes Graham Cornes.

The AFL’s new head of football, Laura Kane picked the wrong cause to introduce herself to the football world.

Yes, sending Brayden Maynard directly to the AFL was welcomed by some elements of the football public.

They were the ones who saw only the stricken Angus Brayshaw motionless on the MCG turf before he was carried off on the stretcher.

It was hard not to be moved. Family and friends wanted revenge.

Even his coach, a fuming Simon Goodwin misrepresented the incident. “You can only go by the facts,” he said after the game.

“He jumped off the ground and knocked a guy out.”

Coaches can get very protective of their players and immediately after a losing game wasn’t the best time to ask him, but he was way out of line.

They weren’t exactly the facts were they?

Maynard didn’t jump off the ground to knock Brayshaw out.

He jumped off the ground in an attempt to smother the ball as Brayshaw was in the act of kicking.

Brayden Maynard celebrates during the 2023 AFL First Qualifying Final. Picture: Michael Willson

Brayden Maynard celebrates as the final siren sounds during the qualifying final between Collingwood and Melbourne at the MCG. Picture: Michael Klein.

The collision between the two was as much Brayshaw’s fault as Maynard’s as he veered to the right after kicking.

However, when family, friends, team-mates and hostile media want to have their say, the reality of the situation is distorted.

Throw in a couple of old footballers who are still suffering the after effects of one too many concussions, and the case against Maynard gathered momentum very quickly.

Sanity eventually prevailed, the tribunal saw the reality of it and found Maynard’s action to be “reasonable”.

Laura Kane needed to trust the Match Review Officer, Michael Christian, without interfering in the Maynard case.

His should be an independent position anyway and his initial instinct that it was an unfortunate football accident proved correct.

Her intervention escalated the issue and gave the more anti-social social media alarmists a louder voice.

Although, some did make sense, particularly those who suggested an Adelaide or Port Adelaide player would definitely have been suspended for the same incident.

With the position having been vacant for so long, there are lot more important issues the AFL’s Executive General Manager of Football needs to address without interfering in the tribunal process.

If the AFL was listening to its fans in the manner that a successful business listens to its customers, it would realise the frustration and at times, sheer anger at some of the processes.

There has to be a complete revision of the match review process.

It’s ridiculously complicated.

For a start there are 10 classifiable reportable offences. Michael Christian, the Match Review Officer, has to grade them in a complicated matrix which tabulates conduct (intentional or careless), impact (severe, high, medium, low) and contact (high/groin or body) to decide nine different sanctions (fines or suspensions).

Then after all that he might just send them to the AFL tribunal anyway. The term that is most amusing in all of that is “careless”.

How do you prevent a footballer at this level from being careless?

It’s a game of physical contact where players throw themselves recklessly at every contest.

We’ve taken the thugs out of the game, the cowardly hits behind play, the raised elbows, the predatory shirtfronts on unsuspecting opponents, but there is always going to be contact. Besides, what does “careless” mean in a football sense?

Who can judge that?

Then there is the umpiring.

Frustration with the standard of umpiring has been an historic issue in football but in 2023 it seems to be at an all-time high.

Witness the sheer anger after the Crows/Sydney debacle in round 23.

Greater investment in technology would have avoided the umpiring blunder that arguably cost the Crows a spot in the final eight. Every week we see uncertainty about goal-line decisions. There is no excuse for all the major grounds not to have the latest ball-tracking technology.

On the field it is worse.

The four-umpire system has not improved the standard of officiating. At times there seems to be confusion as to which umpire is officiating. Then there is the variation in interpretations that change within the same match.

However, by far the biggest frustration with current AFL officiating is the application of the “stand” rule and the almost indecent haste with which 50-metre penalties are applied.

The “stand” rule is an abomination which gives an unfair advantage to the attacking team.

Apart from the ridiculous spectacle of the player on the mark having to be rooted to the spot and not even be allowed to move backwards, it distorts the balance between attack and defence.

The player with the ball should not be able to move off the mark unchallenged, particularly if doing so brings him within range of the goals.

We’ve been ranting for years now about how inappropriate the 50-metre penalty is in modern football.

The AFL needs to swallow its Victorian-centric pride and adopt the South Australian 25-metre penalty. Even then, in 2023, very few transgressions are serious enough to warrant such a penalty.

The other laughable penalty being applied by AFL umpires is “insufficient intent” to keep the ball in play.

It’s applied so randomly and inconsistently that the AFL has no choice other than to adopt the South Australian “last touch” rule. It’s not ideal but it is much better than the ad-hoc application we are enduring at the moment.

Then we have the age-old holding the ball saga.

For some reason, someone introduced the interpretation that if you didn’t have prior opportunity to dispose of the ball and you’re caught with it, it becomes a ball-up.

Perfect tackles which trap the player with the ball are now going unrewarded, and another stoppage results. The old rule which gave the player with the ball some reasonable time after being tackled to dispose of it before being penalised, was much better.

Forget about this prior opportunity rubbish. It’s worse for the player on the ground when players pile on and hold the ball in.

Even though the AFL has said that if the tackling player holds the ball in he would be penalised, we have never seen that rule applied.

There are so many other issues that need addressing.

Introduce a mid-year trade period and eliminate the mid-year draft that so disrupts local leagues. If the AFL really cares for Australian football, it must happen

Review playing on immediately from the kickout after a behind is scored. Players seem to run at least 20 metres before kicking.

The play-on to advantage has to be scrapped because of the unfair advantage taken when everyone else stops on the whistle.

Why is there no line across the ground to indicate the obscure nine-metre rule which is so often abused by the umpires just waiting to pounce.

Why are the rucks allowed to hold each other and grapple at ruck contests? It’s been addressed before but it continues to be an ugly sight.

Of course there are others, so if the AFL’s new head of football really wants to make a difference, these are the issues that most need her attention - not trying to interfere with the match review process.