Angus Brayshaw retires: A big mistake comes back to bite the AFL as concussions and CTE become the talking point again

The AFL will once again come under the spotlight for failing to punitively act on the play that ultimately forced the premature retirement of Melbourne Demons star Angus Brayshaw.

Angus Brayshaw is stretchered off the ground after being injured by Brayden Maynard in last year’s qualifying final.

When Brayden Maynard collided with the head of Angus Brayshaw during the qualifying final between Collingwood and Melbourne last year, the AFL immediately found itself at a very serious crossroads.

As Brayshaw, a player who has struggled with head knocks to the point where he had already taken extended time away from the game, was stretchered from the field, devastated Demons players confronted Maynard, who repeatedly taunted and lashed out at the opposition.

Social media and SuperCoach group chats immediately ignited, a tense debate erupting over whether the Pies’ spiritual leader should be suspended for the hit that has since ended the career of one of the AFL’s finest.

The hit that ended Brayshaw’s career.

The arguments for Maynard vastly surrounded the fact it was a “normal footy action”. Attempting to spoil or impact a kick happens dozens, if not hundreds, of times per game – barely noticeable unless you’re the one kicking the ball, or the two collide.

The Fox Footy commentary team unsurprisingly were quick to side with Maynard, with voices from three different generations of Aussie Rules agreeing it was an unavoidable part of the game.

“He jumped in the air to try and smother the ball – it’s really hard for him to stop. He can’t. It’s a really tough one that one,” Richmond legend Matthew Richardson said.

“He cannot avoid contact. What else can he do?”

Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield went a step further.

“Maynard plays on the edge but there is nothing in this. You have a duty of care to yourself to protect yourself as you come to ground. Unfortunately in this game, there’s contact that occurs,” he said.

Lead commentator Brian Taylor agreed with the pair. Warriors will always support warriors, but the AFL must protect these great warriors from themselves.

The blanket support for Maynard at the time made for tough listening. There was no mention of the fact Brayshaw was defenceless, or of the defender’s responsibility to ensure the attacking player is not injured, particularly given Maynard had left his feet. The responsibility is on him to land safely.

Discussions on magazine programs in the week following were noticeably split down the middle – players defended the action while journalists said he should be suspended.

Maynard lashes out at Brayshaw’s Melbourne teammates who confronted him after the sickening hit.

Despite being charged with rough conduct, high contact and severe impact, a four-hour hearing saw Maynard cleared for the preliminary final.

His defence team included Associate Professor Michael Cole from the Australian Catholic University, who had previously written about the mechanics of similar incidents.

Professor Cole argued Maynard had no ambition to bump or injure Brayshaw and should be cleared. The AFL Tribunal would eventually agree.

“We accept a reasonable player would have foreseen at the moment of committing to the act of smothering that some impact with Brayshaw was possible. We find that it was not inevitable from the perspective of a player in Maynard’s position,” Tribunal panel member Jeff Gleeson said of the ruling.

“We are not at all satisfied that a reasonable player would have foreseen that violent impact or impact of the type suffered by Brayshaw was inevitable or even likely.

“As to the second basis of the rough conduct general provision, we accept the evidence of Professor Cole that he did not believe that Maynard’s body position at the time of impact can be considered part of any conscious decision.

“Alternative methods of landing as advanced by the AFL may or may not have produced a better outcome for Brayshaw; if Maynard had the time to make a conscious choice as to his body position we find that he had no such sufficient time.”

What all of this fails to appropriately consider is the current climate around concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, otherwise known as CTE.

Over the past decade or two, major contact sports have been coming to terms with deeper research into head knocks and how repeated trauma to the head within their games have led to a number of former players suffering from CTE – which can lead to a series of significant brain and mental health conditions.

High profile cases in the NFL saw ex-players committing suicide and asking for their brains to be studied in suicide notes. The league would settle with thousands of former players in a 2017 lawsuit, setting up a fund to cover medical costs for CTE, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, dementia and other concussion-triggered conditions for former players. It has paid out more than $US1 billion since the agreement.

The AFL is currently facing its own version of the lawsuit, with more than 70 former players suing the competition for allegedly knowing the risks of concussions but refused to institute proper measures to keep its players safe.

“The claim alleges that the AFL was aware of the substantial medical and scientific evidence regarding the possible long-term effects of concussion,” Margalit Injury Lawyers principal Michel Margalit said of the lawsuit, which his firm is running alongside Griffins Lawyers.

“Instead of taking steps early to protect players, the AFL dragged their feet which has left players with lifelong conditions that they will never recover from.”

Former chief Gillon McLachlan said the competition would not be looking to institute a fund, similar to that of the NFL. The players are seeking up to a billion dollars in damages.

Last year, senior AFL representatives were called to face a parliamentary inquiry into concussions where the league’s chief medical officer Michael Makdissi defended how seriously it takes the issue.

“I don’t think that we need to have a policy to show how seriously we take CTE in our sport,” he said.

A few months later, the AFL would allow Maynard to walk clear and play on its biggest stage after inflicting a significant concussion on a player whose career was already blighted by them.

The AFL had a chance to send a message and show how seriously it takes head knocks, concussions and CTE by wiping out one of the most popular players on the most popular club for a finals game.

Suspending Maynard, controversial or not, would have gone a long way to convincing players they were doing what they could to keep them safe.

It would have gone a long way to convincing mothers to allow their children to play a violent game.

And if nothing else, it would have gone a long way in a court of law to prove they were being proactive and punitive on any actions that caused concussions.

The incident was about much more than Maynard’s intent, but instead the AFL chose to look at it through the narrowest, footy-related lens.