Brayden Maynard tribunal hearing: Our experts have their say on the likely outcome for Collingwood star

Brayden Maynard’s bump on Angus Brayshaw is footy’s hottest topic and our experts and some of footy’s biggest names have declared whether the Pie is safe or gone. Have your say here.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - SEPTEMBER 07: Brayden Maynard of the Magpies and Jack Viney of the Demons clash during the 2023 AFL First Qualifying Final match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Melbourne Demons at Melbourne Cricket Ground on September 07, 2023 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

Brayden Maynard’s premiership dream will hinge on the tribunal agreeing he had no choice but to protect himself when he bumped Angus Brayshaw.

Maynard will face the tribunal on Tuesday at 4pm after knocking out the Melbourne midfielder in the opening term of Thursday’s qualifying final win.

The AFL has this year asked for penalties of four or more weeks for players who have committed acts with severe force.

Melbourne remains furious at the incident, which has put in doubt Brayshaw’s participation in the finals even if the Demons make it to the grand final.

Brayshaw is seen as having no chance of playing in a preliminary final given he is yet to even start the first steps of the 11-day minimum concussion protocol.

Former AFL tribunal member Hamish McIntosh says it won’t be a cut and dry case for Maynard’s legal team with the Collingwood player to argue he didn’t fail a duty of care to the Melbourne midfielder.

Brayden Maynard faces a nervous wait. Picture: Dylan Burns/AFL Photos

The tribunal panel will work from the match review officer’s assessment based on the ruling of careless conduct, severe impact and high contact and hear arguments from lawyers in the Collingwood camp.

The Pies will need to completely exonerate Maynard for him to play any role in the finals, rather than downgrading the charge.

Former Cat and Roo ruck McIntosh said because of the MRO’s rubric, Maynard would likely have to argue the action was a complete accident and Maynard wasn’t at fault after he attempted to smother.

Maynard in mid-air before he connected with Brayshaw.

The careless conduct aspect of the ruling may be the pivot point, as the contact was unquestionably high and severe, given Brayshaw was knocked out.

Removing the careless conduct part of the charge and arguing he was partaking in a football act of a smother would see Maynard left without a case to defend and free to play in the preliminary final.

“The challenge for him … is if its his duty of care once he jumped to make sure he doesn’t damage the player at the other end,” McIntosh said.

“That would be the area that they discuss. Did he fail his duty of care by jumping off the ground and if he didn’t do what he needed to do to protect the other player, that will be the argument. I have no idea how it will go down.”

Former Hawthorn and Carlton player and Blues AFLW coach Harford, who sat on the tribunal last decade, agreed.

Maynard celebrates after the siren on Thursday. Picture: Michael Klein.

“That is the challenge for Brayden Maynard and the Collingwood hierarchy, to find out that there was no other possible outcome because that will be essentially the question: did you fulfil your duty of care to limit the maximum possible outcome and damage to Angus Brayshaw?” Harford said on RSN.

“If you can’t answer that correctly or rightly in their (the tribunal) eyes, then you get suspended.”

The hearing will see lawyers show extensive vision of the hit and in the past doctors reports have played a factor.

Maynard might use that slow motion footage to show he was committing a legitimate football act in smothering, which was not certain to put him in Brayshaw’s path.

The league could argue even if that is true he had a significant duty of care to Brayshaw not to turn his shoulder into his path to cause the damage he did.

The AFL’s football department was clear on Friday that it would refer the incident straight to the tribunal despite the strong objection of MRO boss Michael Christian.

He believed it was a football act but after more than four hours of talks to form a compromise position the incident was charged by him and football boss Laura Kane.

McIntosh said the tribunal system had changed slightly since when he sat on it more than five years ago and the tribunal would be even more aware of the dangers of concussion now.

“These days on the panel you need a pretty clear case to get off,” he said.

“(Concussion is) definitely more relevant over the past few years … it has gotten stricter and stricter.”

If Maynard is not freed from his suspension on Tuesday he can appeal whatever ban the tribunal gives him, a path that GWS forward Toby Bedford successfully walked to be free for the elimination final.

After that, some previous cases, most famously Sydney’s Andrew Dunkley before the 1996 grand final, have headed to the courts.

“We will still be talking about this on Tuesday, Wednesday next week because if he doesn’t get off, they will keep challenging,” McIntosh said.

Originally published as Brayden Maynard tribunal hearing: Our experts have their say on the likely outcome for Collingwood star