The long answer from the Tribunal.
The reasons of the Tribunal for its Maynard decision via Jeff Gleeson:The charge
is [was] advanced in two ways: Under the general rough conduct provision or alternatively under the rough conduct (high bumps) provision, we will address them in turn.
First, the rough conduct general provision.
The charge was pressed in two ways by the AFL. First, it says Maynard’s decision to attempt to smother in the way that he did was unreasonable and breached his duty of care.
Secondly, it says that, having entered the action of attempting to smother, he breached his duty of care by failing to cushion the impact with Brayshaw by either using outstretched hands and arms or by leaving his arms open and collecting Brayshaw with his shoulder.
As to the decision to smother basis, we find that Maynard's decision was reasonable.
He committed to the act of smothering when he was what appears to us from the vision to be several meters from Brayshaw.
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.
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.
There were at the moment Maynard committed to the act of smothering many variables that could have eventuated in many different ways.
Brayshaw could’ve executed his kick in a different direction or in a different manner, landed in a different manner or in a slightly different location.
We are here discussing the first way in which the general rough conduct charge is pressed; That is, focusing on the decision to commit to the act of smothering.
The still images showing the ‘lanes’ in which the players were located at various relevant times, provide support for Maynard's evidence that he did not expect Brayshaw to be where he ultimately saw him to be after he took his eyes off the ball and look down to see Brayshaw.
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.
Here, we’re addressing the second way in which general rough conduct charge is pressed, namely that it was something that Maynard did or didn't do after he'd decided to smother was careless.
We find that Professor Cole's evidence is consistent with the time intervals that were introduced into evidence and consistent with our repeated viewing of the video evidence from numerous angles at normal speed.
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.
He would have had to weigh up what his other options were and whether they were more or less likely to cause harm to Brayshaw.
It is not an irrelevant consideration that these other possible methods of landing foreseeably have resulted in harm to Maynard.
The AFL’s position was to accept and we think it was appropriate to do so that even these other methods of landing will have resulted in a reportable offence.
It is asking a lot of a player to decide in a fraction of a second which various ways to land, a high speed collision, and which of those ways of landing might result in which type of reportable offence.
We find that Mr. Maynard was not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed.
This brings us to the rough conduct (high bumps) provision.
The first question here is whether Maynard caused forceful contact to Brayshaw’s head or neck in the bumping of an opponent.
The AFL contends that Maynard chose to bump. Ihle on behalf of Maynard says the evidence demonstrates he had no time to make such a decision and that Maynard did no more than brace for contact.
We are clearly satisfied Maynard did not engage in the act of bumping Brayshaw.
It is not suggested by the AFL and nor could it be sensibly suggested that Maynard made a decision to bump his opponent at the moment of jumping in the air to smother.
At that point in time, Maynard was clearly making a decision to smother.
In order for it to be concluded that he engaged in the act of bumping. It would be necessary to find that he formed that intention when in midair at approximately at the apex of his leap.
We accept the evidence of Professor Cole as being consistent with a common sense viewing of the video evidence. Maynard had no time to form that intention.
The charge is dismissed.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-tribunal-news-2023-live-updates-hearings-blog-results-brayden-maynard-bump-on-angus-brayshaw-collingwood-vs-melbourne/news-story/3325b4ccac342990b87342ddfb510c0b
