AFL and Concussion - Angus Brayshaw retirement

[Streak]

Regardless of the intention of the Maynard or Dangerfield incidents, the biggest indictment of this whole sorry mess regarding head knocks is the AFL's response. Pure and simple.

I have posted on here before, and am going to try and find the footage, of an incident between Ken Hinkley and Tony Hall from around the late 80's early 90's (going by memory, so things might be a bit hazy on the exact details). I think it might have even been in a grandfinal.

Hinkley runs straight at the ball to take possession. This is clearly his sole intent. At the very last split second, he sees Tony Hall coming straight at him the other way.

Hall's intent is to shirtfront Hinkley. He is not watching the ball at all, but there is nothing illegal in his actions.

Instinctively, Hinkley raises and arm to protect himself, and in the process collects Hall's head and knocks him out cold. Hall is taken from the ground and I think plays no further part in the game.

AFL suspends Hinkley for 4 matches. They issue a statement along the lines that while the action of Hinkley is clearly instinctive, not premeditated and designed to protect himself, the head is sacrosanct. Nobody yet knows about CTE or the damage of blows to the head, yet the AFL at the time draws a line in the sand.

Fast forward 30 odd years. The AFL accepts unintentional knocks to the head as a defence, despite the severe outcome in the case of Vlastuin, and does not even cite players on this basis.

Now I understand both the pile on regarding Maynard, and those who think it is inappropriate, and why this is causing conflict. For me, the pile on for Maynard is a simple and reactive response from footy fans who are worried and frustrated by the AFL over this issue.

It is a pile on, but the AFL needs to start working some sh*t out for itself here.

Footy fans are concerned about this issue. First and foremost, most fans I know are worried about the players health. Secondly, they are worried about the future of the game.

Enough is enough.

As a footy fan, I am going to find it hard to support a sport in which players can be so badly injured, and wear the results of those injuries for the rest of their lives. Yep, I get it, there are other sports out there just as bad. But that is no defence.

I moan and groan a lot about the AFL and its self interested and abysmally poor administration of the game at the highest level.

But I am starting to really question whether I can accept supporting a sport that has done such an inconsistent job at protecting the players from such serious and permanent injury.

I love my Tigers, but I have a conscience. Everything involves risk, but I am not sure if I can really continue to support a sport that makes informed decisions on this issue and prioritises just about everything else ahead of the safety of it players.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Of course they run at the player to shorten the distance and reduce the time the ball has to go over their hands. And to rush the disposal.

It's rare to have it happen where it did. Suspending Maynard would have little influence over poreventing future concussions IMO.

If "suspending Maynard would have little influence over preventing future concussions" then why did the AFL move immediately in the off season to change the rule making his action a reportable offence ? Under the rule he was charged with they couldn't find him guilty (I'm still not sure why he wasn't charged with 'unduly rough play' for which he would have copped a couple of weeks. It was the rule that covered un-football-like acts as a catch all) but they moved straight away to retrospectively make sure it couldn't happen again. There's your deterrent to prevent future concussions from this kind of act supposedly.

When you then consider Pickett got a couple of weeks two seasons ago for a short shoulder charge on the boundary line that knocked the bloke over, who consequently got up, wasn't even concussion tested and played out the game, what Maynard did should have been 3-4 weeks based on the outcome alone.

After all, that's what the AFL told us they were now doing. ANY action that hits the head with any force at all would cop weeks. With Maynard they have fallen at the first hurdle (maybe the second hello Patty Cripps) that they themselves imposed.

Is anybody surprised tho with this regime ?

 

[MD Jazz]

Brayshaw doesn't "veer" into his path. Its a natural reaction from overbalancing as you kick, you kick the way he does, you will inadvertently tilt towards your right, its physics / biology, not something he did that shouldn't have been anticipated (and I'm disappointed that Melbourne doctors didn't use physics / biology to refute this argument). This argument was as close to victim blaming as you'll get in our sport and IMO is the most ridiculous part of this.

I think you actually argue against your point here, lets break it down.

1 - Maynard accelerates towards the contest - we agree with that right
2 - Maynard thinks lets spoil so he jumps forward with arms out
3 - At this point realises that he can't spoil and therefore turns his body to protect himself
4 - Maynard hits Brayshaw

You think he's ok to make the call at point 2 to spoil, my view is 2 fold.
1 - The likelihood to spoil it was very low, the fact that you say he got close doesn't matter. The facts are he didn't spoil it and was unlikely to be able to. The only reason he got close was the acceleration into it (which as I've said we are trying to outlaw from bumps so why shouldn't we also be regarding the same for this action)
2 - Due to the speed that he was going to accelerate into the contest at, the likelihood of that momentum taking him into Brayshaw was accelerated compared to a normal spoiling action when the angle that you thrust forward at is much more upright

Points 3 and 4 above are outcomes of the action he committed to at 2 - which is what the discussion should have been.

The reason why we don't see this action often in football is described in my outcome 1 of 2 above. The chance of spoiling the ball was very low. To accelerate into the contest at that point, takes you out of the contest and is reckless from both a H&S perspective of the other player, but also reckless from a team defence perspective as you take yourself completely out of the play. Coral or tackle and you can still impact the player AND impact any secondary play (lets say Brayshaw kicks forward towards a marking contest, ball is contested and brought to ground, Brayshaw still has forward momentum to move towards that play and impact the secondary contest, Maynard wouldn't. There are plenty of times in the game that players COULD impact a potential smother attempt like Maynard did but very few actually decide to impact that contest in that way.

The whole point of suspension to drive behaviour is because it works. We don't want that action in the game, the likelihood of impacting the other player (who isn't expecting the collision because only an idiot would make that play instead of the higher % play) means they are in a vulnerable position. We've heard this statement used so many times before, including when we have heard the term "potential to cause serious injury" yet when there IS a player in a vulnerable position AND that player DOES get a serious injury, we wanted to ignore it!!!

I just don't really understand the point you are trying to drive.

Look at it from a legal angle too. As I mentioned earlier, sport will cease to exist as a sport if we legislate all contact our of it. The courts of law will understand this and accept that some risk must be taken by the player that engages in that sport. Don't think of concussion by itself, but what about serious knee injuries, or injuries like LAblett had with his hip. Do they get to sue too? You can't have it for 1 type of injury and not others. The point being that players take risks with their bodies when they choose to play or work in a specific field, BUT the employee must show that they are working towards mitigating injuries to their employees, and taking random acts of recklessness out of the game (like I see Maynards as) is a push towards this, much like it will be for reducing bumps etc (they are regarded as reckless behaviour right).

Someone else mentioned soccer, and the impact that heading a ball has. For adult sport there hasn't been any indication that they will take the action out of the sport (and I agree with that) but what have they done. They have legislated to reduce its impacts in young people by having no heading involved in games I think up to the age of 14. They have moved on from the leather balls that I grew up playing with, that absorbed water and bloody hurt when you head them. The balls these days are made with much lighter synthetic material in order to reduce weight and therefore impact on the head when the ball is headed. This is risk mitigation, and the way that all sports are now looking at incidents in their games that specifically impact the head. Take cricket for example again, its not legal to face up to a fast bowler without a helmet. Some nations roll that out for all bowlers (England do this which is why even to spinners they never take their helmets off, India has a different rule against spin), but against the most dangerous action (the pace bowler), helmets have to be worn or you don't play.

Actions like Maynard did are low % and add very little to our game, and I have no problem with them being stamped out. Its all about choosing the right risk mitigation actions rather than having blanket rules across everything.

You clearly didn't watch the video. It is a split second decision. If he sags off, Brayshaw has less pressure and more options. The decision to spoil is made when Brayshaw shapes to kick. It's all instinctive. You act like he has plenty of time to sum it all up, consider the risk to Brayshaw and abort.

And it's an easy one for the AFL to make a rule change for, becuase it rarely ever happens. The real challenges they face are contact in tackles & marking contests. This change is barely window dressing.

It's very easy to question an action with the benefit of hindsight. There is no way Maynard planned some sort of attack on Brayshaw.

Tom Lynch knocked Keith out with a "clumsy" or "feigned" marking attemtpt. Keith was an idiot in the way he approached the contest but Lynch wasn't attempting a football action when he concussed him. Keith was in a vulnerable position. Balta kncoked out an opposition player in a marking contests a few years ago, heis opponent was in a vulnerable position. What about those?

These marking incidents, and tackling incidents are the more common collisions that the AFL will have serious challenges with. The AFL will have changed sweet FA to player risk with the recent rule change.

 

[MD Jazz]

If "suspending Maynard would have little influence over preventing future concussions" then why did the AFL move immediately in the off season to change the rule making his action a reportable offence ?

Because they are a reactive organisation that are all about image. They want to be seen to be doing something about player welfare.

 

[Carter]

Because they are a reactive organisation that are all about image. They want to be seen to be doing something about player welfare.

Agree and fair play Jazz, I do respect your position that Maynard has no case to answer.

This concussion business is hugely troubling and problematic all round.

I have two boys and am quietly happy they profess more love for basketball than footy TBH

 

[year of the tiger]

Not Found | Fox Sports Videos

www.foxsports.com.au

Watch the video. You can slow it down by moving the slide. The side-on displays perfectly that Maynard was doing nothing more than attemtping a smother. Hard to argue otherwise, he barely misses the ball. He truns his shoulder at the very last moment to protect himself.

Cannonball and leading with shoulder? Please, typical Carter hyperbole.

This was clearly a football action IMO. The result was very unfortunate.

but MD …

your argument is it wasn’t deliberate - OK, others argue it was deliberate - maybe

but under the rules this is an irrelevant argument so I believe.

The incidental v deliberate is an old football argument

I thought any contact with the head nowadays is banned - deliberate obviously but accidental is also outlawed under the rules.

The responsibility is on the player NOT to make contact with the head - full stop.

Did Maynard make contact with the head - yes - then he should have been reported end of argument.

If our Pickett did what Maynard did he would have copped a massive absolutely massive suspension - that I firmly believe.

Why do I think that, because the AFL couldn’t navigate their own sh!te out of their own arse if they tried.

 

[MD Jazz]

Agree and fair play Jazz, I do respect your position that Maynard has no case to answer.

This concussion business is hugely troubling and problematic all round.

I have two boys and am quietly happy they profess more love for basketball than footy TBH

Yeh, no easy answers. My kids do not play AFL and it has not upset me.

 

[Stackey]

but MD …

your argument is it wasn’t deliberate - OK, others argue it was deliberate - maybe

but under the rules this is an irrelevant argument so I believe.

The incidental v deliberate is an old football argument

I thought any contact with the head nowadays is banned - deliberate obviously but accidental is also outlawed under the rules.

The responsibility is on the player NOT to make contact with the head - full stop.

Did Maynard make contact with the head - yes - then he should have been reported end of argument.

If our Pickett did what Maynard did he would have copped a massive absolutely massive suspension - that I firmly believe.

Why do I think that, because the AFL couldn’t navigate their own sh!te out of their own arse if they tried.

 

[DavidSSS]

but MD …

your argument is it wasn’t deliberate - OK, others argue it was deliberate - maybe

but under the rules this is an irrelevant argument so I believe.

The incidental v deliberate is an old football argument

I thought any contact with the head nowadays is banned - deliberate obviously but accidental is also outlawed under the rules.

The responsibility is on the player NOT to make contact with the head - full stop.

Did Maynard make contact with the head - yes - then he should have been reported end of argument.

If our Pickett did what Maynard did he would have copped a massive absolutely massive suspension - that I firmly believe.

Why do I think that, because the AFL couldn’t navigate their own sh!te out of their own arse if they tried.

Yep, and that was precisely the argument over the Dangerfield Vlastuin incident and, as was the case in 2020, and remained the case in 2023, the rules clearly state that head high contact like that must be cited. Not should be cited: MUST be cited.

The thing that really p1sses people off is seeing the massive inconsistencies in the way these things are dealt with. I remember the Pickett incident, it was right near me, and the Hawthorn player jumped up and kept playing. Can't remember if there even was any head contact. That gets a suspension, when Dangerfield and Maynard don't even get cited?

Absolute dog's breakfast, unfortunately exactly what we expect from the amateur idiots running the AFL.

They will be the ruin of the game.

DS

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Agree and fair play Jazz, I do respect your position that Maynard has no case to answer.

This concussion business is hugely troubling and problematic all round.

I have two boys and am quietly happy they profess more love for basketball than footy TBH

It would be interesting if you asked Angus Brayshaw's family and his team mates and his doctors if you think Maynard had a case to answer. I reckon I know the answer to that. The players were certainly pissed off when Maynard rocked up to the hospital with a bunch of flowers, they threw him out.

If you kick the football in a game of footy, there's a reasonable expectation that a second or two later you don't get knocked out. The head is sacrosanct, the AFL have told us that repeatedly. As I said earlier, they've fallen at the first hurdle they themselves put up.

Whether Maynard meant it or not is a matter of opinion (I believe he did and he has form. He could have easily pulled out of that shoulder charge if his intention wasn't to hurt Brayshaw) but his intention is supposed to be irrelevant remember. Intention only counts for the number of weeks he would be suspended.

If you hit someone in the head hard enough to cause a concussion, you get rubbed out. The AFL have made that crystal clear (That's the rule they apply to Marlion Pickett).

Until Cripps and Maynard.

 

[MD Jazz]

but MD …

your argument is it wasn’t deliberate - OK, others argue it was deliberate - maybe

but under the rules this is an irrelevant argument so I believe.

The incidental v deliberate is an old football argument

I thought any contact with the head nowadays is banned - deliberate obviously but accidental is also outlawed under the rules.

The responsibility is on the player NOT to make contact with the head - full stop.

Did Maynard make contact with the head - yes - then he should have been reported end of argument.

If our Pickett did what Maynard did he would have copped a massive absolutely massive suspension - that I firmly believe.

Why do I think that, because the AFL couldn’t navigate their own sh!te out of their own arse if they tried.

I'm only arguing that the action (attemtp to smother) was entirely OK. If you watch the video he only turns to brace as contact with Brayshaw becomes unavoidable.

I doubt many posters have actually played much footy at any sort of level the way they describe the ease with which decisions and actions can be taken.

And as for head contact, whether deliberate or accidental, being reportable and should result in suspension that is simply not true. Whether I think all head knocks should result in susp[ensions is irrelevant. They don't.

Did Balta makwe a realistic attempt to mark? Is that action (a knee to the head can result in serious injury) now going to be reportable and the players suspended. See video below.

Kennedy off after nasty knee connects

Josh Kennedy cops a painful blow to his head after Noah Balta catches him in a marking contest

www.afl.com.au

Or the Lynch knockout on Keith. Was Lynch actually playing the ball? Of course he wasn't. He didn't put his arms up to mark. He braced to protect himself. Just as Maynard did. If Keith retires due to concussion issues did the AFL fail him by not suspending Lynch?

Tigers star freed in stunning tribunal backflip

'I'm just protecting myself'

wwos.nine.com.au

Should all these actions rtesult in the offender being suspended? Are they only suspended if the player is knocked out or should you be suspended for the action itself?

Posters are banging on about changing behaviour, if they really want that, the AFL needs to suspend the actions regardless of the outcome.

 

[year of the tiger]

But MD…..

the AFL elevated the incidental head contact to be considered in the same vein as deliberate

your examples just show it’s a mess of a rule and allows the AFL to pick and choose which is their way

thats my only point I am trying to raise here

 

[MD Jazz]

But MD…..

the AFL elevated the incidental head contact to be considered in the same vein as deliberate

your examples just show it’s a mess of a rule and allows the AFL to pick and choose which is their way

thats my only point I am trying to raise here

Just pointing out the hypocrisy over Maynard. He did nothing worse than what Lynch did IMO (if anything Lynch hit involved no football action, it was pure self-preservation) and who knows if that knock will have long term impacts for Keith. Or Balta's knee to the head of Kennedy? Was Balta making a realistic attempt on the ball or did he know he could hurt Kennedy with his action?

The game either becomes non-contact or the particpants accept a certain level of risk.

 

[artball]

Interesting reading this thread …
the game is in a delicate position because of paperwork and paranoia, favouritism and inept box-ticking.

I didn’t mind Angus Brayshaw as a footballer..
Maynard plays on the edge, something Hardwick said repetitively about his coaching of us, but I also think Maynard is a half-wit

 

[Tigers of Old]

Just pointing out the hypocrisy over Maynard. He did nothing worse than what Lynch did IMO (if anything Lynch hit involved no football action, it was pure self-preservation) and who knows if that knock will have long term impacts for Keith. Or Balta's knee to the head of Kennedy? Was Balta making a realistic attempt on the ball or did he know he could hurt Kennedy with his action?

The game either becomes non-contact or the particpants accept a certain level of risk.

Thoughtful post MD. It’s far from a simple fix..

 

[Redford]

In the Freo v WCE game tonight, Ginbey made a really poorly executed tackle on Luke Jackson (the ball holder) that resulted in Ginbey hitting his head on Jackson’s head. He concussed himself in other words.

How do we manage for that ? Ban tackling ?

The game is at a very very difficult crossroads.

 

[DavidSSS]

MD you are actually barking up the wrong tree to some extent. The rules are badly written but striking, charging and making unreasonable contact to the face are all reportable offences. The rules state that the umpire, or match official which covers the match review officer, shall cite a player if they engage conduct which may constitute a reportable offence.

The wording could be better but the wording does a couple of things. The umpire shall cite the player, not "may" cite the player, not "should" cite the player, the critical word here is "shall". There is no discretion, the umpire or match official is obliged to report the player if they may have committed a reportable offence. Again, the wording is clear, the player must be cited if they may have committed the offence - not if you are sure they committed the offence, not if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, no, the wording is "may" have committed a reportable offence.

The Maynard incident, the Dangerfield incident and plenty of others should have been cited and should have been sent to the tribunal for adjudication. This is clear in the laws of the game. You keep talking about whether players should be suspended, but the point here is that both Maynard and Dangerfield clearly should have been cited and weren't. Then it is up to the tribunal to look at the incident and decide.

I reckon they need to clean up the wording, but the Maynard incident clearly should have been cited.

The way I would alter the rules would be to state that a player must avoid contact with another player's head, and if the umpire or match official is of the view that they did not do all they could do to avoid contact with another player's head, then it is up to them to prove they could not have avoided the contact. The only way to deal with this is to put the onus of proof the other way - you make head contact, it is you who must prove you took all actions possible to avoid head contact. This is far more of a deterrent and the way the concussion issue is going I think it is the only way to fix this. It means incidental contact is not penalised and unavoidable contact is not penalised. But putting the onus of proof on the player who hits another player's head means that all players know to avoid head high contact.

Of course, with the amateurs running the show, the best written rules in the world won't work because they have to be adjudicated consistently. That would be a miracle.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

There also needs to be a rule against players deliberately exposing their heads to damage (listen to j Selwood interviews - it’s pretty outrageous IMO).

We literally have blokes headbutting others and receiving frees. Other than their long term health and potential social media outrage there is little downside to playing for head high contact.

 

[tigersnake]

Maynard didnt end Brayshaws career.

Maynard ended Brayshaws career. That is a fact that is not up for debate. You make some good points MC and argue them well. But regardless of whether Maynard did anything wrong or not, whether he should have been suspended or not, his collision with Brayshaw and the concussion that resulted ended Brayshaw's career.

 

[Tenacious]

Maynard ended Brayshaws career. That is a fact that is not up for debate. You make some good points MC and argue them well. But regardless of whether Maynard did anything wrong or not, whether he should have been suspended or not, his collision with Brayshaw and the concussion that resulted ended Brayshaw's career.

Dunno?
I would accept that Maynard contributed to the premature ending of Brayshaw’s career
But all those previous knocks and concussions surely contributed as well

Likewise the camel‘s back fracture wasn’t entirely caused by that single last straw