Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
The Brayden Maynard incident divided opinion in the football public, but it also was the cause of a division within the AFL\u2019s decision-makers \u2013 between match review officer Michael Christian and the AFL hierarchy, led by Laura Kane, the new football boss.<\/p>\n
Christian\u2019s view was that Maynard should not be charged with rough conduct for his attempted smother that turned into a head-high bump on Melbourne\u2019s Angus Brayshaw, a view based on Christian\u2019s view of the evidence and the guidelines. He also had access to the behind-the-goals footage that Collingwood would successfully deploy in their \u201ctwo-lanes\u201d defence of Maynard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Some of the figures at the centre of the Brayden Maynard incident (clockwise from top left): Angus Brayshaw, Laura Kane, and Michael Christian. <\/span>Credit: <\/span>Channel Seven, Justin McManus and Getty Images<\/cite><\/p>\n The AFL hierarchy\u2019s position was led by Kane, and she was supported by her higher-ups, AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan and his successor Andrew Dillon. Their position and opposition to Christian\u2019s \u2013 confirmed by two sources familiar with the discussions, who requested anonymity because of AFL protocols \u2013 was that Maynard had a case to answer and should face the tribunal.<\/p>\n And this view that Maynard might have committed an offence was, according to one well-placed observer, based on the action the tough Collingwood defender had taken \u2013 or not taken in duty of care for Brayshaw \u2013 in those fateful few seconds.<\/p>\n Christian did not initially think there should be a charge, but he was amenable to the idea that Maynard could be sent to the tribunal directly, without grading his offence.<\/p>\n The sources said Christian had not felt comfortable rendering a judgment that Maynard had been \u201ccareless\u201d \u2013 the key word in terms of assessing whether Maynard would be suspended and miss the preliminary final and potentially the grand final.<\/p>\n Heavy collision: Brayden Maynard crashes into Angus Brayshaw.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Channel Seven<\/cite><\/p>\n Herein lay another difference between Christian, the former Magpie defender and MRO for the past six years, and the AFL\u2019s executive, who also included head legal counsel Stephen Meade. The AFL bosses felt that Maynard had to be charged and his landing\/bump on Brayshaw graded as careless.<\/p>\n The AFL executive was also clearly mindful of the way Brayshaw\u2019s concussion \u2013 he was unconscious for close to two minutes and had a history of concussion layoffs \u2013 had shocked the public, and of how the incident was reverberating with the community. There was cognisance, too, of the whole legal environment surrounding head knocks in the code and of the need to show vigilance in protecting players.<\/p>\n In 2021, then AFL football boss Steve Hocking had sent Adelaide\u2019s David Mackay directly to the tribunal without a grading for bumping in a contest with St Kilda\u2019s Hunter Clark, who was concussed in the collision. Hocking had let the tribunal decide, as Mackay was cleared.<\/p>\n Hocking had wanted the case \u2013 another split-second call by a player that led to a nasty-looking concussion \u2013 heard, given the ramifications. A source said Hocking took the view that the Mackay incident was unusual and he did not take that strong a position on Mackay\u2019s guilt.<\/p>\n If Christian did not want a grading, he finally accepted that Maynard would go to the tribunal with a grading of \u201ccareless\u201d, which set the suspension bar at a minimum of three matches. Two matches would be enough to rule him out of the grand final if the Pies made it, a fate that famously befell Collingwood\u2019s Anthony Rocca (2003), Jason Cloke (2002) and Phil Carman (1977) in losing or drawn grand finals.<\/p>\n Christian\u2019s acceptance of the charge and grading was \u2013 as the AFL\u2019s media release suggested – on the proviso that the AFL and Kane take some ownership of the decision to charge Maynard; in the release, Kane, the executive general manager of football, was cited as the person who\u2019d made the call, alongside the MRO.<\/p>\n Once Maynard went to the tribunal, the case went in his favour. Collingwood were armed with a biomechanist and behind-the-goals footage that allowed Ben Ihle, KC, to argue that Brayshaw had moved slightly into the \u201clane\u201d that Maynard was hurtling towards; essentially, Ihle and Maynard argued that the Collingwood player had not enough time (inside fractions of a second) to alter his course and also that he had touched the ball \u2013 evidence that his smother attempt was genuine and not something carelessly endangering Brayshaw.<\/p>\n That the AFL chose not to appeal the verdict of the tribunal was, in part, a recognition that the odds were stacked against a successful appeal to their own last-chance saloon (the AFL appeals tribunal). The tribunal chairman, Jeff Gleeson, KC, had all but closed the door on a successful appeal in his 1100-word judgment of why Maynard had been cleared of rough conduct.<\/p>\n The case was closed, the arguments about the incident would linger for a while yet, in one of the game\u2019s most emotive episodes.<\/p>\n Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. <\/i><\/b>Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter<\/i><\/b>.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Most Viewed in Sport<\/h2>\n
From our partners<\/h3>\n