Former St Kilda coach Grant Thomas says the AFL has been motivated by fears of future lawsuits in its dealing with of the Brayden Maynard tribunal storm.
The Collingwood star was cleared by the Tribunal after a four-hour listening to on Tuesday evening, but it surely’s clear the group continues to be divided by the decision.
The panel discovered Maynard’s smothering motion was “reasonable”, regardless of the act leading to Melbourne midfielder Angus Brayshaw being knocked unconscious for 2 minutes, in accordance with stories.
Watch each match of The 2023 Toyota AFL Finals Series earlier than the Grand Final Live & Ad-Break Free During Play on Kayo Sports. Join now and begin streaming immediately >
Even earlier than the listening to started, controversy swirled across the league’s resolution to ship Maynard to the tribunal — overruling Match Review Officer Michael Christian, who had discovered Maynard had no case to reply.
Instead, new AFL government basic supervisor Laura Kane exercised her powers to disregard the MRO report in a transfer that has reportedly seen Christian threaten to stop his position.
The AFL will determine on Wednesday if it’ll attraction the tribunal’s verdict, that has cleared the Magpies vice-captain to play within the preliminary closing in opposition to both Port Adelaide or the Giants.
Thomas mentioned the league’s actions present it’s motivated by a want to ward in opposition to the specter of future lawsuits surrounding head accidents within the recreation.
The league was rocked in March when 60 gamers launched unprecedented authorized motion with calls for for gamers to be compensated for the accidents they obtained.
After listening to the Maynard verdict, Thomas posted on Twitter: “Sanity prevails. AFL still considering appealing against decision.
“So they disputed and overturned MRO decision and sent it to tribunal. Now they’re considering challenging their tribunal decision. All for the “look” as proof in opposition to future litigation.”
Thomas mentioned on Monday the AFL can be “gravely mistaken” to argue Maynard had an obligation of look after the results of his leaping smother.
“Their motive would be litigation down the track,” he posted.
“They can’t assess objectively because of the potential around litigation.”
The different aspect of the coin is a name from Brayshaw’s brother Hamish, who advised SEN Sportsday on Tuesday it could be an “injustice” if the AFL did not attraction the choice if Maynard obtained off.
It comes after extraordinary feedback from main Melbourne Kings Council Paul Ehrlich on Sunday the place the authorized skilled mentioned it was “astonishing” that the AFL obtained concerned within the match overview course of.
“This is an AFL football match. There’s always going to be incidental contact in legitimate football actions,” Erlich advised 3AW. ”
“It’s a final. I’ve got absolutely no understanding of how he (Maynard) could be criticised for trying to smother the ball and he almost got it.
“I really don’t understand why this is being singled out for some special treatment. I find it astonishing that the executive of the AFL have got themselves involved in this as well.
“It’s astonishing. If you look at it this way, this is meant to be an independent judicial system, as much as it can be.
“They set up this system and there’s a reserve power that’s reserved to the AFL to charge if the match review officer is not going to do it. But what is it about this incident that is so out of the ordinary that they would exercise that reserve power?
“It’s not like it’s happening 20 hours behind play and you’ve got someone being king hit. This is very much in the game. It doesn’t strike me as something the AFL should overrule.”
Collingwood nice and 3AW commentator Tony Shaw responded to the feedback by saying: “I think the answer there is the legalities there with head knocks and concussions – and what’s going on – has forced the decision to be taken out of the hands of someone else. That’s how I see it”.
Erlich responded: “I think you’re right. If you break that down as well. Most of the serious concussions that happen in football that they’re concerned about are shoulder charges, the hip-and-shoulder. The distinction between what happened on Thursday night and a hip-and-shoulder where you try and line someone up who doesn’t even have the ball and just happens to be within five metres are very different things.
“The AFL have created a rod for their own back in this. No other football contact sport allows you to shoulder charge anymore. In rugby you have to tackle with your arms, in both of the rugby sports you can’t shoulder charge. So if the AFL is really concerned about concussion they should have banned the shoulder charge long ago. And I don’t think you can really draw a parallel between hip-and-shoulders and someone who jumps in the air to smother the ball – and regrettably there’s a collision.”
Erlich went on to say: “There’s no doubt, as soon as the AFL see concussion they go, ‘We’ve got to stop that’, but regrettably this is a fiercely contested game… you play football and sometimes people get knocked out in circumstances where someone’s not being careless.
“I still cannot identify what is it that he did that was careless? Apart from turning up and playing football.”
The AFL is but to announce if it’ll attraction the tribunal verdict.
Source: www.news.com.au
