Some of the figures at the centre of the Brayden Maynard incident (clockwise from top left):Angus Brayshaw,Laura Kane,and Michael Christian.Credit:Channel Seven,Justin McManus and Getty Images
The AFL hierarchy’s 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’s – confirmed by two sources familiar with the discussions,who requested anonymity because of AFL protocols – was that Maynard had a case to answer and should face the tribunal.
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 – or not taken in duty of care for Brayshaw – in those fateful few seconds.
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.
The sources said Christian had not felt comfortable rendering a judgment that Maynard had been “careless” – the key word in terms of assessing whether Maynard would be suspended and miss the preliminary final and potentially the grand final.
Heavy collision:Brayden Maynard crashes into Angus Brayshaw.Credit:Channel Seven
Herein lay another difference between Christian,the former Magpie defender and MRO for the past six years,and the AFL’s 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.
The AFL executive was also clearly mindful of the way Brayshaw’s concussion – he was unconscious for close to two minutes and had a history of concussion layoffs – 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.