Maynard’s Tribunal Date: An Unwilling Expert Weighs In
When the AFL refers a player directly to the Tribunal — skipping the fine-and-a-week option entirely — you know someone upstairs has decided this one is serious. Brayden Maynard, Collingwood’s bull-at-a-gate backman, is set to front the Tribunal after Saturday’s incident, and if you’re looking for a reluctant expert on the whole sorry process, well, you’ve found him.
My name is Mark Riggall. I barrack for Essendon. I have watched more Tribunal livestreams than I care to admit, and I did not choose this life — it chose me.
What We Know So Far
The MRO has referred Maynard’s actions from Saturday directly to the Tribunal, bypassing the standard early-plea process. That’s the mechanism the AFL uses when the match review officer grades an incident as either Severe in impact, or flags it as the kind of act that warrants a higher-body determination regardless of how the player and his club might want to handle it. In plain English: you don’t get to just take the two weeks and move on. You sit in front of the three-person panel, you make your case, and the panel decides.
Maynard faces the prospect of a lengthy ban if the Tribunal finds against him. No verdict has been handed down as of writing — the AFL’s process is that the Tribunal hears the case, weighs the evidence including video and expert opinion, and then delivers its finding. We report on what the MRO has alleged, not what we’ve concluded ourselves. That’s a distinction that apparently took Australian sports media decades to learn, but here we are.
The Direct Referral — What It Actually Means
A lot of casual fans see “referred to the Tribunal” and assume the player is cooked. It doesn’t work quite like that, though the odds do shift considerably. When a player is offered a week through the early-plea system, the club runs a quick cost-benefit on whether contesting saves them anything. Direct referrals remove that negotiation entirely — the only path is to contest or to enter a guilty plea and argue for mitigation.
The Tribunal can find a player not guilty. It can also find them guilty but land on a suspension shorter or longer than what the MRO’s grading might have suggested. Collingwood, being Collingwood, will be marshalling their legal and football-operations team right now. They are not a club that goes quietly into anything, which is their right and, frankly, good on them for using the system properly.
The process exists for exactly this reason. Use it.
Riggsy’s Reluctant Expertise
I want to be careful here about why I feel qualified to speak on this, because the honest answer is “trauma.” Essendon has tested the Tribunal system, the MRO, the appeals process, the Federal Court, ASADA, WADA, the AFL Commission, and at least three independent arbitration panels over the years. I once explained the difference between an AFL Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport to my mum over Christmas lunch. She has never forgiven me.
What that experience does give you is a genuine respect for the process, even when it infuriates you. The Tribunal isn’t perfect. Inconsistency drives supporters of every club absolutely spare — and they’re not always wrong to notice it. But the alternative, which is the football department of your choice making all the calls, would be considerably worse. Trust me. I’ve seen what that looks like too.
The Collingwood Angle
Let’s be honest: Maynard is not exactly unknown to the match review officer. He plays hard, he plays physical, and occasionally he plays on the wrong side of the line — or at least that’s what the MRO has determined on more than one occasion. Whether that history factors into the Tribunal’s thinking is a complicated question. Technically, prior offences can affect the suspension calculation once guilt is established, but the Tribunal is supposed to assess the act on its merits before reaching for the ledger.
Collingwood fans will argue, not without some justification, that their players get the microscope more than others. I’m an Essendon man — I am constitutionally incapable of offering a fully neutral take on the Pies — but I’ll acknowledge the grievance is one plenty of clubs have felt at different times. Richmond fans felt it for years. Geelong fans feel it about their forwards. Everyone has a version of this story. The Tribunal, ideally, is where that sort of noise gets filtered out.
What the Footy Argument Actually Is
Beyond the legal mechanics, there’s a real football debate here about intent versus impact, and whether the rules as written actually capture what the game wants to protect against.
The AFL has been tightening its framework around high contact and rough conduct for years now, partly in response to what we know about head injuries, partly because the spectacle of players being carted off is not great for anyone. Some supporters — and I get it, I really do — feel the game is being legislated into a bubble-wrapped version of itself. Others, particularly those who’ve watched a teammate leave the field on a stretcher, see the crackdowns very differently.
My view, for what it’s worth: the AFL is not always consistent, but the direction of travel is correct. Player welfare isn’t a PR talking point — or it shoudln’t be. And if the Tribunal finds that what Maynard did on Saturday crossed the line, then a significant penalty isn’t an injustice. It’s the system doing its job.
The Wider Stakes for September
Here’s where it gets properly interesting from a competition standpoint. We’re deep enough into the season that any lengthy ban bites into finals footy. Collingwood are genuine contenders — of course they are, they always are, it’s one of the less enjoyable constants of the universe — and losing Maynard for a chunk of September would be a real blow to their defensive structure.
That’s not a reason to go easy on the punishment if the punishment is warranted. The Tribunal doesn’t — and shouldn’t — factor in finals implications when weighing a ban. But it does mean the result of this hearing carries weight well beyond whatever happened in one contest on one Saturday afternoon. The stakes for Collingwood’s premiership ambitions are genuine.
What Happens Next
The Tribunal hearing will be scheduled for early in the week. Collingwood will present their case, the AFL will present theirs. The panel will deliberate. A finding will be made, and if Maynard is found guilty, a penalty handed down. Either side retains the right to appeal to the AFL Appeals Board.
The whole thing tends to move quickly during the season — tribunals don’t drag cases out the way courts do, which is one of their better features. By mid-week we should know where things stand.
I’ll be watching with the weary attention of a man who has done this too many times. The good news for Collingwood supporters is that directly referred cases are contested regularly, and the Tribunal does find in favour of players on a reasonable number of occasions. The bad news is that direct referrals usually signal the MRO believes this one sits above the normal threshold.
Whatever the outcome, the system will grind forward. It always does. Ask me how I know.
