COLLINGWOOD defender Brayden Maynard will miss the first two games of the season after the Tribunal upheld his ban for striking Greater Western Sydney forward Daniel Lloyd on Tuesday evening. 

Maynard was charged with careless conduct and offered a two-match ban by the Match Review Officer after his spoil in Sunday's AAMI Community Series clash against the Giants left Lloyd with concussion. 

While accepting the MRO's gradings of high impact and high contact, the Magpies challenged the careless grading and argued Maynard's spoil was a football action and he took all reasonable steps to uphold his duty of care to Lloyd. 

AS IT HAPPENED All the action from the Tribunal

The jury of Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson and new Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson disagreed, however, ruling Maynard out for clashes against St Kilda and Adelaide to open the season. 

In handing down its verdict after a 33-minute hearing, the jury said that by approaching the contest the way he did, Maynard could have reasonably foreseen there would be contact to Lloyd's head. 

A medical report used in evidence stated that Lloyd was now being treated for concussion and would miss 12 days of training, including one intraclub match ahead of round one.  

Maynard did not give evidence, with Collingwood counsel Stephen Russell relying on vision to argue the defender's spoil was a football action with unavoidable consequences. 

PLAY AFL FANTASY Pick your team NOW

He described it as an "orthodox spoiling action" and argued that Maynard took actions to limit the damage by spinning out of the contest once he had made the spoil. 

The AFL, with Andrew Woods replacing Gleeson as Tribunal counsel, argued that Maynard breached his duty of care and did not take reasonable steps to avoid high contact with Lloyd. 

Woods argued that Maynard averted his eyes from the ball and made Lloyd his focus as he approached the contest.

He said the defender should have avoided the spoiling attempt once it became clear it would result in a reportable action taking place. To not do so, Woods said, represented careless conduct. 

"The manner in which he approached the ball and used his arm – while not intentionally wanting to strike – was in any view careless and breached his duty of care," Woods told the jury.