-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 14
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 13 Winner: Boyd oh Boyd
Merged: Maxwell and that bump
- Thread starter Obeanie1
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
Exactly. Practice all you like, the nature of the game means you won't be able to execute it legally in every situation.
The AFL want the bump gone. Of course they'd never actually say that coz they know what a backlash there'd be. Instead you get this 'duty of care' rubbish and ridiculous interpretations, as a means of getting rid of the bump by stealth.
Exactly. Practice all you like, the nature of the game means you won't be able to execute it legally in every situation.
The AFL want the bump gone. Of course they'd never actually say that coz they know what a backlash there'd be. Instead you get this 'duty of care' rubbish and ridiculous interpretations, as a means of getting rid of the bump by stealth.
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
Only one player at WCE has a glass jaw... our captain
Only one player at WCE has a glass jaw... our captain
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,735
- 23,607
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Re: Bump is Offically Gone
"the AFL's match review panel ruled that in its view it was negligent to bump, no matter how legally executed, if contact results in injury."
Get set to watch a long running debacle now on what actually constitutes "injury" with broken fingernails and lost eye lashes being seriously considered by this band of fools.
The AFL must stand up now and protect the game from it's own MRP.
The MRP is making statements and decisions which suggest it see's itself as the "high Court" of AFL football.
Time for the legs to go. Take their heads of Vlad.
If you have the guts and the will.
"the AFL's match review panel ruled that in its view it was negligent to bump, no matter how legally executed, if contact results in injury."
Get set to watch a long running debacle now on what actually constitutes "injury" with broken fingernails and lost eye lashes being seriously considered by this band of fools.
The AFL must stand up now and protect the game from it's own MRP.
The MRP is making statements and decisions which suggest it see's itself as the "high Court" of AFL football.
Time for the legs to go. Take their heads of Vlad.
If you have the guts and the will.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
He ran past the ball, shirtfronted an 18-year old kid in his first game and broke his jaw. It was a deliberate bump, he clearly got him high (hence the broken jaw) ... what are the grounds for the appeal exactly?
He ran past the ball, shirtfronted an 18-year old kid in his first game and broke his jaw. It was a deliberate bump, he clearly got him high (hence the broken jaw) ... what are the grounds for the appeal exactly?
Re: Bump is Offically Gone
Surely the MRP/tribunal's stance has been rubber-stamped by Demetriou and his cronies?
Surely the MRP/tribunal's stance has been rubber-stamped by Demetriou and his cronies?
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
The AFL opened a whole new can of worms when they believed Collingwoods evidence that it was accidental head clash but still suspended him. I can understand if they said yes you accidently hit him high with your elbow... but christ a head clash.
The AFL opened a whole new can of worms when they believed Collingwoods evidence that it was accidental head clash but still suspended him. I can understand if they said yes you accidently hit him high with your elbow... but christ a head clash.
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
lol its not like there's a spate of these bumps before the tribunal... ONLY Maxwell cant do it safely... seems most other players are able to do it fine without getting cited... so like all other players practice... get the pads on a trainer and park Maxwell on the sideline for an hour a week.... "Get low Maxwell"... "Lower"... "Loowwwer"... there ya go
lol its not like there's a spate of these bumps before the tribunal... ONLY Maxwell cant do it safely... seems most other players are able to do it fine without getting cited... so like all other players practice... get the pads on a trainer and park Maxwell on the sideline for an hour a week.... "Get low Maxwell"... "Lower"... "Loowwwer"... there ya go
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
Its entirely relevant. Only half of his four week penalty is for the high contact. The rest is for past form and carry over points and refusal to take the early plea.
Its entirely relevant. Only half of his four week penalty is for the high contact. The rest is for past form and carry over points and refusal to take the early plea.
Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?
I've heard a few people say that, can anyone point me to an article stating that? All I can find is articles saying that Collingwood presented their medical evidence saying that, and that Maxwell said that is what happened, I can't find anything saying that the tribunal agreed with it.
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
So he should've taken into account who it was... oh its your first game, i wont bump you off the ball.
Collingwood fans out of all fans know what its like when someone gets injured seriously, Carcella lost his football career because of a high hit bit Notting got nothing.
So he should've taken into account who it was... oh its your first game, i wont bump you off the ball.
Collingwood fans out of all fans know what its like when someone gets injured seriously, Carcella lost his football career because of a high hit bit Notting got nothing.
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
It seems maxwell was judged on the outcome of the bump and not the excution of the bump, Kevin Bartlet stated that Maxwell bump was exucted to the letter of the law..
It seems maxwell was judged on the outcome of the bump and not the excution of the bump, Kevin Bartlet stated that Maxwell bump was exucted to the letter of the law..
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
You could've quoted my whole post for context.
"The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points)"
Which part of that do you disagree with?
You could've quoted my whole post for context.
"The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points)"
Which part of that do you disagree with?
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
Kevin Barlett was also the first to say Alistair Clarkson would never win a premiership in the AFL as coach, and that Terry Wallace would take richmond to a flag in 4 yrs
Kevin Barlett was also the first to say Alistair Clarkson would never win a premiership in the AFL as coach, and that Terry Wallace would take richmond to a flag in 4 yrs
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
So did my Pies mate Johnno... so what - its just another wrong opinion
So did my Pies mate Johnno... so what - its just another wrong opinion
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
If the pies want to throw away money and get nothing in return (i.e. by appealing) why don't they just give it to the fire appeal!
They have to prove that the AFL laws weren't followed and they were. End of story.
If the pies want to throw away money and get nothing in return (i.e. by appealing) why don't they just give it to the fire appeal!
They have to prove that the AFL laws weren't followed and they were. End of story.
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
If you think the Maxwell hit was anything other than a perfectly executed hip and shoulder you must not have been watching footy for long, or are simply unable to put club bias aside.
The injury occured when they clashed heads, after the initial contact, which was shoulder-on-shoulder and legal.
Whats next? Player gets hit, gets up and plays the rest of the game, after the game he finds out he's got concussion/fracture/whatever as a result of the hit, will miss weeks, other player is then reported? Its laughable
PS re: "ONLY Maxwell cant do it safely... seems most other players are able to do it fine without getting cited" - find me a few examples of players laying a solid hip and shoulder from the last few years.. I bet you'll struggle to find them. Why would players continue to do it if its so hard, or you have to be lucky, to do it legally. It will drift out of the game, and its happening already
lol its not like there's a spate of these bumps before the tribunal... ONLY Maxwell cant do it safely... seems most other players are able to do it fine without getting cited... so like all other players practice... get the pads on a trainer and park Maxwell on the sideline for an hour a week.... "Get low Maxwell"... "Lower"... "Loowwwer"... there ya go
If you think the Maxwell hit was anything other than a perfectly executed hip and shoulder you must not have been watching footy for long, or are simply unable to put club bias aside.
The injury occured when they clashed heads, after the initial contact, which was shoulder-on-shoulder and legal.
Whats next? Player gets hit, gets up and plays the rest of the game, after the game he finds out he's got concussion/fracture/whatever as a result of the hit, will miss weeks, other player is then reported? Its laughable
PS re: "ONLY Maxwell cant do it safely... seems most other players are able to do it fine without getting cited" - find me a few examples of players laying a solid hip and shoulder from the last few years.. I bet you'll struggle to find them. Why would players continue to do it if its so hard, or you have to be lucky, to do it legally. It will drift out of the game, and its happening already
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
negligent conduct, it was an accident not negligent.
negligent conduct, it was an accident not negligent.
Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?
I am confused too...
Will the duty of care affect how the game is played.
The bump is gone. Coaches and players will no longer take the chance of with the bump; in a physical Short you cannot guarantee duty of care. – The clubs will discourage players from executing the bump.
I can see the duty of care applied to a tackle, if a player tackles another player causing him head injury.
I can see the duty of care applied to a pack mark, if another player gets a head injury.
This has nothing to do with Maxwell suspension; it has to do with the way rules are interpreted. Kevin Bartlett who sits on the rules committee is confused. The Players and coaches are confused.
My question – Does the Duty of care override all Rules on how the game is played?
I am confused too...
Will the duty of care affect how the game is played.
The bump is gone. Coaches and players will no longer take the chance of with the bump; in a physical Short you cannot guarantee duty of care. – The clubs will discourage players from executing the bump.
I can see the duty of care applied to a tackle, if a player tackles another player causing him head injury.
I can see the duty of care applied to a pack mark, if another player gets a head injury.
This has nothing to do with Maxwell suspension; it has to do with the way rules are interpreted. Kevin Bartlett who sits on the rules committee is confused. The Players and coaches are confused.
My question – Does the Duty of care override all Rules on how the game is played?
Paddywhackers
Cancelled
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
The AFL tribunual have made fools of themselves to let it get this far. And they'll look even more foolish when Collingwood win this appeal. Collingwood must feel strongly about this injustice to appeal again because it is that. An injustice. And if there is any justice with all the evidence offerred to the next hearing, the case will be thrown out in a matter of minutes.
The AFL tribunual have made fools of themselves to let it get this far. And they'll look even more foolish when Collingwood win this appeal. Collingwood must feel strongly about this injustice to appeal again because it is that. An injustice. And if there is any justice with all the evidence offerred to the next hearing, the case will be thrown out in a matter of minutes.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case
Fair enough. I would argue that he was negligent in not executing the bump in a manner that ensured his head didn't snap forward and clash with McGinnity's head, which was his evidence of what happened.
I think people are being a little over-dramatic. The bump isn't being outlawed, it just needs to be done properly. If Maxwell had tucked his head in better or slowed up a little, he (and McGinnity) would have been fine.
Fair enough. I would argue that he was negligent in not executing the bump in a manner that ensured his head didn't snap forward and clash with McGinnity's head, which was his evidence of what happened.
I think people are being a little over-dramatic. The bump isn't being outlawed, it just needs to be done properly. If Maxwell had tucked his head in better or slowed up a little, he (and McGinnity) would have been fine.
- Status
