Merged: Maxwell and that bump

[likka]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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.

Maxwell executed the bump to the letter of the law. He executed it properly and perfectly. There was nothing more he could have done, save make a deliberate decision to only bump him half has hard.

Has the game become so soft that players now have to temper their efforts when executing a hip and shoulder?

 

[Zvim]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

At the end of the day it's a fight for the future of the game.
If Maxwell is exonerated the winners will be us the supporters, the game and quite possibly several players from opposition clubs this season alone.

The MRP's statement, below, opens a pandoras box of ludicrous charges and penalties for anything they deem to be an injury.


"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."

Maxwell is a well known sniper, he likes to come running off the lines to hit someone unsuspecting very hard in order to cause harm. They put Pickett out to pasture a long time before Maxwell came around and his days are numbered just like Pickett's days were.

There was nothing accidental about the incident, he ran in to take him out and he did that. He may not have intended to break his jaw but what he did was excessive, like a lot of his bumps.

Thousands of hip and shoulders do not come before the MRP or Tribunal? Why? Because the intention is not there to cause damage to the player.

If he continues to play the role of a sniper he has a very short future in AFL, it is as simple as that. AFL should not hide or protect the players who have an intent to cause harm or see the rules of the game changed to be stricter because we have the occasional sniper who likes to come around and use the hip and shoulder as a free license to cause physical harm.

Pickett did less damage to players and got 7 week suspensions, this is the future for Maxwell if he doesn't change his game.

 

[magpie_militia]

Re: We still won't know what Nick Maxwell did wrong.

You're just being stupid.

I am not being stupid. I am utterly frustrated with where our game is going.

How can it be "negligent to bump, no matter how legally executed, if contact results in injury"

What a farce.

 

[bourbons]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

"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."

I'm not sure whether that's an actual quote from the Match Review Panel, or a journalist's interpretation of the decision. I suspect it's the latter.

It is from a journalist, but its accurate. How can you you draw any other interpretation?

 

[footyfreak]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Good.

Everyone should be grateful, they're trying to save the bump.

You'll thank us in a few years when we aren't playing with touch footy rules instead of tackling.

exactly, i really see this as standing up for the fabric of our game. I just saw the incident again on fox twice and if that is weeks then our game, as i've said in regard to the bump many times, is RUINED!!!!

 

[Ron The Bear]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I don't think people genuinely understand the rule.

It is all about Maxwell's (or any player's) CHOICE. If you have a choice between going for the ball and going for the man, and you CHOOSE to go for the man, then you elect to face the consequences if your 'duty of care' is not upheld.

In the examples of player's kneeing someone in the head in a pack mark situation or something similar, if the player has chosen to go for the ball and has eyes only for the ball, then the rule protects them.

Probably the clearest explanation I've read from the pro-AFL side. Until the AFL develops mind-reading powers however, player intent will remain a massive grey area.

 

[Tay29]

Re: We still won't know what Nick Maxwell did wrong.

If he'd kicked the ball into a bloke's jaw and broke it, would he be cited for that too? Both are legal actions that inadvertantly result in an injury.

Accidental head contact is reportable for bumps only(for the time being) thus making Maxwell's bump illegal. Again, it's not hard to comprehend. A 5 year old playing tackers could understand the difference. Accidental head contact in tackling (except where a tackled player's head hits the ground due to his arms being pinned and slung to the ground e.g. Milburn on Shane Edwards) and in your example, kicking a ball into someone's face is on the surface acceptable.

Once again here is the definition provided by the tribunal for the 2009 season;

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2009.pdf

An extra onus applies to protect players from serious neck
injuries when they have their head down over the ball and to
protect players from bumps to the head. Bumping or making
forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that
opponent has his head down over the ball, unless intentional or
reckless, will be deemed to be negligent, unless:
a. the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances
outside the control of the player which could not reasonably
be foreseen.
....
Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.

So what does this say? If the player ignores going for the ball or tackling the opponent and instead tries to bump him, any accidental contact to the head is negligent and is a reportable offence.

I see...so ANY high contact when shepparding off the ball means a holiday does it ?

How about if my arms are out and your nose gets broken ..pretty common...i decided to make forceful contact to stop u getting to it..its an accident tho...its high contact..i get a month off do i ?

On the information above it's all dependent on the type of shepherd and what is considered reasonable. If the shepherding player has his back to the player who he is trying to shepherd and throws his arms out making contact with face, one would expect that the shepherd was a reasonable attempt and a free kick should be paid for the high contact but not reportable. If the shepherd is more like a bump then you would think that the player is in trouble.

I must say this game is becoming over sanitised, and depending on the injury to a player on the end of a bump, the penalty will be determined by the amount of time the player will be out injured,
Now i am putting my NO Maxwell for captaincy out the door, but that decision smacks of double standards, see G,Ablett`s hit on Wirrapunda, exactly the same.
Anyway Maxwell no great loss, onwards and upwards for the Pies.

Another slow Pie supporter. I'll re-iterate. The Ablett hit happened during the 2006 season before the "head is sacrosanct" rules and interpretations were in place. Again not a difficult concept to understand.

 

[greennick]

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.

Have a little cry why don't you? An injustice?? You know what is an injustice? The fact you are allowed to post on here despite having no obvious knowledge of the rules of the game.

There is only one party that is going to come out of this looking foolish and that is Collingwood. Not many of these appeals have been successful in the past. Collingwood has so far not demonstrated any basis for a successful appeal, so I fail to see why they are bothering.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

.....how is that relevant to this exactly?

Um...I'm tipping they might not appeal if only 1 week!!

 

[Main Man]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Maxwell is a well known sniper, he likes to come running off the lines to hit someone unsuspecting very hard in order to cause harm. They put Pickett out to pasture a long time before Maxwell came around and his days are numbered just like Pickett's days were.

There was nothing accidental about the incident, he ran in to take him out and he did that. He may not have intended to break his jaw but what he did was excessive, like a lot of his bumps.

Thousands of hip and shoulders do not come before the MRP or Tribunal? Why? Because the intention is not there to cause damage to the player.

If he continues to play the role of a sniper he has a very short future in AFL, it is as simple as that. AFL should not hide or protect the players who have an intent to cause harm or see the rules of the game changed to be stricter because we have the occasional sniper who likes to come around and use the hip and shoulder as a free license to cause physical harm.

Pickett did less damage to players and got 7 week suspensions, this is the future for Maxwell if he doesn't change his game.

I agree 100%!

 

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

negligent conduct, it was an accident not negligent.

Negligent implies it was an accident.

Negligent means he didn't mean to do crack him in the head, but he didn't exercise enough care to ensure he didn't.

How can you argue that?

 

[Dave The Man]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

The Collingwood Football Club has decided to appeal the four-match suspension Nick Maxwell received after unsuccessfully challenging the Match Review Panel’s charge at the AFL Tribunal on Tuesday night.

The club is appealing the decision on the basis “that the decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could’ve come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it”.

Depending on how far the Magpies progress in the NAB Cup, Maxwell faces the prospect of missing at least one and potentially three home-and-away season matches in his first year as captain.

The 25-year-old was initially charged with level three rough conduct against West Coast’s Patrick McGinnity during the first quarter of the NAB Cup round one match at Subiaco Oval on February 7.

The Magpies challenged the Match Review Panel’s finding after Maxwell was offered three matches with an early plea, however the tribunal ruled the bump on McGinnity was negligent and the Collingwood skipper did have a “realistic alternative” other than shepherding.

From collingwood web site

 

[steveo79]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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.

How exactly does someone "tuck his head in better" & what do you "tuck it in" to??

 

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

You can't practise the Bump they you can be 100% sure you don't his someone High.

Those it's a Waist of Time becasue he got even less chance of him getting off.

They must be hoping with the Media and Public Outrage over this might get the Appeal Board to overturn the 4 Weeks but I would Reallt doubt that

Are you drunk?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Maxwell executed the bump to the letter of the law. He executed it properly and perfectly. There was nothing more he could have done, save make a deliberate decision to only bump him half has hard.

Has the game become so soft that players now have to temper their efforts when executing a hip and shoulder?

I'd suggest that a properly and perfectly executed bump doesn't involve your head hitting your opponent's head.

 

[greennick]

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..

Except for the contact to the head bit....

 

[jj1978]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Maxwell is a well known sniper, he likes to come running off the lines to hit someone unsuspecting very hard in order to cause harm. They put Pickett out to pasture a long time before Maxwell came around and his days are numbered just like Pickett's days were.

There was nothing accidental about the incident, he ran in to take him out and he did that. He may not have intended to break his jaw but what he did was excessive, like a lot of his bumps.

Thousands of hip and shoulders do not come before the MRP or Tribunal? Why? Because the intention is not there to cause damage to the player.

If he continues to play the role of a sniper he has a very short future in AFL, it is as simple as that. AFL should not hide or protect the players who have an intent to cause harm or see the rules of the game changed to be stricter because we have the occasional sniper who likes to come around and use the hip and shoulder as a free license to cause physical harm.

Pickett did less damage to players and got 7 week suspensions, this is the future for Maxwell if he doesn't change his game.

I think you're kinda on the money of what the AFL/Tribunal is trying to tell the AFL community.

Yes you can hip and shoulder somebody but there is a limit to the extent of force you should do it with (depending on the circumstances).

Executing a hip and shoulder does imply a players intent to not go for the ball, but for the man instead. If a player decides to block the man and not go for the ball they face the risk that any injury or head high contact occurs will be deemed intentional.

In the case of a hip and shoulder a player executing should provide a duty of care and not OVERDO it (as in the case of Maxwell). Really Maxwell only needed to slightly bump him or nudge him to have executed a sheppard for his teammate, he didn't need to go full brunt.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

How exactly does someone "tuck his head in better" & what do you "tuck it in" to??

Into your chest.

 

[smiddaz123]

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.

It isn't really relevant if they believe that no penalty is deserved.

 

[popathon]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Do we appeal to a higher authority? Surely Collingwood don't have to argue their case with the same members of the MRP. This will be a waste of time. Even if it is the correct decision (according to the rules) it's ridiculous, good bump and i'd say the same for any other player on any team.

 

[Paddywhackers]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Maxwell is a well known sniper, he likes to come running off the lines to hit someone unsuspecting very hard in order to cause harm. They put Pickett out to pasture a long time before Maxwell came around and his days are numbered just like Pickett's days were.
game.

The only people that seem to be for the decision are those that are not very bright. The decision should have nothing to do with your prejudice against players or Collingwood. Pickett won a norm smith and was a very good footballer who, would have sat lengthy spells on the sidelines as he was renowned for bumping players with their head over the ball.

Maxwell is renowned for being a tough competitor, and you only have to use the examply where he through himself uncompromisingly into a Jonothan Brown contest breaking his leg. Or the best ever tackle you and me have probably seen on Rooke in the pre lim in 2007.

Or in this instance where he has layed a beautiful bump that unfortunately had a head clash.

But I don't know why I bothered replying to you because you are not that bright.

 

[FIGJAM]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Good on us I reckon!

 

[favourites]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Are you drunk?

Its dave, and no he's not drunk. Im sure you know what he means.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

we'll also thank you when on of our players dies on the field or gets paralyzed.


they are not outlawing the bump... they are outlawing the bump that contacts with the head

Injuries happen even if the rules are followed. It's a ****ing contact sport!

If every single driver follows the road rules perfectly, there will STILL be accidents here and there sadly. It's the nature of the road, and it's the same on the football field.

Injuries happen unfortunately, and the AFL has to steer clear of punishing people just because someone gets injured.

Collingwood presented actual medical evidence to show that the broken jaw was caused by a clash of heads as well.

4 weeks for something such as this is a blatant over reaction.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

It is from a journalist, but its accurate. How can you you draw any other interpretation?

Quite easily.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent having a dislocated shoulder is not going to draw a suspension as a result of this.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent falling over, striking a teammate's knee and being knocked out cold is not going to draw a suspension.

It was the fact of Maxwell's head-high contact on McGinnity that caused his suspension. The bump isn't being banned. Head-high contact is.