Maxwell Cleared

[rdhopkins2]

Common sense has prevailed, no need to bring out the skirts!

 

[ashs35]

Watching it at the time it seemed a legal bump but it did happen very quickly. There's no doubt watching the replay that it was a shirt-front that resulted in a head injury. Under the letter of the current AFL laws it is punishable. Not saying I agree with that as like all of us the physical side of our game is part of what I love about it.

Today's result has huge ramifications on our tribunal system going forward - its more of a mess than it was a week ago...

Exactly, if you run right passed the ball and go for the man, and they get severely injured, that's a suspension! simple as that!

 

[FIGJAM]

Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could! [/I]

He had designs for the ball though, as evidenced by him being first to the ball after the bump (he impeded Corrie somewhat). He almost kept it in!

Maxwell's intent is to play footy as hard as he can and win the damn ball legally. He did so in this instance, as admitted by today's hearing and even admitted by the tribunal who suspended him!

 

[ashs35]

You are making a fool of yourself with your outburst.
Even your own supporters agree it was a fair bump. There is no other requirement to have any concern for the ball in a shepherd other than that the ball is within 5m of the event.
You assert that others don't understand what they are talking about and then prove you do not.

Hi Dr. Phil,
Belive it or not there is a difference between a hip & shoulder & a shepherd... Thats why they have two different names to describe the 2 actions ...
Maxwell was the closest one to the ball, he chose to go the man instead of the ball, & broke someones jaw, I suggest you watch the footage boofhead!

 

[Nathan Q Brown]

Hi Dr. Phil,
Belive it or not there is a difference between a hip & shoulder & a shepherd... Thats why they have two different names to describe the 2 actions ...
Maxwell was the closest one to the ball, he chose to go the man instead of the ball, & broke someones jaw, I suggest you watch the footage boofhead!

settle down Princess. some people who actually had a clue got involved and tossed this crap case out. the reality is that most of the sooks tonight would agree with the appeal decision too if Maxwell didn't wear black and white. it was a great decision for the game. the only loser if the eagles kid who forgot he was playing with the big boys and the collingwood haters (plenty of them of course)

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

I just watched the bump for the first time on YouTube...

God damn right he should of got off, there was nothing in that...

Unlucky for poor Pat, but Maxwell did nothing wrong IMO.

 

[sherb]

OH GOD HELP US

That little prick AA is on SEN saying if the rule needs rewording to protect the head at all costs then they will do it. Also said that their position hasn't changed and that has been the case for 2 years and if they need to make changes to continue that they will.

As i said earlier, this was just a stay of execution, the hang men are retying their knots

You shouldn't be surprised, this was the predictable and inevitable outcome of all this (the point I was trying to make in several posts earlier in the thread).

All this decision means is that the AFL will do all it can to prevent a recurrence of it.

The AFL's philosophy will not change and players will continue to be reported/suspended for incidents like this one.

I can't see how people think that this decision is some sort of victory for the game - it is a one-off only.

 

[adelaide_40]

Fantastic news there was nothing wrong with it and I am glad that the correct decision has been made.

The only problem is consistency, a 3 week ban appeal and get a 4 week ban. Appeal again and it gets thrown out.

 

[buzzbuzz]

Sometimes you just have to keep hammering; it takes a lot to get through those thick MRP/Tribunal/Appeal skulls.

 

[Pie eyed]

Hi Dr. Phil,
Belive it or not there is a difference between a hip & shoulder & a shepherd... Thats why they have two different names to describe the 2 actions ...
Maxwell was the closest one to the ball, he chose to go the man instead of the ball, & broke someones jaw, I suggest you watch the footage boofhead!

LOL at you. A hip and shoulder is a bump.
A shepherd can be a bump or simply holding your ground.
A bump, holding your ground or simply running a line which prevents an oppo player from getting to your team mate or the ball is a shepherd. Standing over the ball as it rolls through the goals is a shepherd. You nearest team mate could be 70 meters away if he's A. Rocca
You can shepherd the ball or shepherd the player.

It is legal to shepherd using any of these actions as long as the ball is within 5 meters. ****in idiot, how can you lecture anyone about a shepherd.

A shepherd is using your body to prevent the opposition from access to the ball whether or not your team mate is in possession or not.

You can do it running, you can do it standing, you can do it milking a free.....so long as the ball is within 5 meters..........

Anyone else feel free to give other examples of shepherding for Mr Not So Friggin Bright.

It is hard enough beating of the trolls with a clue.....

God save us from fools with keyboards.

See my original post...

<<<YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF>>>>>

 

[Pie eyed]

I just watched the bump for the first time on YouTube...

God damn right he should of got off, there was nothing in that...

Unlucky for poor Pat, but Maxwell did nothing wrong IMO.

You must have been checking your crop up at Cradle Mountain if you only saw the video today...lol

How the hell did you manage it?

 

[footyfreak]

Look all im saying is how can the AFL originally give maxwell 4 weeks and then reduce it to nothing today? There are only 2 possible reasons for this change of decision.
1 They have just realised he plays for Collingwood
And 2 Eddie McGuire and the AFL hadnt meet each others financial agreements until today.

lolololololololol

You are the perfect stereo type of a BF poster

 

[frantelle]

What you fail to see (because you're biased) is that Maxwell intentionally went for the man rather than the ball, and the result was a broken jaw.
If it were the other way around and Maxwell was on the receiving end with the broken jaw (and he was gonna miss 3 months), you'd obviously be saying that it was an illegal shirt front and the guy should be suspended!

You seem to fail to comprehend simple things, if the ball is within 5m (which it was) he has the option to go the man for a sheperd and not the ball. It was a freak clash of heads after the intial contact and if a clash of heads begins to get weeks then we really need to look at where the game is going

 

[FuManchu]

Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

If the ball is within 5 metres and it was, then it is legitimate to bump a player off the ball. can you show where it says you cannot bump a player off the ball within 5 metres?

If this kind of play is deemed 'legal' then there's gonna be a massive increase in injury's this year... Is that what we really want to see ? more injury's ?

There's massive injuries every year. Have you been closing your eyes when it suits?

And like I said before if it had of been Judd on the receiving end of the broken jaw, he would of atleast got 2 weeks...easy!

A bit like Judd giving an eye gouge and getting off?

 

[FuManchu]

I had to laugh reading Greg Williams statement that maxwell should be suspended because he didnt have to bump McGinnity.

How ridiculous is that? Of course Maxwell didnt have to bump him, Maxwell can run onto the football field and elect to do nothing if that is his desire! But If maxwell and any other player sees the chance to impose themselves on a contest legally with the intent to favour their own team, then they are also entitled to do something in the contest. In this case Maxwell chose to shepherd within 5 metres of the ball, which is still legal.

Seriously .... what would Williams have players do? Just stand there like witches hats? Its not like Maxwell went at a player with a closed fist hey Greg?

Now we are reading that AA is posturing to re write the rules to ensure that no player is ever hurt like McGinnity was unfortunately hurt. I still argue that if you bump legally, with proper intent then some amount of discretion should be allowed in determining any penalty.

For instance, if you legally contact a player in the torso and the hit players head rocked so violently from the contact that it makes contact with the tackler, then really why should the player executing the correct technique be penalised? There is no hard and fast rule to this type of physics. Is AA going to legislate that we pre determine before contact the other players physiological make up and apply varying degrees of force to prevent any mishaps?

Wouldnt it be easier to say, if you keep certain aspects in play when making contact like not jumping, elbows down, aiming at the torso, then the MRP can take that intent into account if injury occurs to the head? Otherwise we should just play tag and be done with it!

 

[_Wang_]

^^^^^^

As he should be cleared.
Game is becoming diluted with soft rules.
Not a fan of Collingwood but a fan of this decision....

 

[The Royal Sampler]

May I please clear something up?

As far as the rules are concerned, there is no difference between a shirt-front, a bump, or a hip-and-shoulder. Unless it's applied to a player's back, or further than 5m away from the ball; which will result in a free kick, or the head; which will result in a free kick and a report, it's all the same. You may as well argue over whether Santa is really "Father Christmas" or "Saint Nicholas".

I'm embarrassed reading posts saying "that's not a bump, that's a full-on shirt-front, he's sure to get rubbed out for that!".

A shirt-front usually refers to a front-on bump.
A hip-and-shoulder is a bump applied by initiating contact with, you guessed it, the hip and the shoulder.
A bump can be either.
Any of the above can be referred to as a shepherd (note spelling) when the ball is within 5m and the object of the contact initiated is to block for a teammate. Shepherding includes (but is not limited to) such forceful blocking, it can also be merely running alongside the teammate with arms extended to provide a block.

This has been a community service announcement.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Really glad it got over-turned. Disgraceful original interpretation. Good luck to him and the Pies for 2009.

 

[Pie eyed]

What you fail to see (because you're biased) is that Maxwell intentionally went for the man rather than the ball, and the result was a broken jaw.
If it were the other way around and Maxwell was on the receiving end with the broken jaw (and he was gonna miss 3 months), you'd obviously be saying that it was an illegal shirt front and the guy should be suspended!
Simple as that **********!

He is allowed to go straight for the man and not the ball idiot.
There is no way you can wrap it up which makes going for the man instead of the ball, unless the ball is less than 5 meters away, illegal. It is called "shepherding".....
You are a tool.
You don't even know the basic rules.
You are a biger tool.
You opinion is worth less then shit it is ludicrous and wrong.
And did I mention you are a tool?

What about this fact can't you get through your head.

Maxwell has been on the receiving end many times. He get back up and back into the game straight away, unless of course his leg is broken. Then he hobbles off without so much as a whine from him or us.
In fact when he broke his leg most footy fans realised how courageous he is.

You have made yourself look like a totally ignorant fool already and now you are simply proving it.

You are less than stupid.
You are pathetic.

 

[Bone Crusher]

It is illegal actually, if you clearly take your eyes off the footy and go for the man, and they get severely injured, then you get suspended...

Not with the ball within 5m. It's called a shepherd.

If it happened to Dale Thomas or Allan Didak, I'm prety sure you wouldn't be on the bumper's side, especially if it was in the nab cup...

Or Shane Wakelin? Or Blake Caracella? Neither of those incidents saw a player suspended, and both were a lot more serious than what Maxwell did.

 

[Bone Crusher]

Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

I'm not sure how you think this differs from the AFL's definition of a shepherd. What would you expect him to do in that situation? Try and take possession of the ball, most likely resulting in a ball up or throw in, or at worst, losing it after being caught holding it?

His team mate was the one running towards goal. His team mate was the one who he cleared a path for. That's exactly what AFL players are trained to do in that situation. What makes you think he should've done something different, and what is it you think he should've done? And what should he have told his coach when asked "Why the hell didn't you lay a shepherd?"?