Maxwell Cleared

[Itsmyshow]

Another victory for the players that choose to attack the man rather than the ball, the act is cowardly with the intent of taking out the man rather than the object of the game which is to win the ball.

Will get howled down, but the appeals tribunal got it wrong. The "Bump" wasn't on trial, the attack on an opponent was on trial..

 

[WCEforeverman]

Another victory for the players that choose to attack the man rather than the ball, the act is cowardly with the intent of taking out the man rather than the object of the game which is to win the ball.

Will get howled down, but the appeals tribunal got it wrong. The "Bump" wasn't on trial, the attack on an opponent was on trial..

My point exactly.

 

[sherb]

Well in my opinion I thought it was a good old fashioned shirt front and McGinnity was just unlucky. It happens. But, where does this now leave the AFL with their 'the head is sacrosanct' stance? Will be some interesting tribunal cases this year I think.

It will stay, no doubt.

As I said before, all I see this resulting in is the AFL tightening its rules.

This will be a very short-term victory in my view.

 

[daffo]

I'm happy with hearing this, but i really didn't expect it.

 

[douls]

Another victory for the players that choose to attack the man rather than the ball, the act is cowardly with the intent of taking out the man rather than the object of the game which is to win the ball.

Will get howled down, but the appeals tribunal got it wrong. The "Bump" wasn't on trial, the attack on an opponent was on trial..

How the hell did he "attack" the man?
What part of the bump was unfair then?
If there was no clash of head do you still think it was an "attack" on the man

He never raised his elbows, his feet never left the ground. Text book bump.

 

[douls]

Well in my opinion I thought it was a good old fashioned shirt front and McGinnity was just unlucky. It happens. But, where does this now leave the AFL with their 'the head is sacrosanct' stance? Will be some interesting tribunal cases this year I think.

they are either going to have to change the rules (again) or add in ACCIDENTAL contact is permitted.

At no stage did his arms, chest, shoulder hit McGinnity in the head. Dreadfully unlucky but there was no intent to hit the player in the head.

But yep, the rule has just got so much more greyer for everyone

 

[coasting]

AFL buckles to Eddies spin machine. Wow no surprises there

Most damning thing is they have given no reason - they have yet to think of one yet

We all know the real reason - public opinion and the whining.

All I can say is: what an injustice. Plenty of players have been rubbed out for what Maxwell did - or even less. But you know its just an Eagles rookie no one has ever heard so its all clear dude your fine to play.

 

[douls]

AFL buckles to Eddies spin machine. Wow no surprises there

Most damning thing is they have given no reason - they have yet to think of one yet

We all know the real reason - public opinion and the whining.

All I can say is: what an injustice. Plenty of players have been rubbed out for what Maxwell did - or even less. But you know its just an Eagles rookie no one has ever heard so its all clear dude your fine to play.

The reasoning of the decision comes out later today

 

[Hollow Knight]

AFL buckles to Eddies spin machine. Wow no surprises there

Most damning thing is they have given no reason - they have yet to think of one yet

I notice plenty of West Coast supporters on your board saying it is the correct decision. Ever consider the remote possibility that you've got this one wrong?

 

[coasting]

The reasoning of the decision comes out later today

Like I said, they are still thinking about!

 

[mdc]

they are either going to have to change the rules (again) or add in ACCIDENTAL contact is permitted.

I don't think they have to do either.

Accidental contact is permitted as long as the bump was your only reasonable alternative, which is what I and others have been saying all along.

 

[sherb]

AFL buckles to Eddies spin machine. Wow no surprises there

As long as McGuire doesn't believe opposition players have a duty of care to Collingwood players' heads when laying similar bumps, then he is being consistent I guess.

 

[market]

"Sherb" makes a good point in all of this though...and that is, even though the "battle" has been won (enjoy the moment etc), the war hasn't.

Back at AFL headquarters in the bunker right now after all the gnashing of teeth is completed, Vlad and co will be doing everything under the sun to ensure that should another replica incident occur, the player will be pinged (and will not be able to get off through appeals).

 

[douls]

I don't think they have to do either.

Accidental contact is permitted as long as the bump was your only reasonable alternative, which is what I and others have been saying all along.

But that is what is so grey about it. According to the spin of Anderson the other day accidental contact is NOT permitted if he could have gone the ball instead. The onus is on the player doing the hit.

the bump certainly wasn't his only reasonable alternative, but as i have said before i fail to see what is wrong with what he did.

 

[spursmania]

Common sense prevails. Thanks Kevin Bartlett.

Agree, common sense decision

 

[douls]

"Sherb" makes a good point in all of this though...and that is, even though the "battle" has been won (enjoy the moment etc), the war hasn't.

Back at AFL headquarters in the bunker right now after all the gnashing of teeth is completed, Vlad and co will be doing everything under the sun to ensure that should another replica incident occur, the player will be pinged (and will not be able to get off through appeals).

they would be ropeable wouldn't they!

Vlad will be one angy bastard today.

 

[mdc]

But that is what is so grey about it. According to the spin of Anderson the other day accidental contact is NOT permitted if he could have gone the ball instead. The onus is on the player doing the hit.

That's the thing, he could have reasonably gone the ball without punishing his team.

the bump certainly wasn't his only reasonable alternative, but as i have said before i fail to see what is wrong with what he did.

This:

In summing up his argument on Friday, Gleeson again questioned Maxwell’s decision to shepherd – the basis on which the Tribunal found the Pies’ skipper guilty earlier in the week.

But Forrest refuted that in his closing.

He said Maxwell putting his head over the ball, with two players bearing down on him at great speed was not a “reasonable alternative”, saying Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse would be livid at his skipper for giving up a two-on-one advantage.

“What is Mr Maxwell to do in this situation?” Forrest said, suggesting that pulling out of the contest was laughable.

“Oh, I’m a tenth of a second away from this contest, I’m only the captain … sorry Mick!”

 

[swiftdog]

Why didn't he just go for the ball? That's what I don't understand.

Looking at the replay, he could have got to the ball first, and he actually gets in Corries way, preventing him from getting to the ball also.

Therefore he just wanted to hit the player. Surely it would have been more courageous to put his head down and go for the ball rather than go for the bump. Just my opinion.

Glad to see the bump is not dead, and hope he cops a Beau Waters special next time we play the pies.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=754809

Forrest successfully argued that if Maxwell had taken the option of putting his head over the ball rather than bumping McGinnity, it could have resulted in serious injury to both players, as well as Collingwood's Anthony Corrie who was nearby.

"Putting his head over the ball with Corrie and McGinnity coming like a freight train is not asking him to execute a realistic alternative.

"It was a situation fraught with injury if Maxwell was required to put his head over the ball."

Hope that answers your question

 

[coasting]

I notice plenty of West Coast supporters on your board saying it is the correct decision. Ever consider the remote possibility that you've got this one wrong?

They are talking about it being in the spirit of the game and maybe it is. But under the current rules its clearly not the correct decision - as pointed out by AA himself in the last few days the onus is on the player making the bump. More policy on the run from the AFL. Its incredibly frustrating, they just make it up as they go along with no rhyme, reason or logic.

 

[ant22]

As long as McGuire doesn't believe opposition players have a duty of care to Collingwood players' heads when laying similar bumps, then he is being consistent I guess.

Name one other incident where a player has bumped another player within 5 metres of the ball with a prefect action, keeping his arms tucked in and bumping below the head that has been rubbed out. The afl acknowledge the other day that it was likely that contact that broke the jaw was an accident and there argument was purely based on maxwell having another option. That other option was to go for the footy even though he had 2 blokes on his hammer and had a teamate(corrie) running in the direction of the goal(if maxwell went he would have had to u-turn) and in a much better position. There is no rule that says you can only bump a play if you need to run past the ball to bump the player. This is the biggest mis-conception in this whole saga. F-wits like A.anderson and Andrew maher may have you believe this but this is not a rule(nor should there be)

The fact that most on this site approve of this decision is fantastic. while I am sure many supporters of this decision would love to see a collingwood player rubbed out in normal circumstances in this case they can see this is best for the preservation of the bump.

And those who think this another case of collingwood not wanting to protect players heads and look after players off the ball I suggest you go back and look at the way the club looked at the ben johnson of 2 years ago and brodie holland the year before that(both got 6 weeks) and they way they coped them on the chin. Comparing maxwells to the carecella and some of the wreckless incidents that beau waters has done it ridiculous. This was a well executed bump and an unfortunate accident occured. We need to expect that injuries will happen. If we dont then what to we do next, start rubbing out blokes everytime someone gets injured in a tackle?

 

[coasting]

Name one other incident where a player has bumped another player within 5 metres of the ball with a prefect action, keeping his arms tucked in and bumping below the head that has been rubbed out.

It wasn't below the head. He clearly hit him in the had. There was no head clash, you can see it in the video. Maxwell suffered no head wounds and did not grab at his head. There was no head clash.

 

[wolfman5]

ridiculous.... he stuffed the bump up broke someones jaw did'nt go for the ball... played the man didnt exicute it proply he should of been rubbed out. all you bring back the biff people are blinded by indecent.

 

[Stone in sock]

ridiculous that it got this far.

collingwood should sue the afl to get all our money back.

 

[Rohan25]

Good decision. Congratulations Collingwood for not rolling over and meekly accepting that rubbish verdict.

 

[steveo79]

We all know the real reason - public opinion and the whining.

Yeah right!! If so, then Collingwood would play every week interstate with the amount of whining & public opinion on the topic of the draw

All I can say is: what an injustice. Plenty of players have been rubbed out for what Maxwell did - or even less. But you know its just an Eagles rookie no one has ever heard so its all clear dude your fine to play.

Any examples??