Maxwell Cleared

[kirbatron]

Pies are the real losers here. They have to play Maxwell now....

 

[Pessimistic]

AFL argued that there are some options where the best option is "Not to Bump" -

Ask the coaches if they agree with that. -

Leigh Matthews does..

Look at it again - all maxwell has achieved is burnt time and money for the pies (and the AFL) for an act which was unneccesary - the player was covered and the ball was almost over the line anyway.

Was it a"welcome to the AFL" childish prank on the rookie player ? what a dork "Broken Jaw with that, kid ?"

 

[ant22]

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.

point out the rule, I dont believe there is one. I think AA was justing saying what he thinks is the ruleand what it should be-I believe he got it wrong. I don't and have not seen any rule that says a player can only bump if he has no other options. In the actual action of the bump there is no evidence of head high contact. It seems to be accepted the the head high contact was from a clash of heads(surely a player is not expected to get down on his hands and knees and bump?) which was purely an accident.
This is not like the incidents with Waters where he had a habit of running at players on there hands and knees and made contact to the top of the head. Everyone who has spoken about it that I have heard tends to agree it was a well executed bump. If we rub blokes out for this then the bump is dead.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

AFL's own fault they charged Maxwell with the wrong offence. If they had charged him with headbutting he might not have got off.

 

[Territory Magpie]

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.

You're in a large river in Egypt, mate....denial

 

[ant22]

Leigh Matthews does..

Look at it again - all maxwell has achieved is burnt time and money for the pies (and the AFL) for an act which was unneccesary - the player was covered and the ball was almost over the line anyway.

Was it a"welcome to the AFL" childish prank on the rookie player ? what a dork "Broken Jaw with that, kid ?"

acutally thats not true. Corrie was running at the ball in the direction of goals. Had maxwell taken the ball he would have gone over the line or had to do a u turn and may have been caught. The play was the play every coach and no doubt al clarkson if he was coach would want the player to do. Take out there best option to win the footy and give your teamate who is in a better position to win the footy. And your comment about almost of the ball is a joke. Im pretty sure the hawks did not win the flag last year by leaving a contest because the ball was ALMOST over the line. Your side has player like this for the last 2 year(and good on them) so I hardly think hawthorn supporters should jump up and down

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Thank god for that - a victory for commonsense. Should never have been reported in the first place in my view.

 

[magpie_militia]

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.

Maxwell had a cut on the side of his face and headaches for a couple of days after the game. Just because he didn't initially grab at his head doesn't mean he wasn't hurt.

 

[ant22]

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.

Crap even the tribunal did not say he hit him in the head in the initial contact and they seemed to agree the contact was accidentle. If he got him in the head with the bump I dont think there would be to many arguments. You must have a special video no one else has. Because in the one I have seen I see shoulder into his chest and nothing else. I have hit my head many times playing footy and not had a wound- Ridiculous argument

 

[coasting]

point out the rule, I dont believe there is one. I think AA was justing saying what he thinks is the ruleand what it should be-I believe he got it wrong. I don't and have not seen any rule that says a player can only bump if he has no other options. In the actual action of the bump there is no evidence of head high contact. It seems to be accepted the the head high contact was from a clash of heads(surely a player is not expected to get down on his hands and knees and bump?) which was purely an accident.
This is not like the incidents with Waters where he had a habit of running at players on there hands and knees and made contact to the top of the head. Everyone who has spoken about it that I have heard tends to agree it was a well executed bump. If we rub blokes out for this then the bump is dead.

Err look at the vision again. McGinnity was just putting his head down to pick up the ball. Thats why his shoulder hit his jaw and broke it. But you Collingwood smucks think it was a headclash and that Maxwell broke his jaw with his cheeckbone and that Maxwell is superman and just kept playing despite a massive head hit as if nothing had happened.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

The appeal was on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable, that no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision.

Realistically, shouldn't that mean that the entire tribunal should be sacked? How do they justify keeping their jobs when they were basically just convicted of being incompetent and unreasonable in the decision making?

 

[Makka]

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

Of course. As I said earlier, I thought it was a good solid bump and obviously contact with the head was quite accidental. They need to look at this rule properly if they want to enforce it.

 

[coasting]

The appeal was on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable, that no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision.

Realistically, shouldn't that mean that the entire tribunal should be sacked? How do they justify keeping their jobs when they were basically just convicted of being incompetent and unreasonable in the decision making?

I don't know if they should be sacked but someone should be sacked. To go from 3 weeks to 4 weeks to no weeks is farcical. My vote is to sack Andy D

 

[ant22]

Err look at the vision again. McGinnity was just putting his head down to pick up the ball. Thats why his shoulder hit his jaw and broke it. But you Collingwood smucks think it was a headclash and that Maxwell broke his jaw with his cheeckbone and that Maxwell is superman and just kept playing despite a massive head hit as if nothing had happened.

us collingwood smucks?Mate your the only one I know of who is of this opinion. Even the afl did not use this as an argument. The commentators on the night seemed to think it was ok as well. Its a physical game and it was within the rules. Move on get over it and thank FCK we can still have a physical eliment to the game. It was a beautiful bump and I hope we see more like it. If one of our players copes one like this and gets injured I can assure you I will not be sooking like you. As someone said even most of your fellow supporters dont have an issue with it. Are they smucks to?

 

[JoondalupJ]

You little ripper

Best thing that's happened for the game of footy in a long time

I agree completely. Perhaps the idiocy that disguises itself as a fair tribunal will begin to be challenged more and more, and, this hopefully, may be the start of the returning to the body contact game that it is meant to be and the removing of the Demitriou/Anderson nonsense of the past few years. Nobody wants brutality in our game but to try and remove the physicality of Aussie Rules is an offense to its culture and history. If the likes of Bartlett and Langford and other champions of the game are prepared to sanitise this sport under the control of Demitriou then perhaps they should look at themselves a little more deeply and remove themselves along with the other spoilers of our game. Hypocricy reigns supreme in the AFL hierachy when in the past, we've seen players, get away with, under new rules IN FINALS, what they wouldn't get away with during the home and away games. They mock our game and the rugby folks laugh at us.
I don't condone brutality as I said, but accidental collisions is part of our game .If a player has to be aware of every single little thing that MIGHT happen when he goes in then truelly the game is on the way down. IF A PLAYER RUNS PAST THE BALL AND HITS
INSIDE THE METRE RANGE ISN'T THAT SHEPHERDING??????? Give us our game back you
AFL bosses. As Brad Hardie said and I agree, most of you are there just to have a job, not to do a job, nice pay and all the perks. Demitriou and Anderson piss off! excuse my French.

 

[Del Piero]

So they just ignored the rules have they?

Great, another decision based on the amount of cryin the state of Victoria has done....Wipe ur tears now, u dont have to take home ur bat and ball..

Suprised there was no injunction lodged

 

[magpie_militia]

Just let the Pies fans enjoy this victory as there hasn't been many in the last 50 years and doesn't look like there will be for a long time to come.

Big fan base+big sponsors+flashy president+great training facilities+money and yet one premiership in the last 50 years....LAUGHABLE really !

What does any of that have to with Maxwell's bump?

Dry your eyes Pincess.

 

[mdc]

Maxwell is superman and just kept playing despite a massive head hit as if nothing had happened.

Broke his leg after colliding with J.Brown, got straight back up and continued running.

Also played the last 4 weeks of last season with a broken wrist.

So yeah, I think he might be able to withstand a knock to the head.

 

[JoondalupJ]

err look at the vision again. Mcginnity was just putting his head down to pick up the ball. Thats why his shoulder hit his jaw and broke it. But you collingwood smucks think it was a headclash and that maxwell broke his jaw with his cheeckbone and that maxwell is superman and just kept playing despite a massive head hit as if nothing had happened.

it used to be called tough footy.

 

[WCEforeverman]

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




Hope that answers your question

So Maxwell is soft? That's the reason he didn't go for the ball? He was worried about getting hurt? .

Does anyone actually believe that?

It's just the case that they argued. Lawyer spin. The only way he could get off the charge was to present his actions as if he didn't have another option. And he did.

Damn I would be annoyed if I was Maxwell and that was the argument they used.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Wow.....Very suprised and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Would have thought two weeks was fair as he has a history of these "bumps" and often tries to make the big hits rather than going for the ball.

Its called football .I'd like to see that!

 

[Madblue]

I can't dry my eyes because im crying so much with laughter at the Magpies success over the last 50+ years. I can't wait for the comebacks either but nobody can argue with the facts.

 

[swiftdog]

So Maxwell is soft? That's the reason he didn't go for the ball? He was worried about getting hurt? .

Does anyone actually believe that?

It's just the case that they argued. Lawyer spin. The only way he could get off the charge was to present his actions as if he didn't have another option. And he did.

Damn I would be annoyed if I was Maxwell and that was the argument they used.

Suck it all up mate

These things seem not to be getting through to you so I'll use a form you may understand a little better:

QC's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you

Do you understand now?

 

[Paddywhackers]

The appeal was on the grounds that the decision was so unreasonable, that no tribunal acting reasonably could have reached that decision.

Realistically, shouldn't that mean that the entire tribunal should be sacked? How do they justify keeping their jobs when they were basically just convicted of being incompetent and unreasonable in the decision making?

I suggested last night that a head should role over this.

 

[WCEforeverman]

Suck it all up mate

These things seem not to be getting through to you so I'll use a form you may understand a little better:

QC's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you

Do you understand now?

Hey if your club wants to use the defence that your captain is scared of a contest, be my guest!