Remove this Banner Ad

Maxwell Cleared

  • Thread starter Thread starter Merv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Can I just point out that Maxwell's 'bad' history is being a bit over stated...



2008 R4 Striking Marc Murphy Early plea 1 match
2008 R20 Wrestling Justin Westhoff Accepted fine $900 fine

Oh what a rebel. One suspension.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Its taken 2 weeks, 2 hearings but finally the right outcome.

The bump and the games hardness was at risk with this hearing thank god for this panel
 
Been on here for the past week seeing posters complain about others being thick or slow...taking the "holier than thou" position that it is plainly obvious for all to see that Maxwell should have been charged/suspended etc even provided links to AFL booklets etc...."suggest you read this..."

and I sat here questioning "common sense", so much so, that I started to believe the rules were being implemented to totally discourage the bump. (Huge risk if you decide to go the bump etc)....

Anyway, cutting through all that..be interesting to see what those posters who supported the MRP/Tribunal's initial finding, think now....
 
Sensational news for now.

I wouldn't be celebrating too hard.

The AFL can still rewrite the rules to suit their agenda.

Will be interesting to see how they respond.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
market said:
Been on here for the past week seeing posters complain about others being thick or slow...taking the "holier than thou" position that it is plainly obvious for all to see that Maxwell should have been charged/suspended etc even provided links to AFL booklets etc...."suggest you read this..."

and I sat here questioning "common sense", so much so, that I started to believe the rules were being implemented to totally discourage the bump. (Huge risk if you decide to go the bump etc)....

Anyway, cutting through all that..be interesting to see what those posters who supported the MRP/Tribunal's initial finding, think now....
Click to expand...

exactly - where's JohnD - let me guess - he'll blame Eddie
 
The panel IMO must have looked at the bump and not the end result, which is what you're meant to do in the first place.

The fact that the player ends up with a broken jaw has nothing to do with the report.
 
smiddaz123 said:
Can I just point out that Maxwell's 'bad' history is being a bit over stated...



2008 R4 Striking Marc Murphy Early plea 1 match
2008 R20 Wrestling Justin Westhoff Accepted fine $900 fine

Oh what a rebel. One suspension.
Click to expand...

That is one of the problems with the way the AFL looks at it. One minor suspension in the last 3 years or something and you are taken to have a "bad record". But I guess at least it takes the judgement out of it.
 
favourites said:
Where are those WCE people??
Click to expand...
Fair result,however it would be interesting to see if a star player egBartel,Ablett,Judd or Kerr was put out for 3 months with a broken jaw if the decision would be the same.
Hopefully there will be consistency ,but I doubt it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Zvim said:
It is stupid and undermines the whole tribunal system and again reinforces there is no consistency in the AFL, you are innocent or guilty based on which way the public opinion pendulum is swinging. Lets just have an online vote and get rid of the puppets in the MRP and Tribunal, if these guys got something so simple so wrong then what are they doing there in the first place?

AFL need to sort this shit out and define properly what is legal and what is not because atm there is no confidence. If the player was from Bulldogs or Melbourne or North Melbourne and it wasn't pre-season when all the journos are bored and have nothing to write about it would never have been over-ruled.
Click to expand...

Wait for the Appeal board ruling. I want to see if they say the bump was fine or the tribunals handling of the case was flawed. The MRP did everything right, shouldn't take any heat on this. The appeals board seem to have done the right thing with what they were handed. The question (I think) will be of the tribunal (namely the chairman) and the AFL's council.

If I am right and they (appeals board that is) don't say this bump was fine (or not fine) but the tribunal process failed, I think that will prove the system 100% works that you get an initial ruling, a chance to contest that, and then if the Trail had errors, a chance to appeal that.

So it maybe that Maxwell was unlucky to make the contact and get reported but then very lucky that the tribunal (if I am right) bouched the case and allowed him off without punishment.
 
favourites said:
Where are those WCE people??
Click to expand...

We're here!!!! But this isn't a West Coast versus Collingwood issue so what's your point? It's an issue about clarifying the rules on duty of care with the bump.

So great news isn't it?

So everything is now crystal clear on what is or isn't a legal bump.:cool:

A player can shirt front another player or go the bump, ignor the ball and have no duty of care to ensure head high contact is "accidently" the result.:cool:

Hey, but didn't Waters do exactly that last year to O'Bree and get weeks?

Didn't Ginseracusa (SP:confused:)do exactly that to Kosi in 2007 and get weeks?

If people think this appeal decision has cleared up questions about the bump and duty of care think again. All of a sudden the smoke and mirrors of legal arguement has made this issue even more confusing and uncertain.

This result will simply mean more and more clubs will pay expensive QC's to appeal more and more decisions.

What a mess!!!
 
smiddaz123 said:
Can I just point out that Maxwell's 'bad' history is being a bit over stated...



2008 R4 Striking Marc Murphy Early plea 1 match
2008 R20 Wrestling Justin Westhoff Accepted fine $900 fine

Oh what a rebel. One suspension.
Click to expand...

The use of the word "Bad" might be wrong, but the rules on why it was bad for him to have this are quite clear!
 
That is excellent news!:thumbsu:

Where are all those flogs who were going on about it being an illegal bump now!!!!
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

greenred said:
AA's baby needs some serious rethinking and reworking. The tribunal system in place now is more of a mess than what was there before. How can the tribunal and the appeal's board have such completely different outcomes, and if the tribunal and/or appeal's board don't understand the rules or how they are intended to be applied, how can the clubs or players be expected to?

Edit - good to see Maxwell cleared, sad to see a young player injured from the bump, but I dare say he will be more aware next time he steps onto a football field. Accidents do happen when you have moving objects in a confined space (see the umpire v Saint player for a good example).
Click to expand...

But it's only an accident when the umpire runs into a player. When it's the other way round it's reckless endangerment with intent to maim.

The afl tribunal is a farce. Adrian Anderson should be sacked for the joke of a system he has set up.

All we want, and it's very simple, is transparency and consistency.

Transparency and consistency is not too much to ask. At present we get neither.
 
Obeanie1 said:
Hey, but didn't Waters do exactly that last year to O'Bree and get weeks?

Didn't Ginseracusa (SP:confused:)do exactly that to Kosi in 2007 and get weeks?
Click to expand...

I was at that game, and Beau's hit on O'Bree was clearly head high from the outset, not a head clash. Different issue.

Giansiracusa's hit on Kosi is what caused the rule change. And he didn't get suspended.
 
market said:
Anyway, cutting through all that..be interesting to see what those posters who supported the MRP/Tribunal's initial finding, think now....
Click to expand...
I was always of the view that I didn't like the rules, however it seemed to fit within them. I thought the whole point of the rules was to stop that Gia/Kosi or Notting/Caracella kind of incident, so I will be interested to see how they ruled the rules were not broken. It makes the 6 week suspension of Michael Johnson 2 years ago look real ridiculous!
 
Beckers said:
That is excellent news!:thumbsu:

Where are all those flogs who were going on about it being an illegal bump now!!!!
Click to expand...

They are probably waiting to see the appeal boards ruling. You might find that it was thrown out because of the process and not the legality of this bump.
 
Obeanie1 said:
We're here!!!! But this isn't a West Coast versus Collingwood issue so what's your point? It's an issue about clarifying the rules on duty of care with the bump.

So great news isn't it?

So everything is now crystal clear on what is or isn't a legal bump.:cool:

A player can shirt front another player or go the bump, ignor the ball and have no duty of care to ensure head high contact is "accidently" the result.:cool:

Hey, but didn't Waters do exactly that last year to O'Bree and get weeks?

Didn't Ginseracusa (SP:confused:)do exactly that to Kosi in 2007 and get weeks?

If people think this appeal decision has cleared up questions about the bump and duty of care think again. All of a sudden the smoke and mirrors of legal arguement has made this issue even more confusing and uncertain.

This result will simply mean more and more clubs will pay expensive QC's to appeal more and more decisions.

What a mess!!!
Click to expand...
A) I am fairly sure Kosi/Gia was 2006 (or 2005).
b) We should all thank (sarcastically) Jonathan Brown and his legal team for lawyers coming into this process!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom