Maxwell Cleared

[GameOver]

I think AA needs to go back to the rulebook.

From AFL Laws of the Game

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and payment of Free Kick

A field umpire shall pay a free kick against a player where he or she is satisfied the player has made prohibited contact with an opposition player.......

(n) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.

19.2.2 Any of the following is a reportable offence: ......

(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable

So, to clarify the head high contact rule that AA refers to is when a player has his head down over the ball. When shepherding, for it to be a reportable offence, it must be unreasonable contact. Refer to a previous post:

(1) Ball is within 5 metres
(2) Player must reasonably expect contact to be made when he is in the contest for the ball and the ball is "in play"
(3) provided contact is made between shoulder and knees - contact to head may be incidental and a free kick may occur but this should not be deemed unreasonable.

If anybody deems this unreasonable, that is your opinion, but then we will see the end of the hip and shoulder.

 

[magpie_militia]

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.

You should have said "in the last 50 years", not "over the last 50+ years". Idiot.

This thread is about Maxwell's bump, please stay on topic.

 

[Hodgies Heroes]

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?

Ridiculous comment - in arguements of law different people come up with different interperatations, that is why you have appeals processes.
The arguement here is over the definition of the words " realisitic option" in respect to whether Maxwell had the realistic option to contest the football or not.

At the Tribunal this was not raised as your main defense, rather you tried to argue that the contact was accidental - and therefore Maxwell should get off... even though the rules state that this is irrelavant.

Today you argued the case strongly over Maxwell's options ,and convinced the appeal board that Mawell did not have another option - therefore accidental contact is not the players fault under this rule.

The more likely sacking would be for your legal consel who did not argue this case correctly in the first place .

 

[Adoyle]

Congrats to the baying unwashed masses for their victory over player welfare.

If an injury as serious as this isn't reason enough to encourage amongst the players and supporters a basic level of respect and care for your fellow combatant then I wonder what will be.

 

[Pie eyed]

In my view you can, and that's what the AFL's advocate should have argued.

But since three extremely senior lawyers disagree with me, and they've had the benefit of actually seeing the evidence rather than just the media reports of the evidence, I'm happy to say I'm wrong on this one.

Kudos for you post.

The ruling shows that even if the letter of the rules are shown to be broken, in the end common sense will prevail, that is after all why the appeals process exists.
Apart from the fact that I am happy Maxwell got off, I am also happy the Tribunal system has been proven to work properly, against my initial doubt, when a Club has the guts to take it all the way.

It is a win for the game more than Collingwood but also a big win for the AFL in that the system is seen to work even if only in correcting a wrong.
Collingwood however must be credited with "kicking the goal that won the game".

 

[Mr Smiff]

This is a victory for everyone, not just Collingwood.

Very true. The BUMP has always been part of our game and had this appeal failed............then we would lost a great part of our game.

Jack Dyer must be rejoicing up there.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

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.

This is quite ironic coming from a supporter of a club that has released a marketing campaign including a song based on the motion that their club might make the eight in 09. Unlike Carlton, the CFC has never cheated to a flag.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

No Kudos for you.
Sour grapes.

Ridiculous comment - in arguements of law different people come up with different interperatations, that is why you have appeals processes.
The arguement here is over the definition of the words " realisitic option" in respect to whether Maxwell had the realistic option to contest the football or not.

At the Tribunal this was not raised as your main defense, rather you tried to argue that the contact was accidental - and therefore Maxwell should get off... even though the rules state that this is irrelavant.

Today you argued the case strongly over Maxwell's options ,and convinced the appeal board that Mawell did not have another option - therefore accidental contact is not the players fault under this rule.

The more likely sacking would be for your legal consel who did not argue this case correctly in the first place .

I think you will find they did argue this and the Tribunal originally did not accept it and did not even take it into consideration. They decided for themselves he did have an option.
Hence the second appeal.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

they have opened up a whole can of worms now.

one good thing, it means campbell brown can play is natural game now, as all they have to do is refer to this case and he will be cleared instantly

 

[yeah-nah]

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.

Time to suck it up Molly. Youve defended these unworkable rules all week (without, mind you, having actually read the 2009 update until I pointed it out to you today) as if you were Anderson himself. No matter the reason for the decision, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that the rules as they have been ammended since the Kosi bump are so convoluted, onerous, circular and full of mumbo jumbo as to be unworkable - so they will always be open to legal arguement and appeals. One thing Anderson doesnt get is the KISS principle. These stupid rule ammendments, the points system for reports and the interchange post it note fiasco are evidence for that. He is a nincompoop and youre not too far behind based on the last weeks rubbish youve been sprouting.

 

[yeahmate]

Awesome - correct result of the game even though Im not sure I understand the logic based on all those stupid rules.

As someone posted above though I suspect the decision will mean that, unless the AFL changes it again, the interpretation from now will be a player can never be reported for a fair bump (because it will never be considered unreasonable) even if it does result in a secondary accidental head clash or the other player's head hitting the ground. Lets hope thats the case so the rules continues to encourage players to run at each other with aggression.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

Your argument would have lot more weight if Collingwood did not take possession of the ball......Don't you think?

 

[Off The Couch]

I was at this game and quite frankly saw nothing untoward in the bump. It was without malice and unfortunately McGinty came off second best.

This is not to say a suspension was not warranted, because it was at the end of the day a head high tackle and therefore under the rules warranted being looked at. The problem I believe was the mrp handed out too many weeks initially and quite frankly the tribunal then got it wrong when it reviewed it and should have reduced the penalty instead of increasing it.

If they had maybe gone with two max right at the start then none of this would have occurred. Four was harsh and I therefore think the right decision has now been made. It is now going to be extremely interesting as to any precedents being set, but maybe this is the shake up the MRP needed because quite frankly some of the decisions made have been appalling.

 

[HFF]

The system is now absolutely flawed.

3 different structures for 3 totally different outcomes.

How can it take 3 different steps to get the correct outcome? Both the MRP and the tribunal need to be scrutinised.

Great for us, great for the game but for all those softies out there who are seething at the result all I can say is we get what we want.

NA NA NA NA NA!

 

[Pie eyed]

they have opened up a whole can of worms now.

one good thing, it means campbell brown can play is natural game now, as all they have to do is refer to this case and he will be cleared instantly

Each case on it's merits and the Tribunal does not take previous cases into consideration. Or so I have been told ad nauseum by the anti-bump league.

 

[sherb]

Very true. The BUMP has always been part of our game and had this appeal failed............then we would lost a great part of our game.

Jack Dyer must be rejoicing up there.

What makes you think this is a victory for the bump?

If you thought the bump was under threat because of this report I don't see how that level of threat has changed.

All this means is that the AFL will take steps to prevent another successful appeal occurring. It will not change its philosophical stance in my view.

If you see another occurrence of a similar incident/outcome from now on a report will still be lodged and the player will not get off - to me that is all this episode means.

Or do you think that AD and co are going to sit in at AFL Headquarters and say "yes, we were wrong and the public was right, this type of bump and outcome are acceptable from now on"?

 

[yeahmate]

The system is now absolutely flawed.

3 different structures for 3 totally different outcomes.

How can it take 3 different steps to get the correct outcome? Both the MRP and the tribunal need to be scrutinised.

Great for us, great for the game but for all those softies out there who are seething at the result all I can say is we get what we want.

NA NA NA NA NA!

Gee, thats reminding me of some other system...hmm, I know, the legal system!

Thats what happens when you start putting lawyers in charge of writing the rules and using subjective concepts like "reasonable" "negligent" etc.

Hopefully this decision is going to bring a whole lot of heat back on to the new Tribunal system as it was supposedly designed to bring more certainty.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I was at this game and quite frankly saw nothing untoward in the bump. It was without malice and unfortunately McGinty came off second best.

This is not to say a suspension was not warranted, because it was at the end of the day a head high tackle and therefore under the rules warranted being looked at. The problem I believe was the mrp handed out too many weeks initially and quite frankly the tribunal then got it wrong when it reviewed it and should have reduced the penalty instead of increasing it.

If they had maybe gone with two max right at the start then none of this would have occurred. Four was harsh and I therefore think the right decision has now been made. It is now going to be extremely interesting as to any precedents being set, but maybe this is the shake up the MRP needed because quite frankly some of the decisions made have been appalling.

The penalty wasn't really in the MRP's hands. They assessed it as negligent, high contact and high impact. From there, a formula determines the penalty and includes Maxwell's prior record which added effectively two weeks.

The only thing the MRP and the appeal board differed on was the finding of negligence.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The system is now absolutely flawed.

3 different structures for 3 totally different outcomes.

How can it take 3 different steps to get the correct outcome? Both the MRP and the tribunal need to be scrutinised.

Great for us, great for the game but for all those softies out there who are seething at the result all I can say is we get what we want.

NA NA NA NA NA!

How were there 3 outcomes? The MRP and the tribunal reached the same findings.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

How the **** can he get off? It contradicts the laws of the game. Just as I was getting my head around the rules this happens. Now no one knows what the **** is going on. Disgrace.

 

[mollyfud]

Time to suck it up Molly. Youve defended these unworkable rules all week (without, mind you, having actually read the 2009 update until I pointed it out to you today) as if you were Anderson himself. No matter the reason for the decision, anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that the rules as they have been ammended since the Kosi bump are so convoluted, onerous, circular and full of mumbo jumbo as to be unworkable - so they will always be open to legal arguement and appeals. One thing Anderson doesnt get is the KISS principle. These stupid rule ammendments, the points system for reports and the interchange post it note fiasco are evidence for that. He is a nincompoop and youre not too far behind based on the last weeks rubbish youve been sprouting.

I am waiting for the findings to be published, thats going to be the interesting thing.
But where is the 2009 ruling available. I have been quoting the rule from the published Tribunal Book from the AFL HQ section of the AFL website. If there is a 2009 update, I would love to see it. If it on the web?

 

[sherb]

Great for us, great for the game but for all those softies out there who are seething at the result all I can say is we get what we want.

NA NA NA NA NA!

What would your view be if Dale Thomas copped a broken jaw and ten weeks out as the result of a similar bump from an opposition player?

 

[yeah-nah]

The best part is Greg Williams now looks an even bigger tool that he already was

Willaims and Mark Robinson - dumb and dumber.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

The appeals board haven't spelt out the reasons for overturning the original decision. When they do we'll know a lot more about what this means for front on contact. When Maxwell was first suspended I assumed that it must have been his shoulder that contacted McGinnity's head but the argument was that the broken jaw resulted from a head clash.

Looking at the footage on Youtube again and again I still cant see a head clash. Maybe viewing it under better conditions and frame by frame would show one but I'm skeptical. In addition the argument by the Collingwood advocate that Maxwell going for the ball posed a greater risk to the other two players than bumping McGinnity seems farcical to me.

I accept the Collingwood argument that aborting the delivery of a bump is not a realistic option but my understanding is that the AFL want to eliminate the risks posed by a shirt front and for mine Maxwells bump was to the chest not the side of McGinnity.

 

[yeah-nah]

To those blaming the MRP or tribunal, imo its Anderson own incompetence thats to blame here. Who introduces a rule ammendment as vague and unworkable as a players options need to be assessed? wtf is that? Or that the nature and extent of a players injury will in some circumstances determine whether an opposing player in the contest gets suspended or not. If it wasnt so ridiculous itd be funny