Maxwell Cleared

[smiddaz123]

Only a matter of time before the tryhard tough guy is back there again anyway.

You're right. He should be proving his manliness in bar fights and hitting people who aren't looking.

Spare me. He plays the game tough and fair.

 

[Big Kitty]

Great news for the game

If they had extended his suspension i wonder how the bump would have gone through the rest of the year.

 

[dont bowl there]

what sport do you watch... AFL is a contact sport, Injuries happen.

The Duty of Care in a contact sport is a fallacy.

If a player is tackled and does a knee do u suspend the player that laid the tackle? -

Didn't the AFL want to bring in a rule that said you could get suspended in that situation? It was after the Rocca tackle on R.Murphy I think. Not sure what came of it.

 

[footyfreak]

I agree we were arguing for contact in our game, it was no longer a collingwood and maxwell case

yea this was about the game not the pies. Football got a stay of execution today but i'm sure the executioners (vlad and monkey boy) will be sharpening their axes for another crack.

 

[EOP26]

Didn't the AFL want to bring in a rule that said you could get suspended in that situation? It was after the Rocca tackle on R.Murphy I think. Not sure what came of it.

That's what worries me, First the Bump ,then AFL will go after the Tackle, Then the pack marks, then anything that causes injury to another player will be banned.

I don't not like seening anyone hurt, But I know that injuries happen in a contach sport.

 

[jayjones1]

That's what worries me, First the Bump ,then AFL will go after the Tackle, Then the pack marks, then anything that causes injury to another player will be banned.

I don't not like seening anyone hurt, But I know that injuries happen in a contach sport.

i reckon just leave the game alone its great

 

[Quinz]

Hmm. I have said from the start that Maxwell's technique was fine, but he was unlucky due to the injury of McGinnity.

I'm still disappointed that we are left with a guy who has a broken jaw, while Maxwell gets off, but the hit itself was fine and the injury should not determine the punishment.

Hopefully the AFL will clear up the rules surrounding bumps and head clashes, but I doubt it. Everything they do just seems to make this less clear.

 

[ChipDouglas]

I realise what you are saying about awareness,McGinnity is a rookie and will learn to look up and maybe not focus on the ball which is what he was doing.Maybe Maxwell should of attacked the ball and not focused on the man because the ball was there to be won and he chose a soft option of taking out a player focused on the ball.
Anyhow it is good to see you can still shitmixer someone when they least expect it and get away with it.

Maxwell did win the ball, after the bump Collingwood maintained possession, and within the rules of the game and thats the point. In every other option or scenario that might not have been the case.

 

[FuManchu]

I believed the bump was OK from where I sat 30 metres away

But I also believe Maxwell should have copped his whack and not appealed, because the umpire ( in this case the MRP) has to have the confidence to deal objectively with any case before it and they shouldnt be second guessing further appeals down the track and worried that they cant apply the criteria as they see fit.

The umps sometimes get it wrong and perhaps in this case the MRP may have been bound by strict interpretation rather than common sense. And this is a game that has so many areas of grey, so strict interpretation is not always possible. Perhaps, like the field umps, they need to be able to exercise a little more common sense, otherwise this great feature of the game will disappear and we will become basketball by foot or even worse that gayest of all games: soccer! Heaven forbid.



But in saying that, if it upsets the likes of all blind Collingwood haters, and even some Victorian haters ( yes you Dill Pierre ) then this result pleases me infinitely.

 

[greennick]

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!

No you aere just an idiot and at one point you claimed it was a headbutt.

You are the idiot if you think I was seriously claiming it was a headbutt.

Someone said "if it was from a clash of heads then it must be OK". I said, "so headbutting is legal now?". You get it? Because a headbutt is a clash of heads....

It clearly wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

You have been going around calling everyone that somewhat disagrees with you an idiot or dumb, but continually show the comprehension and writing skills of a mentally challenged minor.

 

[Bone71]

Hmm. I have said from the start that Maxwell's technique was fine, but he was unlucky due to the injury of McGinnity.

I'm still disappointed that we are left with a guy who has a broken jaw, while Maxwell gets off, but the hit itself was fine and the injury should not determine the punishment.

Hopefully the AFL will clear up the rules surrounding bumps and head clashes, but I doubt it. Everything they do just seems to make this less clear.

It's disappointing every time a player gets injured from contact but it is also the risk you take playing the game. Maxwell in no way aimed to break McGinnity's jaw and by executing the bump exactly as the rules allow, should not be held accountable.

 

[abs_of_STEELE]

Our great game has been saved.

 

[mollyfud]

Our great game has been saved.

Don't get your hopes up yet. We still need that Appeal Board ruling. I fear people have there hopes up yet and may be disappointed.

 

[yeah-nah]

Don't get your hopes up yet. We still need that Appeal Board ruling. I fear people have there hopes up yet and may be disappointed.

See the new thread I started. In the words of Mark Williams, you were wrong.

 

[Bone Crusher]

SEN.....hmmmm

If it is, i'd love to hear the vedict and what official outcome is on the incident.

Just guessing here, but perhaps they took the common sense approach, and said something like "It's not fair for the rules of the game to allow players run at each other full tilt, hitting each other with a hip and shoulder, with the proviso that a minute miscalculation will see you sitting on the sidelines for 4 weeks.". In short, the penalty doesn't fit the crime.

Seriously, I don't know what the tribunal was thinking. It's ridiculous to suggest that a minute miscalculation while attempting a legal shirt front deserves the same penalty and punching a player to the ground and then kicking him in to nads for good measure, regardless of the injury sustained.

 

[Mr Smiff]

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"?

Yes, there was a threat to the BUMP. Just read the previous posts and editorials in the HS.
From now on, each bump will be closely scrutinized by the MRP, especially if a player is injured.
To be honest..........I saw Maxwell bump as fair and if any other player had applied it in the same manner, then my opinion would have been the same. The bump was acceptable.
It was unfortunate the kid got a broken jaw, but it was unintentional and sh*t happens. Hope he gets well and back into the fold soon.
I'm sure he'll learn to protect himself or even reply the same way.
The bump is part of our game and if administered fairly, then the AFL should accept that. AD can sit on his bum and scratch his head till the girls come out with their handbags.
All of the opposition players must've thought it as fair as their was no remonstration with Maxwell, was there.?
The bump will be applied in future games and as long as it's done fairly, then the AFL should just leave it alone.

 

[FuManchu]

Just guessing here, but perhaps they took the common sense approach, and said something like "It's not fair for the rules of the game to allow players run at each other full tilt, hitting each other with a hip and shoulder, with the proviso that a minute miscalculation will see you sitting on the sidelines for 4 weeks.". In short, the penalty doesn't fit the crime.

Seriously, I don't know what the tribunal was thinking. It's ridiculous to suggest that a minute miscalculation while attempting a legal shirt front deserves the same penalty and punching a player to the ground and then kicking him in to nads for good measure, regardless of the injury sustained.

But thats the whole problem now with set penalties for different acts. There is no room for comparison nor common sense. We are now having to look at the single specifics of the situation rather than the context of it. I think the old system had some amount of discretion that we all liked, but not always agreed with. The context was that he tried to execute a legal bump, the specifics were that it didnt quite work out the way it was planned. So he should get some penalty for the latter, but surely the intent or lack of it must have some bearing too!

perhaps we need to apply more common law with the act and the intent taken into account, rather than just the act. But once again, that throws up a multitude of decisions and interpretations, pleasing some and infuriating others. I guess that is the beauty of our game, it is contentious in so many ways and I would hate to see that go with some of these rulings they try and impose.

 

[Beckers]

Don't get your hopes up yet. We still need that Appeal Board ruling. I fear people have there hopes up yet and may be disappointed.

Molly, i am seriously concerned that you are lobbying for the game to become non-contact?

As far as i (and others here) am concerned, the bump is up there with the spekkie as one of the great things about our game.

Looking though highlight reels over the years, you will see that great goals, high marks and hip and shoulders make up the large percentage of highlights.

While it was great that the AFL outlawed the front on bump on a player who's head was over the ball, the old fashioned hip and shoulder within 5mtrs of the ball should always be a part of the game. It is NOT AFL without it. Its also what separates AFL from Gaelic football and Soccer.

While it is unfortunate what happened to the Eagles player, this bump should NEVER have been looked at by the MRP and was excecuted as well and cleanly as any i have seen.

 

[flyinghi64]

I guess the precedent has now been set, let's see how consistent it is throughout the year.

 

[jimbeam06]

Well that will be the only highlight of his career lol Good to hear.

 

[mollyfud]

Molly, i am seriously concerned that you are lobbying for the game to become non-contact?

As far as i (and others here) am concerned, the bump is up there with the spekkie as one of the great things about our game.

Looking though highlight reels over the years, you will see that great goals, high marks and hip and shoulders make up the large percentage of highlights.

While it was great that the AFL outlawed the front on bump on a player who's head was over the ball, the old fashioned hip and shoulder within 5mtrs of the ball should always be a part of the game. It is NOT AFL without it. Its also what separates AFL from Gaelic football and Soccer.

While it is unfortunate what happened to the Eagles player, this bump should NEVER have been looked at by the MRP and was excecuted as well and cleanly as any i have seen.

If you show me were I have said that the game should become non-contact, I will never post here again.

I am against the bump to the head, and thats it. Your right, one of the most exciting plays last year was the huge bump Campbell Brown laid on Bell last year. He didn't hit his head. It proves that you don't have to hit the head to be spectacular. Hitting the head adds nothing to the game and (personally) I think the rule should be re-written to clear this up because two things are going to happen from this decision:
1) Players are going to go back to dangerous bumps not just the risky bump
2) Teams are going to be at the Appeal board every second week as the MRP has to keep sending them up and the Tribunal has to rub them out (just properly next time).

Thats just my opinion. I accept that it isn't the popular view but this rule was 95% consistent before this case. It risks becoming the dogs breakfast now!

 

[FIGJAM]

I guess the precedent has now been set, let's see how consistent it is throughout the year.

Lol! Like they follow precedents!!

That is most of the problem to begin with. They won't compare apples with apples, and keep shifting the goal posts when nobody is looking.

The fine line between 'negligence' and 'incidental' becomes the subjective domain of the tribunal members, and literally means the difference between 0 to 4 weeks. It's crooked!

 

[windyhill]

The more football maxwell can play the better for 15 other clubs.

 

[jonesy86]

What's so hard to understand about this case?

It was a fair body-to-body bump within 5m of the ball when the player had every reason to expect contact. The whiplash effect of the bump lead to a head clash and a broken jaw, that's just an unfortunate accident.

If the bump was with the body making direct contact to the head then suspend him, but it wasn't. Get over it.

 

[Zvim]

Says a lot about Maxwell's character that he broke a guys jaw, he will be out of football for 3 months and he hasn't even tried to make contact with the kid to see how he is going and to say sorry.

Champion bloke...